White House Urges FCC to Implement Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

Gotta love people wishing pain and suffering to the masses because it's not their guy making the proposal.

How about, instead of caring about the weird name after their given name, we just evaluate the idea?
 
Says the man who made the top cable lobbyist in Washington the head of the FCC. Yeah because he's completely unbiased in his decision making.
 
Guy says something I can get behind for change, how refreshing? But talk is cheap, he put the Telco shill in charge of the FCC, he can't wash his hands from that if his appointed shill didn't take his advice.

I hope FCC does do this though, for the nation's sake, before we end up a third world country. Fix this Wheeler mess before we end up like this:

Pay_Per_Site_Wide.png
 
TwistedAegis said:
Yeah, the government will break the internet! Why, if the government had had a hand in the internet in the first place, it would never have existed...!

:rolleyes: ;)
Click to expand...

ARPANET, CSNET, and NSFNet were non-commercial. They developed packet switching and several implementations, but much of what we consider the internet to be today was developed by standards bodies comprised of largely corporate entities with input from educational facilities or public groups.

From teh Wiki:

On April 30, 1995, the NSFNET Backbone Service had been successfully transitioned to a new architecture[31] and the NSFNET backbone was decommissioned.[32] At this point there were still NSFNET programs, but there was no longer an NSFNET network or network service.

NSF's very high speed Backbone Network Service (vBNS)

After the transition, network traffic was carried on any of several commercial backbone networks, internetMCI, PSINet, SprintLink, ANSNet, and others. Traffic between networks was exchanged at four Network Access Points or NAPs. The NAPs were located in New York (actually New Jersey), Washington, D.C., Chicago, and San Jose and run by Sprint, MFS Datanet, Ameritech, and Pacific Bell.[33] The NAPs were the forerunners of modern Internet exchange points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Network
 
wgm3446 said:
You all know this has nothing to do with net neutrality? This is just another power grab for the government, thinking they can do things more efficiently.


Also, the government has been doing everything they can to push IPv6 and that shit is far worse than IPv4 in terms of security. IPv6 isn't even ready for any conversion over to v4. So If the government gets their hands on it, they'll break 90% of communications on day 1 of transition (healthcare.gov ring a bell?).
Click to expand...

Do you actually understand what your saying? IPv4 is being retired out because gubbernment, IPv4 is being retired because within a fairly short amount of time there will be no more IPv4 addresses left. IPv6 allows for a gazillion more addresses so we don't face this same problem again. Many people (including myself) run IPv6 successfully now with no issues at all.
 
Axehandler said:
So when the Democrats controlled both the house and senate why did NOT tell the FCC to do it then????? Why did he wait till it was controlled by the Republicans?
Click to expand...
Which party controls Congress doesn't matter. The President appoints the FCC's head and it operates independently. The rule making decision, which has been in progress for many months (400,000 comments were collected earlier this year), is likely pretty far into its process.

It was a welcome announcement, but not really as substantial as many people are taking it.
 
Regulating the internet? Wonderful. More govt. involvement.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"
 
Not unexpected but the Limbaugh/Fox News talking points are sadly here in full force...

This isn't a partisan issue, think for yourselves instead of parroting what big business wants you to think. It is amazing how many people would cut off their own nose to spite their face.
 
Axehandler said:
So when the Democrats controlled both the house and senate why did NOT tell the FCC to do it then????? Why did he wait till it was controlled by the Republicans?

To me this is more political pandering.. nothing more.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? He's doing it now.
 
Axehandler said:
So when the Democrats controlled both the house and senate why did NOT tell the FCC to do it then????? Why did he wait till it was controlled by the Republicans?

To me this is more political pandering.. nothing more.
Click to expand...

This might be a jedi mind trick... The Republicans were so opposed to Obama and the Democrats getting anything done that maybe now they will get this rolling to make it look like the Democratic senate was the problem. :p
 
Dreaz said:
Right. Classifying telephones and electricity drove those prices sky fucking high, didn't they? Shit, my water bill breaks me every month!

Wait. Can it be that what you're saying is horseshit?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

We need to reclassify in order to protect the future of the internet. ISPs want to tear it down and charge us out the ass for a shit connection. President Obama is doing the right thing here by making this call. I am very pleased with this. Most people will be.
 
MisterHipster said:
Exactly.

We need to reclassify in order to protect the future of the internet. ISPs want to tear it down and charge us out the ass for a shit connection. President Obama is doing the right thing here by making this call. I am very pleased with this. Most people will be.
Click to expand...

