FCC Preparing to Vote on Network Neutrality Rules

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Associated Press says that the FCC is getting set to vote on net neutrality rules. Could we finally be getting somewhere on this?

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, will outline his proposal for so-called "network neutrality" rules in a speech on Wednesday. Despite opposition in Congress, Genachowski plans to bring his proposal to a vote by the full commission before the end of the year.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't this concerning NN over Wireless only?

Frankly, I think the telco's are grasping at legal straws here.

Hopefully the fed will see internet access as internet access and not fark this whole thing up for us.
 
I'm curious if they will address the other end of this - companies blocking usage by devices they don't control (i.e. Google TV)

Axe
 
RumpleForeSkin said:
God knows, we can always trust a corporation to do what's right. Let them regulate themselves and the outcome I'm sure will blossom into a beautiful flower.
Click to expand...

right a really nice flower... or maybe we will just get the situation we have now? lol
 
I would suggest you thoroughly research this "net neutrality" scam...it appears to me that this is the beginning of government oversight,control, and eventually a cash cow tax source
 
but then again, that is exactly what the 23% (they think they are the majority) of Americans that call themselves liberals want...kool-aid for everyone
 
Killahurtz said:
I would suggest you thoroughly research this "net neutrality" scam...it appears to me that this is the beginning of government oversight,control, and eventually a cash cow tax source
Click to expand...

If thats the case (which, right now, I don't think it is), then you got two options:

1). Let the government control what you see.

2). Let the corporations control what you see.

Which sucks less to you?
 
I will stick with the corporations...they have a vested interest in providing a service or product that they need "me" to buy or use...
 
Killahurtz said:
I will stick with the corporations...they have a vested interest in providing a service or product that they need "me" to buy or use...
Click to expand...
And a vested interest in preventing you from having a choice to use any competing products or services.
 
FLECOM said:
right a really nice flower... or maybe we will just get the situation we have now? lol
Click to expand...

Actually we the tax payer have invested a lot of money in the situation we have now. If companies want to do as they please and run their business without the government interfering then they should stick their hand out.
 
and they are 'stopping' me how?....hmmm...I can pretty much do as I please with things the way they are
 
as i infered earlier...you let the gubment get their foot in the door they will not stop until they have kicked it shut with you on the outside...enjoy the kool-aid all
 
"The agency has been trying to come up with a new framework since a federal appeals court in April ruled that the FCC had overstepped its existing authority in sanctioning cable giant Comcast for discriminating against Internet file-sharing traffic on its network — violating the very net neutrality principles that Genachowski now hopes to adopt as formal rules."

...hmmm...nuff said
 
Killahurtz said:
and they are 'stopping' me how?....hmmm...I can pretty much do as I please with things the way they are
Click to expand...

hello thats the point? they are trying to change that

this is comcasts wet dream right here

Net_Neutrality.png
 
The whole situation sucks no matter how you look at it. Its a pity they can't make an unchangable law that simply says "no one can fuck with the internet including the Government."
 
Derangel said:
The whole situation sucks no matter how you look at it. Its a pity they can't make an unchangable law that simply says "no one can fuck with the internet including the Government."
Click to expand...
That would be ideal. I don't want corporations or the government to have access to control content on the Internet.

So, 1. The government controls the Internet

Or 2. The corporations control the Internet

Where's option 3? Leave it the fuck alone?

Neither option is good and will hurt us all in the long term.
 
The government has no credibility on remaining neutral - they are already censoring gambling.

When the government starts censoring, since all their powers have proven to be a slippery slope, we all know that there will be nothing that can be done. The TSA's response that nothing can be done to people protesting that women feel raped, the disabled harassed, and children molested should be evidence of that.

As for corporations with the urge to censor, at least we can cancel contracts and do protests. This *always* gets the media attention and changes corporate behavior. How long do you think Comcast's internet services would stay in business if they blocked all Google-affiliated websites?
 
cswake said:
The government has no credibility on remaining neutral - they are already censoring gambling.

When the government starts censoring, since all their powers have proven to be a slippery slope, we all know that there will be nothing that can be done. The TSA's response that nothing can be done to people protesting that women feel raped, the disabled harassed, and children molested should be evidence of that.

As for corporations with the urge to censor, at least we can cancel contracts and do protests. This *always* gets the media attention and changes corporate behavior. How long do you think Comcast's internet services would stay in business if they blocked all Google-affiliated websites?
Click to expand...

Google would pay for access, but you make it sound like its so easy for people to just drop companies. Many, many, many people in the country are stuck in monopolies with cable companies. Even some larger cities are stuck with only one option. So no most people can't cancel and go elsewhere and with the internet being such a big and vital part of our lives now its not viable for a number of person to simply drop it all together.
 
As others have recognized, it's not a perfect world. For 70% of Americans who have broadband access it is easy to switch providers, and of the other 30% I'm sure that some of them don't have many options. The people out in the rural areas usually have only two providers (modem & satellite) and I acknowledge the the potential for abuse. However, if the companies single out the rural areas, that's where the responsibility of the other 70%+ to come in and demand equal treatment. I would commit to be one of those people should it happen.

On the other hand, think if Republicans & Democrats getting together and decide to ban all "terrorist" websites, such as Wikileaks, Pirate Bay, Demonoid, etc...
 
Derangel said:
The whole situation sucks no matter how you look at it. Its a pity they can't make an unchangable law that simply says "no one can fuck with the internet including the Government."
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately the impossible is the ideal

Fix Me said:
That would be ideal. I don't want corporations or the government to have access to control content on the Internet.

So, 1. The government controls the Internet

Or 2. The corporations control the Internet

Where's option 3? Leave it the fuck alone?

Neither option is good and will hurt us all in the long term.
Click to expand...

Option #4 is make a law banning local monopolies and really watch the market take off.
 
Parmenides said:
Option #4 is make a law banning local monopolies and really watch the market take off.
Click to expand...


The issue with that is that we consent to certain monopolies because it's inefficient not to.
Domestic water supply is a good example.
We can't have 50 companies tearing up streets to lay pipes, and we can't simply add water freely like the power grid.

This same logic applies (but is changing) for cable TV providers and ISPs... whoever controls the wire to me controls my internet; this is what needs to change before NN is a non-issue.
 
I too would love Option #3, but I think we all saw this coming. Free lunch will be over, and we're getting screwed one way or another.
 
Derangel said:
The whole situation sucks no matter how you look at it. Its a pity they can't make an unchangable law that simply says "no one can fuck with the internet including the Government."
Click to expand...
I would love that considering the exact opposite is happening right now with COICA
 
Killahurtz said:
but then again, that is exactly what the 23% (they think they are the majority) of Americans that call themselves liberals want...kool-aid for everyone
Click to expand...

Let em' have Jim Jones' kool aid.

King of Heroes said:
If thats the case (which, right now, I don't think it is), then you got two options:

1). Let the government control what you see.

2). Let the corporations control what you see.

Which sucks less to you?
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the case.

Fix Me said:
That would be ideal. I don't want corporations or the government to have access to control content on the Internet.

So, 1. The government controls the Internet

Or 2. The corporations control the Internet

Where's option 3? Leave it the fuck alone?

Neither option is good and will hurt us all in the long term.
Click to expand...

There IS no option #3. Guaranteed.
 
If you want to live in a society bound by laws and justice, some organization will need to enforce those limits and oppose restrictions even on the internet. By mere definition, you can not have prosperity, peace, and justice without someone or something imposing laws onto you.

To insinuate that government control and corporate control are the same thing is a very, very shortsighted statement. To insist that letting the government take control is just the same as corporations is all media hype and not backed by any facts, historically or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top