What You Should Know About Net Neutrality

a reply to: nwtrucker

I didn't omit anything because the idea that the procedure was changed in some way by Obama being in office is completely false.

If you have a problem with the FCC procedure, then you have a problem with the FCC procedure as it has existed during the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. As I said earlier, I'm not defending it, I don't think it's a good way of going about adopting new regulations either but the fact that the text of the regulations hasn't been made public yet has nothing to do with Obama.

Out of curiosity, what were you views of net neutrality before the recent vote by the FCC?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Here's the letter (PDF) to the FCC. Look at the list of signers and tell me which ones Obama "backs" if you would please.

Amazon, Cogent, Dropbox, Ebay, Etsy, Facebook, Foursquare, Google, Kickstarter, Level 3, LinkedIn, Lyft, Microsoft, Netflix, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Vonage Holdings Corp., Yahoo! Inc., Zynga and about 130 others. All those corporations are in his pocket but the handful of massive ISPs — fighting tooth and nail for what they believe is their right to censor the Internet — are the only ones beyond his evil reach?

Come on. I thought you wanted to be honest. Maybe you should start by admitting to yourself that you're not that well versed on the subject but you've come to the conclusion that net neutrality must be be bad because that's what you keep hearing from the sources you frequent?

EDIT:

Net neutrality shouldn't be a partisan issue. Nobody should be able to censor the Internet; not corporations and not the government. The ISPs have made it clear that they believe that they have that right. This isn't a matter of conjecture, they've SAID IT.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Come on. I thought you wanted to be honest. Maybe you should start by admitting to yourself that you're not that well versed on the subject but you've come to the conclusion that net neutrality must be be bad because that's what you keep hearing from the sources you frequent?

But it's so much easier to just listen to Rush and Beck and say what they say. Otherwise it would mean actually researching both sides to get a clear picture of what's going on.

To quote Glen Beck, "Useful Idiots!"

No Doubt.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I simply point out it could have been done in an open fashion. One that allowed all the considerations to be viewed.

As that option isn't forbidden, then all I point out is that it wasn't done. Simple. I care not whether others have done similarly in the past.

It 'could' have been avoided. (I trust neither side in this issue.)

Regarding Obama 'being in office' which isn't the point I was making, it's not false. His tenure has been filled with 'memos', executive orders and the like which changed, ignored, amended laws all over the place. His arbitraries are widespread. To ignore his history in this instance isn't reasonable at all. His non-action speaks volumes....

As far as net neutrality goes. Not my strong suit. The only direct experience that might be comparable would be the major retail outlets I have supplied over the decades. The Safeways, Wal-Marts, Costcos. My understanding of it is the 'prime locations' on the retail store floors are paid for by the suppliers. General Mills or Nestle might pay 100s of Ks for the prime locations in these chains.

This may or may not be a valid analogy to the net. Access, speed and the like. Will a provider take liberties? Just like any other field, I would think so.

Would I want federal control of my super-market? I don't think so. I don't want the Feds controlling the net either.

If a provider gets too far out of line then another will supplant it.

The only time market forces don't correct a situation is when gov't pulls something that negates those market forces. JMO

a reply to: mOjOm

There are not two sides.

You should look into Mises, Hayek and Rothbard for a synopsis of one of the "other sides".

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

The right at this point disproves of the government's actions first then makes up a reason why later.

while left fabricates hypothetical situations and uses coolcatch phrases in order to pass legislation that they wont let any of the public read.......

And the left eat it up like the useful idiots they are

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

This one comes to mind... "We have to pass it to know whats in it" *facepalm*

-SAP-

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I simply point out it could have been done in an open fashion. One that allowed all the considerations to be viewed.

As that option isn't forbidden, then all I point out is that it wasn't done. Simple. I care not whether others have done similarly in the past.

It was as open as any federal agency gets when considering new rules.

1) The FCC released a detailed Open Internet NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING for public comment. The public commented with millions of people providing input -- the overwhelming majority being in favor of the reclassification.

2) The FCC released a summary of the refined rules.

3) The FCC held an open debate and vote.

4) There will be a public release when the completed rules are handed to congress.


I was once a Ham radio operator. Back in the 1980's (I think) the FCC wanted to change the ham radio spectrum -- close off portions of existing 80, 40, and 20 meter bands, restricting higher frequency bands, and adding a few new ones.

The only public input was through representatives of the ARRL. Many were against the changes, it happened anyway.

This was incomparably more open than that was.



The people complaining it wasn't open, or we don't know what's in the rules, are simply following the corporate sponsored conservative pied piper into the abyss of ignorance.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: mOjOm

There are not two sides.

