LA Times admits that the FCC will be policing the internet under net neutrality.

a reply to: ketsuko

What are you talking about? Not only was there a comment period, it was actually extended. In fact, the FCC received a record 4 million comments from the public.

I guess you missed all that and yet you still feel comfortable speaking with authority on this subject?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

So the owners of this site have been huge proponents of this and you think it will end ats?

How does that work out?

Also how is the internet covered by the constitution?

if conservatives like it, it's covered by the constitution

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

So the owners of this site have been huge proponents of this and you think it will end ats?

How does that work out?

Also how is the internet covered by the constitution?

Written in the myriad of pages
there are provisions for
control over content.

The owners of ATS probably didn't think the FCC would have the nerve to do it, but it appears they did.

a reply to: theantediluvian

How can you offer an informed comment on something you can't actually read?

My guess would be the same way that most members of Congress voted on Obamacare.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Based on what?

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

So the owners of this site have been huge proponents of this and you think it will end ats?

How does that work out?

Also how is the internet covered by the constitution?

if conservatives like it, it's covered by the constitution

I think not.

When was the last time you heard a mainstream Republican tout the importance of the constitution? I can't think of one off the top of my head so, pretty rare actually. They would do themselves a disfavor to draw attention to their own disregard for it.

Very few people actually respect the constitution, least of all the sitting members of the three branches of our federal government.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

This is more blind partisanship, absent of real facts or understanding. Typical DC nonsense.

Exactly and the general population eats it up. The problem is, there are more blind political cheerleaders than critical thinkers. Even worse ,they are multiplying at a greater rate than the educated , non biased truth seekers, and those with common sense.

The blind partisanship is unbelievably unbreakable and strong. I have seen it first hand.

I have a computer engineering background and have worked in the industry for over 15 years, I have been guest speaker at IBM conferences, have consultant wide range of private industries [Raytheon's, IBM,Eli Lilly,MS,SunPower and many many more] including gov't industries [NASA and others] .

Now I'm not saying I'm the most knowledgeable or best computer engineer that knows it all, but i'm no slouch either.

However, when I discuss net neutrality with my family and friends who are hard core republicans and have no idea about anything technical nor any computer related field experience, they think they know more than I do on the topic.

In fact I'm their help desk, and goto tech guy and they came to me asking what it was and what I thought, but the minute I painted a different picture than what the GOP is painting , they tell me I'm wrong about what net neutrality is or what it effects. Its amazing, then I ask them well then tell me what it is, and they just look at me blindly and repeat the GOP spill.

Its truly amazing, how people actually think that politicians aren't used car salesmans and its only the other side that has them.

Until people remove the 'R' and 'D' blinders we and our children are screwed and will continue going the path of destruction we are heading.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Sremmos80

How does ANYONE know if we cant even read it??

Simple, many people simply have 'faith' in government.

I am surprised that so many bother to defend it, the damage is done, whatever it is.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: MystikMushroom

This is more blind partisanship, absent of real facts or understanding. Typical DC nonsense.

they came to me asking what it was but the minute I painted a different picture than what the GOP is painting , they tell me I'm wrong about what net neutrality is or what it effects. Its amazing, then ask I ask them well then tell me what it is, and they just look at me blindly and repeat the GOP spill.

So you know whats in it? Care to direct me to somewhere I can educate myself on the 'facts' of the whole thing?
How did you get your information?

Until someone can point out to me where I can read this for myself all this debate is farts in the wind.

a reply to: interupt42

It's funny, most everyone in the computer/IT industry (including myself) see the writing on wall as to what the GOP and their lobbyists intend to do regarding net neutrality. If the internet is not classified as a utility, then the corporations and companies are free to do business in whatever nefarious way they see fit. We've seen the beginning of it with Verizon, who got quite a bit of grant money from the government when they filed for the fiber expansion plans under the Title II Regulations, then turned around and said they're not a title II company when most of the work was completed. We've seen it with AT&T, who have actually threatened to cut back on much-needed infrastructure upgrades if internet becomes a utility.

You may say "Let the free market sort it out". Yes, that's all well and good when there are multiple internet companies to choose from in a large city. But even in the large cities, many condos and apartment buildings have a deal with ONE specific company to have their infrastructure in the building, and no one else's. And many companies split even the large towns into "districts" where one company has the defacto monopoly over that area of town. So if you want to switch internet providers, many times you have to move to another home to do it. The issue is even worse in small towns, where the majority of them have only one single option for internet, and zero alternatives aside from moving to different town entirely to get different internet.