Um, what is being torn down, exactly?
 
FLECOM said:
how did that work out for AT&T?
Click to expand...

Nice graphic. In the end pretty well for AT&T. Crony capitalism ftw.

flashoverride said:
"subsidize new ISP's and a fiber optic infrastructure" and "This is the way free market capitalism is supposed to work" in the same breath.

If you were serious - oh my.
Click to expand...

Yep I'm serious and you missed the word 'perhaps'. I see your point but I think the gov should lay down the main infrastructure. It has the cash and resources to do so. Think of it like the national freeway system, open, free and paid for by tax payers. Once in place ISP's could then compete for price and services. They could even collectively help to maintain/pay for it through taxation since the profit margins are so high. Tier 1 and 2 could coexist with this system even utilize it. Seems like a good balance for everyone except the oligopolies but they've had their chance. The internet is a necessity in this day and age, why shouldn't the gov step in? Once content providers ditch the middle men we're going to need a lot more bandwidth.
 
PeaKr said:
Nice graphic. In the end pretty well for AT&T. Crony capitalism ftw.



Yep I'm serious and you missed the word 'perhaps'. I see your point but I think the gov should lay down the main infrastructure. It has the cash and resources to do so. Think of it like the national freeway system, open, free and paid for by tax payers. Once in place ISP's could then compete for price and services. They could even collectively help to maintain/pay for it through taxation since the profit margins are so high. Tier 1 and 2 could coexist with this system even utilize it. Seems like a good balance for everyone except the oligopolies but they've had their chance. The internet is a necessity in this day and age, why shouldn't the gov step in? Once content providers ditch the middle men we're going to need a lot more bandwidth.
Click to expand...

No idea where to start.

The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, colloquially known as the Interstate, is neither free nor open. It is maintained by copious amounts of taxpayer dollars, both at the state and federal level. Not only that, but it restricts types of transport and allows for paid prioritization based on usage (tolling and HOV lanes) - so PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING.

As for the government stepping in ... You think it was bad when the government had to request data and force companies into compliance under threat of penalty, now you are talking about giving them unfettered wireline access. How about no? How about we don't do that, okay? Given your knowledge of how the freaking freeways work, it would not surprise me terribly to find out you have absolutely no idea what Sig Int is or Traffic Analysis works.
 
Anything Obama says is bullshit. He's an arrogant, man-child, socialist liar of a SOB.
 
How about a compromise, make ISP's Title 2, and appoint the EFF as the sole NGO watchdog of them, and give the EFF a chair on the FCC with Veto power.
 
Not that I like Obama, but if you think anyone who isn't arrogant is going to make it to the level of president, congress-person, whatever, you're delusional.
 
This latest push for "net neutrality" is nothing more than putting the federal government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered. This will lead to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for most consumers. You think internet is too expensive now and you think we're being fleeced by the ISPs, just wait till the government steps in to "help".

The proposed "net neutrality" rules are really about giving wealthy companies an edge. It will create fast lanes where companies can pay to have their content given priority. This will hurt the smaller, regional ISPs and drive them out of businesses in favor of a small handful of giant companies. That does not sound like net neutrality. Instead, that sounds like pay to play which is opposite of supposed "net neutrality."
 
If I've learned only one thing from Obama it's that he'll do the opposite of what he said he'd do.

Yeah, bye bye free internet.
 
rand4505 said:
How about a compromise, make ISP's Title 2, and appoint the EFF as the sole NGO watchdog of them, and give the EFF a chair on the FCC with Veto power.
Click to expand...

Or how about no?

What, exactly, is actually wrong with the internet now? Oh in some areas they don't have more choices for providers. Okay, so what. Let's steal hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and let some random hippy-dippy jagoffs run it! That'll work well. We'll fucking forget all about population density, surface area, the physical limitations of transmission mediums, the high cost of environmental regulations and mitigation, mandatory 90-180 day comment periods, overly cumbersome aesthetic restrictions, infringing on other people's property rights, noise abatement, and everything else that goes with actually running a fucking telecommunications network.

Prioritization of service is written into the new fucking standards, you jackasses. Unless you are really of the opinion that your desire for free unlimited stolen shit surpasses the combined intellectual knowledge of the people who designed the current fucking internet, I might suggest that you shut the fuck up and stand the fuck by.
 
flashoverride said:
Or how about no?

