FCC Votes to Regulate Internet

[leistb]

Vote went along party lines. Another victory for bigger government.

[rryan]

Screw em.

[flourbug]

actually, they screwed us. Just wait for the repercussions of this one to hit.

[Ought Six]

http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread.php?t=33332

[Sonny]

I'm not sure what the issues here are? Govmint's are BAD!, right I get that but the following sentence seems to be a biggie at preserving the rights of netcitizens?

The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz18m5Ol7Xp

!

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by Sonny

I'm not sure what the issues here are? Govmint's are BAD!, right I get that but the following sentence seems to be a biggie at preserving the rights of netcitizens?

!

The biggest problem is that the government doesn't own the networks it wants to control.

These networks are owned, managed and serviced by private companies.

Basically they want to control the Tier 1 providers without ponying up money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by Sonny

I'm not sure what the issues here are? Govmint's are BAD!, right I get that but the following sentence seems to be a biggie at preserving the rights of netcitizens?

The internet is a public good, like a park or a highway, in the sense that it is owned by the people in a shared and indivisible way. So the govt has a legitimate role in keeping it safe for children. Public sex is not legal in Yosemite.

And maybe there's a legitimate gripe that if a child get their hands on a computer, it is almost always web-enabled now, and that means they are one google search away from UNINTENDED PORN sites. Your kid watches water polo on tv, Google's "water sports" turns up some pretty shocking unintended consequences.

I'm not sure there's a free market solution to this, since virtually any net enabled device, including an i-phone, can be used by a 10yr old to access porn on purpose or by accident.

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by DReynolds

The internet is a public good, like a park or a highway, in the sense that it is owned by the people in a shared and indivisible way. So the govt has a legitimate role in keeping it safe for children. Public sex is not legal in Yosemite.

Of course that analogy doesn't work.

Yosemite is owned by the government, hence the American people.

The Internet is hosted on networks owned by companies and the stockholders.

There used to be a network that was family safe back in the late 1980s and 1990s. It was your POP. It was clean and safe. No sex, no booze no tobacco, no gambling, etc.

It and others like it failed. Why?

No one wanted to pay the extra it costs to keep it "clean". They wanted free.

No, they want to take what other people own and make them change it the way they want it.

ANother thing.

Some people are hosted on good servers. Some are hosted on crappy servers. Some are hosted on server farms with fail over etc.

The better ones run faster that the poorer ones.

They are also "the Internet".

Do we tell server farms they have to host the poor sites just like they do the best sites?

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

The Internet is hosted on networks owned by companies and the stockholders.

The US air travel system is owned by a network of companies and stockholders who own airlines and airports. If the air travel system had this problem where people were constantly engaged in public sex in airport hallways, then perhaps we would conclude that the private sector is failing to keep the air travel system useable by minors and that the govt can play a role in this regard.

The domestic air travel system is a public good. And perhaps the ability to use the internet itself is a public good.

[preppiechick]

Good article from one if the commissioners:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...250748540.html

[flourbug]

What does this have to do with sex in the hallways?

Net neutrality is about controlling traffic. Broadband providers will allow their customers a fast connection. I'm on Verizon. You're on Verizon. You'll get my email and be able to connect to websites hosted on my system in nanoseconds. You, over there, on the little local ISP... it's going to take you 3 minutes to download a webpage and you'll get my email tomorrow morning. You are non-priority because you are not on my system.

Now imagine what's going to happen to Netflix. You subscribe but you can't play their streaming videos unless THEY pay YOUR broadband provider a huge fee for high speed access. That means YOUR costs will go up dramatically. Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia, Craigslist... keep listing all the big sites you use that will have to shell out so their sites are actually usable. This, in an atmosphere of sharply declining advertising revenue and the lack of subscription paying users.

In short, DR, you won't be able to GET to that hallway to see who is having sex.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by flourbug

What does this have to do with sex in the hallways?