You should look into Mises, Hayek and Rothbard for a synopsis of one of the "other sides".

Sure, be happy to. Send me a link.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No. LMAO.

I , by principle, believe the less government the better. Are there exceptions? Yes.

This isn't one of them.

No open discussions, hearings, whatsoever.

Definitely not unanimous by the members deciding this.

Withheld specifics of those regulations.

No Congressional mandate for the F.C.C. to assume control of the net.

A President that has, from what I can see, given a "carte blanche" to virtually every gov't dept. and agency to fulfill it's 'wish-list' in an apparent quid pro quo to garner support within the Party for his personal agenda.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. This one smells big time.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: mOjOm

There are not two sides.

You should look into Mises, Hayek and Rothbard for a synopsis of one of the "other sides".

Sure, be happy to. Send me a link.

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis - Ludwig von Mises

The Road to Serfdom - F. A. Hayek

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray Rothbard

Feel free to PM me if you need anything, I would be happy to help.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

OK. I see your point.

I will point out ham frequencies had no where near the commercial implications the internet has. That collusion has been implied by posters on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'd say there was a little more trust of the Feds in the eighties as well.

Still, if this was the 80's and the government made the same ruling it did this week, I'd probably have continued doing what I was doing and said "So what?"

My trust of these guys is non-existent. Either party.

If they break wind, I'm wondering who they're selling the methane to....

a reply to: greencmp

Wow, ok those are 3 full books in pdf. Which is cool, don't get me wrong, but that's a hell of a lot to read up on when I don't even know exactly what you're trying to show me.

You said there aren't two sides. Ok. I never said there was nor do I know exactly what two sides you're talking about. Are you talking about Left vs. Right??? Net Neutral vs. Telecom Control???

Can you explain what exactly I'm supposed to learning before I dive head long into all that reading??

a reply to: nwtrucker

Do you really want your ISP to tell you what websites you can access like a retailer can determine what brands will be available in their stores?

ISPs don't own the Internet, despite what they and their lawyers believe. They are selling access to a public space formed by the interconnectedness of billions of devices (and people). ISPs also don't own the information that moves across their networks by virtue of carrying it. Does my ISP own this post because I accessed ATS through their network? Does ATS's ISP own the post? Does your ISP own the post?

a reply to: mOjOm

Just that many people incorrectly think that "both sides" (Democrats and Republicans, left & right, etc.) is all there is to politics and that socialism is inevitable.

Just read the prefaces on each to get a sense. Most people don't bother so I wouldn't blame you for just ignoring them.

I support net neutrality. However, the only thing that concerns me is the unknown pages that weren't disclosed to the public. The only way to make an informed opinion on the subject is to know what's all there.

I protested SOPA and PIPA and have been interested in the preservation of net neutrality and the absence of gates and toll booths for a long time. The issue is simple. If A can afford lighting speed internet and B cannot, A will get the business, the readers, the followers and the power. B will fade into the woodwork.

The next logical step would be thwarting the efforts of socio-political groups to organize, and the efforts of people like us to have free discussion of the grid and what exists behind it.

Even as I make this point, I should add that we're all being encouraged now to link all of our social network identities as well as our bank accounts 'for convenience purposes'. The well-known, NON-employer, transportation app that is raking in billions while taking responsibility for nothing has already decimated the taxi business in San Francisco. Consider the net and it's uses. And, consider the consequences of the applications you frequent. Please don't encourage a world where the abrogation of personal, social, and commercial responsibility is applauded and political corruption is ignored because of it's sheer volume.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I know, I already see it. If I "google" a political issue and "Safari" it, not even close.

Giving government control over political sites, or even the potentiality, is asking the fox to watch over the hen-house.

Yet those very big cats support this!!

How do you reconcile that fact?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Do you think that Comcast was in the right to throttle Netflix then?

I think when you use up the bandwidth for 1/3 of the internet and they asked you to pay to compensate that because its THEIR pipes youre running through , that they have full right to ask you to do that......

It wasnt like Netflix was some little poor company just trying to scrape by.......

Netflix is a mega corp too, and again THEY USE over a 3rd of all internet bandwidth......... OF ALL.......

So yeah when the company that is providing their net says "look man youre eating up almost half our service that we cant use for other people , were going to have to come to an arrangement" yes they are full within their right......

And low and behold when they paid more , THEY GOT THEIR SPEEDS!

a reply to: nwtrucker

That would have been the case before this happened.

Different search engines operate differently.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

not even worth it, just another thread trying to shut any discussion down except the echochamber