What, exactly, is actually wrong with the internet now? Oh in some areas they don't have more choices for providers. Okay, so what. Let's steal hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and let some random hippy-dippy jagoffs run it! That'll work well. We'll fucking forget all about population density, surface area, the physical limitations of transmission mediums, the high cost of environmental regulations and mitigation, mandatory 90-180 day comment periods, overly cumbersome aesthetic restrictions, infringing on other people's property rights, noise abatement, and everything else that goes with actually running a fucking telecommunications network.
Click to expand...
It's not quite "Okay so what" when you consider the reasons why many areas lack those choices. Like when legislators (thru legislation written by the cable lobby) make it illegal for competition to enter the market. When granted a legally protected monopoly on an essential service like telecommunications the market must be strictly regulated.

The few places where municipal broadband has not been blocked by the local cable monopoly lobby, it has flourished. So umm, I guess it's not really that hard to sell net-crack to a highly addicted public.
 
Old Man said:
It's not stealing We'll pay them for the copper. How much is it going for? They don't own the fucking land, we do. We allow them to do business here. If they don't like it. GTFO.
Click to expand...

You make me want to go buy a plot of land over a major Comcast fiber trunk line, just to cut it.
 
This would only lead to government interference between private peering and transit agreements. If I am an ASN operator, I should have every right to configure my network as I see fit.
 
flashoverride said:
Or how about no?

.... Okay, so what. Let's steal hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and let some random hippy-dippy jagoffs run it!
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean OUR (taxpayers) money the ISP's got as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that they have FAILED so miserably to invest into upgrading and expanding their infrastructure, just to turn around and use said money to buy each other up (eliminate competition), and surround themselves with lawyers and lobbyists...??? It's not stealing. It's GETTING our money's worth for once in a while!!!

BTW, I don't have any party allegiance what so ever, but Obama's speech is pure PR bullshit.... There is NOTHING he can do with the current party (GOP) at the helm, and Wheeler as the anchor... Zero, nada, ziltch, jack-shit gonna come out of this now, or in the near future.... :rolleyes:
 
mzs_biteme said:
Oh, you mean OUR (taxpayers) money the ISP's got as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that they have FAILED so miserably to invest into upgrading and expanding their infrastructure, just to turn around and use said money to buy each other up (eliminate competition), and surround themselves with lawyers and lobbyists...??? It's not stealing. It's GETTING our money's worth for once in a while!!!

BTW, I don't have any party allegiance what so ever, but Obama's speech is pure PR bullshit.... There is NOTHING he can do with the current party (GOP) at the helm, and Wheeler as the anchor... Zero, nada, ziltch, jack-shit gonna come out of this now, or in the near future.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Prove it.

You claim that ISPs got a bunch of taxpayer money, ergo somehow you own all of their shit. Never mind all of the actual shit the government for real pays for, eg almost every fighter plane developed in the last 30 years. Fuck all that, we don't own that and you're cool. But somehow the means of internet production just so happen to fall in with what you think you as John Q Taxpayer own.

You ever hear the story of the golden goose? That's you motherfuckers right now. So worried about locking in the present you don't give a shit about the future and are ignoring the lessons of the not too distant past.

And the profit motive always exists, even in government. Wherever they can justify getting bigger and getting more funding, they do. Pull your head out of your ass. Go check out the Raisin reserve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Raisin_Reserve . Founded in 1949, but still active today. Why the fuck is it still active? Because we've cut government to the bone - and by bone we mean we made a tiny sliver of a percentage of a cut to growth.
 
Kueller said:
It's not quite "Okay so what" when you consider the reasons why many areas lack those choices. Like when legislators (thru legislation written by the cable lobby) make it illegal for competition to enter the market. When granted a legally protected monopoly on an essential service like telecommunications the market must be strictly regulated.

The few places where municipal broadband has not been blocked by the local cable monopoly lobby, it has flourished. So umm, I guess it's not really that hard to sell net-crack to a highly addicted public.
Click to expand...

You compete with an entity that doesn't have to pay the bills you do and can order non-customers to pay for its growth.

Seriously, have you ever given any thought to why having the fucking government run shit might be a bad idea, especially where it competes with other entities?
 
maverikv said:
We own the fighter jets too . . .
Click to expand...
I find it funny when people think they own what the government is in control of when the government is in control of them as they think it. Ironic. There is a reason I can't negotiate my tax rates with the government and it's because I'm their employee and not their boss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top