It establishes that the govt has a legitimate role in regulating the internet. This is, I think, the real issue.

[flourbug]

Which government? China? US? Brazil?

As it stands now, each country prosecutes crimes committed by their citizens, or on equipment operating within their national borders.

I think that is the way it should be.

What the US has just done is regulate how fast or slow, or whether we may access at all, content that is posted not just in the US, but worldwide. It is also going to control the accessibility of US systems, for people located outside the US.

[jason]

I can see it both ways. While more gov't regulation is always bad, many internet providers are drooling over being able to do a tiered internet with a similar subscription model as the cable providers have for TV.

If what we get is the FCC telling internet providers to keep their hands off of things - don't do things like diminish speeds to competitors (brighthouse who sells cable slowing down traffic to netflix, or a verizon deal with bing making google slow), don't modify or impact internet usage (traffic shaping), and don't screw with user's pricing based on what they're doing online, then I'm all for it.

What the providers have wanted to do is a tiered internet:

Basic internet means access to bing and your local brighthouse search site.

Advanced internet for $5.99 more gives you access to google, and up to 1 gig of transfers from youtube.

Here's an article about a leaked document on what they're planning:

http://www.dailytech.com/Top+Wireles...ticle20438.htm

[jason]

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign...ality_3things/

[jason]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...0eecaf90c94286

I'm not seeing a lot of bad things listed.

[Cactus Az]

I see this as the camel`s nose under the tent.

[Ought Six]

This is a government price-fixing scheme (those *always* work ), but it is also much more. Once the fedgov establishes the legal precedent that it may regulate the internet, control goes along with the package. Taxation and censorship will be next. And with the price controls, service will degrade from here on out, and innovation will suffer.

Enjoy those cheap fares. One day we will all discover the true price we paid for this.

Hopefully the courts will step in and strike this down, but I am not optimistic.

[US Blues]

They can't even regulate Robo Telemarketers

[preppiechick]

Originally Posted by flourbug

...Now imagine what's going to happen to Netflix. You subscribe but you can't play their streaming videos unless THEY pay YOUR broadband provider a huge fee for high speed access. That means YOUR costs will go up dramatically. Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia, Craigslist... keep listing all the big sites you use that will have to shell out so their sites are actually usable. This, in an atmosphere of sharply declining advertising revenue and the lack of subscription paying users...

ugh...I hadn't even thought about Netflix! I love Netflix and just got TiVo for the family gift (2 year subscription ) purposely to cut the cable monopoly! The new box streams Netflix, amazon and blockbuster on demand and YouTube and connects wirelessly. I'm telling you - it IS pitchfork time soon. And Jason- come on, if this was so great why did 300 bipartisan members of congress vote this down and a judge, forcing them to find a sneaky way, using the FCC , and do it a couple days before Christmas, when everyone is distracted??? That ALONE tells you all you need to know

[preppiechick]

How this may hit you in the wallet:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...et-neutrality/

It doesn't even make sense. My mother had cable (but has now dumped it) and only watched a show a day or so. Some people and businesses have the tv on 24/7 yet they don't have metered service! This is all about CONTROL of private enterprise

[dharma]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

Taxation and censorship will be next.

Bingo. The Net is huge and vigorous, a hotbed of enterprise. Governments at all levels want a great big piece of that ("it's not fair that only our brick and mortar businesses pay sales taxes/pay property taxes/follow our local laws/etc."), and politicians at all levels want to make sure their message gets heard—and no one else's.

Here's another perspective:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-21/net-neutrality-ruling-the-fcc-splits-the-internet-in-two/?om_rid=NsfmMj&om_mid=_BNESN$B8WmGmUt

[Dreamweaver]

Who wanted this enacted the most, why all the leftest of course.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

[Potemkin]

If all of this control is important to "protect" us why did wireless get a pass?

[Dreamweaver]

How the GOP plan to block it.