The wrong words: how the FCC lost net neutrality and could kill the internet http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and-the-death-of-the-internet
I am for NN.
If ISP’s get the bright idea that they can treat the net like it’s another cable TV cash cow, they’d better think again. If they squeeze the goose that lays the golden eggs too hard, it’s going to shit on them. :mad:
Look up “Free The Airwaves”, White Spaces Coalition, Wireless Innovation Alliance, White Space Alliance. Then look at who is killing the move to make it a reality…(hint: The National Association Of Broadcasters). It’s pretty obscene the extensive lengths they have went to keep us in the dark ages. The net was at one time called the “Information Highway”. Now it’s just a toll road.
Can somebody please explain what the article said? I read it twice but I’m not sure what to be concerned about.
Service providers can create whatever rules they want and the FCC can’t do dick about it?
Basically, ISPs may control what content you access on the internet.
FCC used to mandate that Comcast, Verizon, etc could not restrict or control the customer’s (you) access to online content. With this ruling, they can either charge you to access certain content (think Netflix, Hulu, Torrent) or regulate bandwidth for certain types of content.
Either way, it is bad for the customers.
This may be a easier read: LINK
Legally, here’s what happened:
The FCC tried to regulate broadband service providers under their mandate that allows them to regulate common carriers (cellphone providers, non-cable, etc).
The Court said that the regulation itself was not wrong, but the FCC cannot regulate broadband service providers because they are not common carriers.
So Net Neutrality is not illegal per se, but the way it was done wasn’t legal. Thus Congress can either A) directly mandate net neutrality or B) make broadband service providers common carriers and thus under the FCC’s jurisdiction.
Net Neutrality still most likely applies to 3G and 4G (cell) internet users as well as dial-up (lol).
As we move ever closer to a centralized form of government, the state would easily be able to implement censorship of the internet.
I forget who said it but it fits; “The internet is the most powerful weapon since the printing press.”
The irony is that in this case the .gov was trying to block any attempt at providers to censor or black information…
So the Political Correctness could determine which internet sites are acceptable?
Even worse. How much a company pays another company will determine what is acceptable. This will destroy any chance of innovation on the internet.
I could create a site that revolutionizes video for instance. Something that make Youtube obsolete. However if Youtube is paying internet providers to give their site a higher priority for traffic, or perhaps not to count against a data cap then I would stand no chance in competing against them. It is the ultimate way to crush competition.
Ah, “net neutrality”… finally a form of government regulation that libertarians can get behind. :jester: :sarcastic: :lol:
:stop:
For those who don’t know, the idea of “net neutrality” was invented by a socialist named Robert McChesney, who used to be the co-editor of Monthly Review (a Marxist journal that has been published for decades).
Here’s more info in an easily digestible form:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/11/the-neomarxist-who-is-helping-to-influence-obamas-media-policy/
Of course, you can also read McChesney’s article, “The Internet’s Unholy Marriage to Capitalism.”
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/03/01/the-internets-unholy-marriage-to-capitalism
He was somewhat inspired by The dotCommunist Manifesto, published back in 2003 by Evan Moglin. You can find it here:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/dcm.html
Question for you… can you show me a single case of an ISP that intentionally limited access to any specific website? The cases are few and far between…
Now how many things can you think of that government has attempted to block access to?
Funny how so many are now rushing to the chief censor for private sector problems that are practically non-existent.
Your argument is “show me a case where it has happened? You can’t because it hasn’t!” … But it hasn’t happened because it has been illegal until last week or so. So what’s your point?
The rules were put into place in 2010. The internet didn’t start in 2010, last I checked…
So we should trust the communication companies more than we trust the government? Hardly. Don’t think for a moment that the cable companies, Verizon, etc won’t do everything in their power to squash anything that competes with what they want you to have. They have done it for decades now.
And here are just a few of the more prominent examples of why Net Neutrality became and issue.
http://netneutrality.koumbit.org/en/node/5
This is a rare case of Government actually trying to protect something. In this case the free flow of information.
Government does not always = evil. (Just most of the time)
The old adage of if you don’t like it then use something else or create something better isn’t really that valid in the telecommunications industry anymore. Most people don’t have a choice in provider, and the companies have done a great job of making sure that there is no way for competition to start up.
You seriously think the government, in this case the FCC, is interested in protecting the “free flow of information”? The same government that grows ever more restrictive of your gun rights? You’re playing with fire.
Personally, I would rather have competition of the marketplace than government-imposed mandates.
You guys are really no different than the gun-banners…
Oh, I should also note… do you know why there is little competition in some areas? HINT HINT: it goes back to a government-supported telecommunications monopoly.
That is a heck of a low blow. And very inaccurate. Gun banners are trying to take things away. We are talking about making sure things are not taken away.
And yes in this case I do think the FCC is interested in doing just that. Once again. Not all government is evil.
And there is no competition in this marketplace. The companies involved have made sure of that. They are an effective monopoly.
No, there is little competition in certain areas because of the way that the government-supported telecommunications monopoly, AT&T, was broken up. The exact same issue exists in Great Britain, and has the exact same cause (how British Telecom was broken up).
But, no, there is no difference between you and the gun banners. They want more government regulation of firearms. You want more government regulation of telecommunications. The only difference is that you may differ with regard as to which segments of society you think should be regulated.
So a question for you. In your view are all government regulations bad?