![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
US Court Rules Against FCC on `Net Neutrality'
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
No, the reason we have the problems we do now is BECAUSE of the FCC limiting the markets of the cable companies. Do you think that you only have 1 cable provider in your area because no other company wants to expand there? Most places have at most 1 DSL provider and 1 cable provider, and this is due to government regulation.
Given the FCC's control over the cable market as-is, they need net neutrality. If we had free competition on the cable and internet markets, it wouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately..
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
just pulled this from the fark.com comments section.. it seems like the perfect direction to head with this. call your congressmen and representatives and tell them this:
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
We're truly and thoroughly farked now.
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
Probably wouldnt hurt to check out some non revisionist history FDR took over everything he could.
On Wall mart, we agree. They are and remain out of control.
And it goes without saying the government will never try to control content on the net
This argument pisses me off to no end, how many Linux distros does one person need in month?
You basically trade one evil for another. We dont know if the government would do it but we DO know that these companies will. So why are we so over joyed with this ruling again?
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
Correct.
The FCC was not out to control the Internet. They were simply trying to put checks and balances in place to prevent consumer abuse.
I was really hoping that with the exodus of the Bush Administration, the average citizen/consumer in this country would mean something again. I guess not
The FCC was not out to control the Internet. They were simply trying to put checks and balances in place to prevent consumer abuse.
I was really hoping that with the exodus of the Bush Administration, the average citizen/consumer in this country would mean something again. I guess not
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
Yeah, net neutrality was in our favor as I understand it. I think we just got screwed.
To repeat: "Keep your Government hands off my intrawebnet" is as assinine, ignorant, and stupid a statement as "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare" is/was.
Rule #1: Net neutrality, now and forever.
Rule #2: Keep stupid ignorant redneck teabagging fools the fuck away from ANYTHING remotely important.
...and ALL will be WELL.
man, there could have been a decent discussion from your points, too bad i cant find it among all the slop you decide to throw. really, get a grip on yourself, your turning into the very people you rail against
the bottom line is government is as fallible as private industry and its a very serious issue to keep a balance that doesnt tread too far. government is involved with alot of what we do, so is the private sector, that doesnt mean we shouldnt keep both sides under a magnifying glass and keep both under control. now hey, if you think government is infallible then fine, but most would say otherwise. calling people names becuase your mad wont solve anything....
Net Neutrality is not nearly as bad as the Health Care debate. Both are well intentioned ideas, but at least net neutrality hasnt been corrupted yet by politicians that arent looking out for the people.
Thats the problem i see with government oversight. Too often the government uses its power in ways we never intended them to, but by then its too late. There has to be some middle ground in all of this.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
your statements about why there is not an option to ISPs is just plain not true. Most companies sign with towns for exclusivity agreements in exchange for paying to support building/maintaining of said network. The competition is just plain told to go to hell due to contractual obligations.
Every ISP/telephone/dedicated line provider get's the bandwidth from Verizon, who in turn gets incredible tax credits for installing/maintaining said lines from the Federal Government which is why when the FCC recently said it wants to push it's Boradband initiative, Verizon said sure! we can do that and more.
If you want more options in your area, push your City Hall, that is where the breakdown is.
also remember people, as was said earlier in the thread, this isnt a court ruling against net nuetrality, its a ruling against the FCC having the authority to enforce such a thing as they see fit.
The FCC doesnt have that kind of power. so if they want that kind of power, congress is going to have write a law that does give them that power. then itll have to pass the judicial test again.
the idea of net neutrality is great for us, the idea that no company should be able to filter the content we can access on the internet is a good thing. The problem is that laws/regulations are rarely that simple. They can take something that is logical to us and throw in little pieces here and there that undermine the idea completely. I just hope it can be done without that kind of corruption.
The FCC doesnt have that kind of power. so if they want that kind of power, congress is going to have write a law that does give them that power. then itll have to pass the judicial test again.
the idea of net neutrality is great for us, the idea that no company should be able to filter the content we can access on the internet is a good thing. The problem is that laws/regulations are rarely that simple. They can take something that is logical to us and throw in little pieces here and there that undermine the idea completely. I just hope it can be done without that kind of corruption.
great I'm sure we'll all agree that internet filtering has been so win-win in China, why not just let CORPORATIONS do it for us? Much less socialist sounding that way.
