Is the FCC's ruling on net neutrality really a victory for a free and open internet?

a reply to: Sparkly_Eyed777

Apparently the internet is being reclassified under Title II. Whatever that means.

www.wired.com...

What new powers does this give the FCC?

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Sparkly_Eyed777

Apparently the internet is being reclassified under Title II. Whatever that means.

www.wired.com...

What new powers does this give the FCC?

A very good question and one that we do not yet have the answer to.

By classifying "the internet" as title II, the federal government must treat all providers as monopolies (like ma bell last century) and carefully manage their pricing, services and expansion.

As for the claims to the 332 page document being 8 pages long, we shall see.

The first I heard of that claim was yesterday on here which referred to a tweet.

Assuming that is true, why release a 4 page summary of an 8 page document?

It means a lot to anyone that may need to sue to get an aggressor to quit hassling them. Net neutrality however won't extinguish all the evil trolls. It's a good way to end the hassler who may cause critical damage to something valuable.

It's simple- corporations wanted to "radically transform" the internet and the government blocked them.

Anyone who opposes this ruling needs to explain why they supported drastically changing the web as we know it.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
what about the 300 pages of regulation that we are not allowed to see?

Isn't that a problem?

The only problem was your inability to read the posts above yours evidently....

8 pages with 292 pages of public comments. And you can't read it yet because it's blocked by your GOP buddies that were against the new rules as they're delaying their part in the process.
READ the posts above yours for the links.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Sparkly_Eyed777

I see it as a double-edged sword. I'm mostly pessimistic, because we've allowed the government to get its foot in the door. No telling what 'mods' are going to be allowed in the future. Give the government an inch and they _will_ take a mile.

Indeed. You know if you're hearing about it through official channels, there's nothing good about it. That's the way I look at it. They're obviously interested in changing something big. And they do what they want. The media is just a means of molding public opinion into a state of cooperation and general apathy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AgentSmith

It's amazing how many threads are being made on this issue, and in every single one in comes a bunch of people spewing the same lies and half-truths that have been debunked already. Then the thread goes on long enough and in comes a new batch saying the same stuff. Like do people even CARE about being properly informed anymore?

I don't believe what I said was lies or half-truths. Little of it had anything to do with the rules directly.

I think it's quite rational to wonder where this will eventually lead. I mean, let's be honest, this isn't electricity or water or the telephone. This is the internet and there is a whole lot of influence being wielded on it. That influence is power. Is it really that far fetched to think that they're going to eventually be looking at how to harness that power for their own ends?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

But I wasn't talking to you or about you so I'm not sure what you mean here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I think the number of pages is not really that important. Yes there are people commenting on the number of pages, but I don't think it matters how many pages there are really. That seems to be one of the lies or half-truths you're annoyed with. The other seems to be that we can't see the actual rule and what that really means. While I understand that the FCC has always worked this way and that it is not inherently a smoking gun that they are going to shut down the internet tomorrow I also think that people, myself included, are worried about the government making rules that may impact us that we don't see until it's being rolled out on us. I haven't cared much before because they were not doing much in the present that concerned me as much as this. Granted almost every person going on and on about ACA when it was going through congress never read a single page of the bill, including those voting on it... but it was there to read.

As for why I felt the need to respond when it wasn't addressed specifically to me? I think the topic of the thread and the question asked is a valid one and it seems that the thrust of your discussion is that these threads should not be carrying on for multiple pages as the misinformed wander through. I'm interested in the topic and want to hear what others, who have read the information, have to say about it. We will have to deal with some people that don't read or choose to ignore details like the length of the rule, but those people are going to be in every thread.

I'm not trying to say "get outta mah threads" and know from reading many other threads that you make a concerted effort to educate people who are misinformed. I just don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater in this case. To steer it back toward the OP what do you think? I know it was the best choice we had on the table, but do you have any fears about what it could mean down the road given the trend that seems to have the government bending or loosely interpreting the law? On that note I would argue that a shorter rule could be the scarier option as it may be vague and leave a great deal to interpretation by the ones that get their hands on the power to enforce the rule.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I understand the concern that the government likes to intrude on things and their competency is rather untrustworthy. I get that and I understand your concerns. But if you let yourself get worked up over incorrect information, you will end up complaining about the wrong things. I have no problem with you being leery over the government's actions. Frankly, I'm not too happy about that either. I just see that it is necessary given the alternative. It sucks when businesses through their greed back government into a corner and force its hand, but that is what is going on here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I understand the concern that the government likes to intrude on things and their competency is rather untrustworthy. I get that and I understand your concerns. But if you let yourself get worked up over incorrect information, you will end up complaining about the wrong things. I have no problem with you being leery over the government's actions. Frankly, I'm not too happy about that either. I just see that it is necessary given the alternative. It sucks when businesses through their greed back government into a corner and force its hand, but that is what is going on here.

But honestly, what "greed" backed government into a corner and, also honestly, when is our government ever forced? I saw a lot of hysteria about "evil corporations" but nothing was actually done by the "evil corporations" in question and the accusations of "throttling" content were not really proven.

What this will do, as it does with all the other utilities, is limit competition, increase price, and decrease service. Big corporations LOVE LOVE LOVE government regulation because they have the money and lawyers to handle it whereas the start-up competition does not so their pie is not threatened and risk of competition diminishes.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you sure you haven't been looking properly enough?

Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you sure you haven't been looking properly enough?

Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth

But that article is a "he said, he said" coverage of the accusation, not proof. So far, we don't have any concrete evidence that any of the things the hysterical "evil corporations" doom and gloom predictors have said has come to pass or are even planned.

"Necessity is the clarion call of the tyrant." ~Disraeli.

What the former PM means in the above quote is that power hungry politicians will often dream up a disaster that they then must swoop in to "fix."

a reply to: NavyDoc

Fair enough, but the article makes a VERY compelling argument for it being so despite lack of direct evidence. I wouldn't convict Verizon in a courtroom with that evidence, but looking at it, I wouldn't put it past them either. Do YOU believe that Verizon is on the up and up here?

This event wasn't invented by the government though. It is a DIRECT result of the ISP's tampering with net neutrality. That much has already been proven. There is tons of evidence that corroborate THOSE claims including the original idea to throttle Netflix.