So the "free market" isn't so free when it comes to the internet, and the companies know this, and capitalize on it.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It is really very simple.

Take a functional economy to start with, convert it to a 'regulated' monopoly and then blame the free market when the quality decreases and costs increase. Tried and true interventionist policy.

Mind you, I am not saying that it is necessarily intentional on the part of everybody involved, just that it is.

This is known as the law of unintended consequences.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I just have one simple question for those of you who believe the government will suddenly start censoring the internet or turning off people's internet.

Did the government turn off your electricity when you started posting here?
Did they shut off your water when they discovered you're hoarding it for the inevitable collapse of society?

No?

Then why do you believe they'll treat the internet any differently?

what?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: interupt42


So the "free market" isn't so free when it comes to the internet, and the companies know this, and capitalize on it.

I have no doubt they do. To me there is NO difference between the companies and the government.

This whole thing is smoke and mirrors so they BOTH, the government and the companies, same thing, can further their agenda.
Control and wealth.

Do you really trust one more than the other? Do you have faith our government has our best interest at heart?

eta, I know your in Japan, so don't put much in 'our' government comment.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Exactly. I have ONE ISP that I can use. I have no choice, there is no competition. The ISP makes enough from their cable TV and wireless phone service that a few people here and there cutting their internet out completely won't hurt them enough to offer better service. The problem is compounded by the fact that they bundle all their services.

What supporters of free enterprise and corporations fail to realize is the inevitable consolidation of these big companies. Eventually there would be "the corporation" that sells everything from toothpaste to shingles. Everyone would work for "the corporation" as well. This really isn't any different than the government having control over everything.

a reply to: greencmp

I believe they are fully intended consequences.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: greencmp

I believe they are fully intended consequences.

Me too but, it is important to understand that they do not have to be to achieve the very same results.

originally posted by: stosh64
Does anyone have a link to the actual bill so we can decide for our selves rather than rely on BOTH sides propaganda?

NOPE! FCC chairman has placed a gag order on it. Not even Congress has seen what the 330+ page document states (and they've demanded a subpoena to try to make that happen to no avail.)

I want to be doe eyed and naively believe this Net Neutrality is going to be a good thing, but actions like blocking any real information from the people until after it is approved and signed doesn't fill me with hope. I'm just not unfeigned enough to take that leap.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ScientificRailgun



What supporters of free enterprise and corporations fail to realize is the inevitable consolidation of these big companies. Eventually there would be "the corporation" that sells everything from toothpaste to shingles. Everyone would work for "the corporation" as well. This really isn't any different than the government having control over everything.

Exactly, there is no difference between the 2 anymore. Reasons why we got to this point can be debated, but here we are none the less.
Enjoy the illusion of choice, what we think or do any more is irrelevant to the inevitable outcome.

Who do you trust more? Government or corporations? Great choice. No choice.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not advocating the process by any means, I'm just pointing out that it's normal and doesn't indicate anything sinister in of itself. At this point all we have is the fact sheet Wheeler released.

Ajit Pai HAS seen the text of the proposed regulations and based on his criticisms, I'm less concerned than I might otherwise have been. Have you read them? If what I read were the strongest criticisms from one of the two Republicans on the committee, then the "#Obamanet" crap in the conservative echo chamber is unfounded, politically motivated alarmist propaganda.

a reply to: stosh64

In this situation, there's really a choice that has to be made, between trusting the companies will do the right thing should they keep control, and trusting the government will work toward the betterment of our internet backbone without needlessly microregulating every aspect of the internet.

Having been in the IT industry for a while, I can say I really don't trust the companies to do the right thing. Companies operate to line the pockets of CEOs and investors. Any change that is done is done with that idea in mind. As much as I don't like the government, they've done a relatively good job of providing power and water to even the most remote of locations, and at prices most people can afford. I feel the same will be done with internet if it's classed as a utility. And the issue of censorship or turning off the internet of people who are not towing the government line is so far out of the realm of possibility it's ridiculous. One of the only times the government shut off a utility in response to dissent was the Branch Davidians in Waco, and even today people think the government overreached on it, and it hasn't been repeated since.