"now it's Nineteen eighty four,
knock knock at your front door,
it's the Comcast network police,
they've come for your file sharing niece..."
I'm sure we'll all agree that internet filtering has been so win-win in China, why not just let CORPORATIONS do it for us? Much less socialist sounding that way."now it's Nineteen eighty four,
knock knock at your front door,
it's the Comcast network police,
they've come for your file sharing niece..."
You've got it backwards. This is all due to deregulation. The FCC didn't limit markets, they allowed cable/DSL/satellite companies to do what they wanted: create local monopolies. People don't seem to understand that when you deregulate, companies will acquire competitors and make back-room dealings with others to prevent competition.
Company A does NOT want to expand into Company B's territory if it means Company B will encroach on theirs. Competition is hard. It forces you to innovate and advertise and keep your pricing low. Who wants that? Just consumers.
WhiteZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,638
Even more reason to hope Google chooses my town for Google Fiber.
It will play in Peoria!!
It will play in Peoria!!
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
are you really trying to pull the "Faux News" FDR card?
FDR put into place THE REGULATIONS to limit how a Corporation can handle business that's what placed America as the place to be, "The New Deal" protected the workers and not the profits so it is shunned now as a Socialist agenda by the current whackjobs that only spread fear and misinformation. It was this same agenda that at the end of FDR's second term caused a dip in the economy again ala the 2000 crash.
It's funny when you prove my point while trying to debunk it.
also:this is a contributing factor
![[Spectre]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/89/89728.jpg?1455675927){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
Very well actually. Standard of living in the US has risen significantly, and cost of many items you enjoy today relative to your income level has gone down from generation to generation while the sophistication and utility/function has increased.
fasterthanlight
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 677
Absolutely correct.
I wonder why most of you are OK with giving up personal freedoms and liberty for a little govt regulation. If the govt didn't regulate the areas, then competition would sort out the winners. Stop following Obama and their march toward regulating what you can say and think. A business is not evil. You should start with why you are using bit torrent in the first place. I apologize to you all who are using it for shareware, who get dragged down by thieves. You know you are doing it. You want daddy gov't to make sure you still have a way to beat the system. Be responsible and stop.
The Supreme Court and this panel are protecting freedoms, even if you can't see it.
I wonder why most of you are OK with giving up personal freedoms and liberty for a little govt regulation. If the govt didn't regulate the areas, then competition would sort out the winners. Stop following Obama and their march toward regulating what you can say and think. A business is not evil. You should start with why you are using bit torrent in the first place. I apologize to you all who are using it for shareware, who get dragged down by thieves. You know you are doing it. You want daddy gov't to make sure you still have a way to beat the system. Be responsible and stop.
The Supreme Court and this panel are protecting freedoms, even if you can't see it.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." ~ George Washington
Freedoms like this guy wanted or freedoms like the CEO's want,
just checking
fasterthanlight
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 677
If this is so, then you can start paying TAX on all your internets now.
Most cable internet, there is not tax. Don't say blanket things.
I disagree. As with the OS market regulation should be handled on a case by case basis. The FCC wanted us having 100Mbps in 10 years. That would set a precedent and cause ISPs to be lax in their upgrading because all they have to do is achieve 100Mbps, which they can pretty much already do, and sit on it for a very long time until the FCC make another ruling 10 years later.
In the meantime, Korea and Japan and 15 other countries enjoy 100+ to 1Gbps internet.
As much as we hate Comcast, they can do 100Mbps now. We can hope that in the next 10 years, something will happen. Better technology, more choices, more pressure to keep increasing speed, and so on.
If Comcast abuse their customers, the government should go after them. There's no reason why Verizon and AT&T and other internet providers suffer the same ruling because Comcast is abusing their business.
I think this ruling is the lesser of the two evils. Comcast is no better than the FCC, but at least that can be changed. We wouldn't have to be stuck with something more permanent as Net Neutrality being written into law.
