Breaking News: FCCCP Approves New Internet Controls. Let the age of Internet monopoly, censorship and the Government control of information distribution begin!
This post was last modified on February 26, 2015
Breaking News: FCCCP Approves New Internet Controls. Let the age of Internet monopoly, censorship and the Government control of information distribution begin!
This post was last modified on February 26, 2015
This website uses cookies.
View Comments (37)
Didn't they do this same thing last year only to be struck down by the courts? What's different?
Ok, I'm coming into the subject after the fact. Can anyone direct me to an unbiased site that describes the subject? I'm trying to understand the up and downsides of the issue, but everything I've seen is biased one way or the other.
What I see so far, is the internet that isn't regulated, will now not be regulated by the FCC? I know for certain that I will see a price increase on my cable bill to cover the cost of a new FCC fee for not regulating the unregulated internet. other than that, how does it affect me as a consumer?
It gives the government a foothold in the internet, allowing them to turn it off whenever something they don't want us to know comes out. Kind of like how Cuba, China and North Korea control the internet in their countries. If the government is in charge, nothing good can come from it.
Yes, because after all, the government is always so GREAT at regulating things. Absolutely. Riiiight. /sarc off
People like you, sheeple BlizzardCreek, are lemmings just waiting to rush off the cliff for the government. You want the government to regulate EVERYTHING.
Some of us actually have brains and want the government to GTFO of our lives. You, on the other hand, would be part of the gestapo.
Odds are you've had traffic throttled by a Comcast or Verizon or another big player. Imagine that you, as a consumer, have purchased a level of bandwidth from an ISP, and Comcast has secretly slowed down your Netflix while shaking them down for more money. That's not free market.. that's something like rent-seeking.
Imagine the big ISPs suing municipalities or paying off legislatures to PREVENT Google Fiber's gigabit network from entering your market.. That's also government interference.
ALL THIS has been happening... this regulation is meant to dial some of that back. And its obviously not over. Comcast is actively lobbying Congress
The regulations will help prevent unfair practices from stifling competition. It prohibits telecommunications companies from creating paid prioritization for companies that can afford it and pushing companies that can't into a 'slow lane' connection. This is beneficial to you as the consumer because it ensures that when you go to ANY (legal) website, your path to the site will not be blocked, rate limited, or impeded in any way. This also removes the restrictions enacted on a state level that has restricted competition. There are state laws that block municipal broadband because bigger telcos have the money to fill the coffers of local officials enough to vote in their favor. So the next Google Fiber site or local community can now vote for municipal broadband without worrying about a state law that prevents them from building their own.
Its a nice try, but i think everyone here has the wrong idea about net neutrality
If you want the succinct technical reason I am against it: "If it ain't broke, WTF are you doing 'fixing' it?"
Even if it IS broke, do people really believe the government can fix it?
EXACTLY the point I was going to make.
When has the government taken over regulating anything, and had it come out well?
Thing is, it ain't broke. If you went to UPS, and *demanded* they ship an 200-lb package for the same price as a 5-lb package, they'd call you an idiot. Video is a heavy bandwidth user, and forces a lot of resource upgrades to work. Those ain't free. If Comcast wants to hit the heavy users up for a part of the cost, it isn't unfair -- it's simply stopping an unwarranted subsidy. Yes, Netflix will pass the increased costs onto its consumers. So what?
For the record, I'm also against forcing car drivers to subsidize the trucking industry -- which is what we're doing these days. Same logic.If a heavy truck causes 1,000 times the damage to a highway that a sedan does, why should the sedan pay the same amount per gallon in fuel tax?
Have you seen the licensing fees that a semi-truck pays?
not to mention that semis use diesel which costs more per gallon than gasoline and they purchase and use more gallons than the average sedan.
They also get much lower mileage per gallon. When I drove a big truck, we used to average 5 MPG on a good day.
Libertarianism. The Republicrats will NEVER do that.
Right Flash, and if ALL the taxes were removed from the cost of a product, transportation taxes, excise taxes, income taxes, SSI and Medicare taxes, sales taxes, etc, the price of a product would be less than half of what we're paying now. The government claims the "greedy corporations" are stealing all our money, when in fact, the government makes a bigger profit, without ANY effort or participation in production, aside from onerous regulations, than anyone else.
If we were able to eliminate all the useless government agencies, and pare the government down to only what is necessary and Constitutionally mandated, we would once again be the richest country in the world, instead of the biggest debtor nation.