Hell, there are a lot of obsolete and archaic laws that still exist to this day that should be gone. Let's not make the internet one of them.
fasterthanlight
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 677
The business's freedom.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
so if the citizen's freedoms suffer due to the business' freedom you're OK with that?
The government would handle it any better?
That theory went out the window a long time ago.
This is good news today as far as I'm concerned.
So you're argument against FCC regulation of the internet is that it would mean we would get 100 Mbps internet vs. the shitty 10mbps (or lower) we have now? What the fuck?
If Comcast can do 100mbs now, then why the fuck aren't they? Simple - there is no competition. Government regulation is required when you are dealing with monopolies.
Net neutrality has *nothing* to do with connection speeds themselves. If you think net neutrality is a bad thing then I just hope you are someone that doesn't vote. If ISPs think they can get away with no longer having net neutrality the internet as we know it would disappear overnight and be replaced with something much, much worse.
Yes, yes they would. Consumers can't fire CEOs. Citizens can absolutely fire the government.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
Share holders can.
And exactly when again did citizens fire the US government in any meaningful way and install real new leaders (not more of the same career politicians) again? Certainly at no point in the last 30+ years.
And it goes without saying the government will never try to control content on the net
If they do then protest and stop them. The FCC regulates TV, for example, but there isn't any censorship. Now you're starting to sound like Glenn Beck
Because clearly you don't understand net neutrality at all. It has nothing to do with limiting bittorrent. It has nothing to do with throttling network types. It has to do with preventing throttling based off of endpoints. Meaning without net neutrality Comcast would be legally allowed to throttle just Netflix's streaming services (which compete with Comcast's services). Net neutrality prevents throttling based off of the *endpoints*. If you think this is about preventing throttling of bittorrent or pirating, you are dead wrong. Please, go learn the facts. Net neutrality is unquestionably a good thing. In no way, shape, or form is it possibly bad.
great
"now it's Nineteen eighty four,
knock knock at your front door,
it's the Comcast network police,
they've come for your file sharing niece..."
Comcast Über Alles
Except share holders benefit from consumers being fucked over. And it requires a majority of share holders to make any changes, and the majority of shares is usually owned by a small number of people (in same cases one person)
Sure we do. Happens all the time. People get sick of democrats, and vote in republicans (and vice versa). The fact that there ultimately isn't a huge gap between the two parties is more a reflection of America as a whole, and not an indication that the system isn't working.
Been watching TV lately? Comcast is working on rolling out 100Mbps now. Our town is scheduled to have 100Mbps within the next several months.
Oh yeah I can totally see that the citizen have absolute control over what the government can and cannot do. *coughcoughhealthcarecoughcough*
You may be right in a perfect world the government would be the ideal enforcer of businesses, but we all saw what happened in Asia.
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
Share holders won't as long as share prices are going up, even if this is at the expense of the consumer.
Why would a shareholder have an incentive to vote out the board when they are making money, like they care that the broadband market here is stagnating.
I think your confused. I read this descision as the court saying "The FCC doesnt have the authority to prevent internet providers from DENYING your FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
You want someone to filter out what they find objectionable even if you don't? Or maybe they filter it because someone with MORE MONEY pays them to?
I might suggest that people read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
"Sinclair's account of workers falling into rendering tanks and being ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard", gripped public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions, as well as the exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed showed the corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories. Foreign sales of American meat fell by one-half."
"Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the only claim in Sinclair's work which they failed to substantiate was that workers who had fallen into rendering vats were left and sold as lard"
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
If enough people disagree with health care, the party responsible will pay at the next election. That is how it works. No, the public doesn't get an individual vote on every piece of legislation if that's what you were hoping for...
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
So you are new to business huh?
Unless you have a monopoly, screwing your customers results in you losing your customers. You lose your customers you lose money and your shareholders don't particularly like that which gets you shit canned. The cable companies exist as monopolies BECAUSE of the government so the problem there is the government has made it so they can operate this way and screw their customers while reaping the rewards. The government is the problem.
No. There has been no change whatsoever and that is not due to the parties being even remotely similar. It is because of the power amassed at the federal level at the expense of the states and individuals that was not granted to it under the constitution.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
If only that where true. As long as the gov can successfully deceive the masses and control/influence the media, there is no safeguard.