And, as with all other taxes on businesses, in the end, ALL taxes are paid by the consumer. ALL taxes on businesses are passed on to the final retail price. Just like the rest of the expenses incurred in producing, marketing, transportation,......
When you consider tire size, number of wheels, weight distribution, etc. Trucks don't really put that much more (1000 times) wear on the road than cars do. Consider the average car weighs 3000 - 4000 lbs. Weight distribution is 1000 lbs per tire. Big trucks average 40,000 lbs which is 2222 lbs per tire, but the tires themselves are much larger, distributing the weight over many more square inches than car tires. The reason trucks appear to cause more wear on the roads is because they are much more visible, and libtards in their Toyota Penis or Stupid Car, are scared of the "big scary trucks" and their little roller skates "don't put any pressure on the road".
The reason DOT puts out info claiming trucks are responsible for so much more wear on the roads, is because they need the highway funds, and taxing the trucks is something only the trucking industry complains about. Besides, when it comes to fuel taxes, did you know that trucks must purchase fuel tax stamps for every state they operate in, because they may not buy fuel in that state, and the state wants their share of that tax money? Next time you are near a truck, look at the driver's side of the cab, and see all the different state fuel tax stickers they have on the side of the truck. Each one of those stickers represents a large additional expense to the trucking company, that is *supposed* to go to that state's highway fund.
All true, but doesn't add up to 1,000 times the wear, which is what I'm saying. I don't have anything personal against the people in the trucking industry (well, nothing more than any railroadman would), but it is food for thought -- inadvertent subsidies are everywhere, and if the government didn't have a scheme to slough the cost off onto some unsuspecting third party, we'd have a very different economy.
All done under the cause of "fairness", of course. That's the shortcut to get people to turn their brains off and go into idiot mode.
First off, I deeply mistrust anything any government does. Too many unintended consequences. Then again, suppose a vendor *does* create a fast path and sells it to participating vendors. What's the difference between prioritizing traffic, and simply having faster bandwidth at one segment of the backbone? If they coughed up the funds, shouldn't they decide how to deploy it?
Given that internet traffic can travel over a myriad of media, including avian, and it is working why are we trying to force a standard? Could it be, that in the interest of what is termed "fairness", the government is trying to seize control? Nahhh, that could *never* happen, right?
Every single time a governmental entity uses the term "fairness" you can bet your life that the intended effect is anything but. All's they are doing is harnessing the power of envy to seduce people into putting the chains of servitude upon themselves. Has the example of the Patriot Act been lost on people? Or is it a more simple "My politician is *for* it, therefore, it must be good, right, and useful, which is proven by the other guy's politician is against it."
Mark my words: if this passes, then innovation gets stifled. Amongst the reasons why the powers that be want innovation to get stifled are:
1) If they control winners and losers, they can profit by selecting winners and punishing people that don't play by making them losers.
2) If they control the carrier, they control the content. Or, to be more specific, it's easier for them to invade your privacy.
3) While the new system may suck, it'll be a political football for years that will drive many political careers. They're *still* reforming the Chicago schools after FIFTY years -- you'd think as bad as they are, that they'd have fixed them in 50 years, or that people would have ridden their politicians out of town on a rail. Instead, they are at the point where they need to build a new Governor's Wing on the State Pen, and nothing is changing.
The ugly secret is that nobody in government really gives a damn whether the thing they regulate works or not. The more inefficient, the better. This is the kind of person you want regulating your packets?
Even if a person subscribes to the mind-bogglingly bad idea that this will work because *their* politico is in charge, what happens when the other side gets into office? I suppose the idea of the IRS audits for conservative groups is amusing to them -- I can't wait until the administration changes, and they get their nuts caught in the vise in turn -- Magical Schadenfreude Powers, Activate! What goes around comes around.
Already have a few people who insulted Ted Cruz for speaking out against this. The name wins people over, not the content sadly.
Kinda Orwellian, isn't it. Proof that if you control the language, you can control people's minds.
And that's a GOOD THING! A real good thing!
http://itaintholywater.blogspot.com/2015/02/thursday-sarcasm.html
I am not a fan of AT&T in any shape or form, but they are lining up a shitload of lawyers to take the net neutering thing to court as soon as they can. I hope they kick Wheeler's ass around the courtroom, out the door and into the parking lot. Wheeler is nothing more than a Obama dick smoker.
Three unelected people just decided what is best for all Americans when it comes to the internet, the last bastion of truly free expression available.
Yet another twist of the knife in the gut of this country. We are so, so fvcked.
If you like your internet ...You can keep it.
I'll be seeing some of you... as block mates in a FEMA camp.