FCC approves plan to regulate Internet

If "they" raise the prices too much, I will dump the net too. I canceled my cell phone service because I was tired of getting screwed and notified by mail. My bill was paid and I chose the disconnect option. I believe that if everybody would stop acting like the cell phone is critical in everyday life, the the companies will have no choice to give in. Just like the internet, once the control factor shoots my bill up, I will have it disconnected.
To the above poster's phone problems, why don't you change providers. Once enough people make the small changes, the big changes will occur. Until then you are giving in to the problem, a psychological problem.

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Thankyou for reading and explaining to these paranoid conspiracy theorists! I mean come on people, all it took was a little reading instead of just guessing. Not all regulations are bad!

Some regulation, when applied appropriately and for the benefit of the people, isn't just okay... but I would go as far as to say it's necessary.

The problem is, however, if you give someone the power to regulate, that power will always be abused.

It's partly how a two party system, at least how it is in the US, works. One side wants to regulate everything, the other side wants to deregulate everything that the previous party regulated. In reality though, we need a 5 or more party system, that way the US won't end up where it's headed, and it makes for a good system of checks and balances.

Havent read through the entire thread,
so forgive me if someone has already mentioned this.

If the net does become obscenely regulated,
the best way to keep information alive
is to go back to the old school days of BBS boards.

With regular phone lines and digi-boards to allow multiple users on at once.

At least some information can still be spread through message networks in that way.

Marshall

Kinda fitting don't you think

thanks op for the information i just had to run to the bathroom to puke up my breakfast after hearing this news.
seems like always there are two types of individuals on ats!
1) the atsers who have not a problem of the government regulating every aspect of their enviroments.

2) the second group,myself included, you could quit possibly call us anti federalist, but witnessing the government mess life up as we know it for the select few to benifit, such as fat azz Al Gore, Murdoch,Rothchilds, Rockefeller,etc,etc, just does not appeal to me.


again thanks op for ruining my favorite biscuits and gravy this morning

Originally posted by drkid
start making cd's of the good stuff. FML!

i dont think the problem is losing some of the good stuff on the net...im not botherd in the slightest about any videos i like disappearing...im more worried about the fact that people will probably have to pay to visit certain websites just like you pay to watch certain chanels on tv...and there will probably be stricter rules and regulations for anyone wanting to set up a website...and a closer watch on data traveling around the internet.

its perfect for the government...make more money for the corporations...and prevent freedom of speach on the internet.

Well Joe, not to fret sir. Because they think nobody's is willing to stop them. There are over 340 million of us in the country. And some of us watch their every move. Timing is not on their side.

HAY alienreality
can you give me the link to what obama said? please
reply to post by alienreality

In case you didn't know it, some of your internet providers would like to regulate the amount of bandwidth that their customers use to access rival products. In other words if ATT decides that they don't like that you access the sites owned/operated by rival corporations they want to the ability to to reduce your access to those sites.
So don't blame the goverment, blame corporate greed for forcing the Goverments hand.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Well said PPT.

This isn't about the Gov. regulating the Net, this about the Gov. stopping service providers from regulating the net. This is a step to maintain net neutrality because Corporations have once again proved that they are incapable or unwilling to maintain net neutrality. The companies that own the cables through which all this data passes want to be able to stop the flow of commerce to rival services. So take your pick, let the companies do what you want and pay your bills to several providers so you can get full internet access or let the Gov. tell the companies that they have to play fair and maintain net neutrality.

Originally posted by boondock-saint


wow, Soros is funding wikileaks and has his own
stooge at the FCC to pass this net censorship.

Soros supplied the problem (wikileaks)
and the solution (net censorship, FCC)

how convenient

The leaks are propably staged to give them a reason to restrict internet freedom.
The reaction of the politicians was to call Assange a terrorist and stuff, but it would have been easier to redicule Assange and label him as a liar and label the leaks as total BS. They didn't do it their reaction was more like: "how dare you to tell the truth." They will use the wikileaks scandal and the "disclosure of secret documents"-talk to mess with Internet, the biggest Oasis of free speech.

That is really not good

reply to post by mikelee

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.

Surely this is a good thing?

ISPs have been threatening to make the 'net slower unless you or a company pays lots of money to get priority.

That doesn't sound like state intervention - that sounds like good old fashioned corporate greed!

If the ISPs are allowed to get away with this, then we really have started down the road of suppression of content not liked, first and foremost, by corporates - a greater evil than any Government not least because they are UNELECTED!

The TV companies tell us what we can watch because they own the station and we pay to watch.

With the internet, we are simply paying for access and not the content. Regardless of which door we walk through, we access the same stuff. Some of the bouncers at some of the doors are now wanting to tell us what we can and can't do at the party because we walked through the door on the North side, and not the East or South side. This is totally wrong.

Worse yet, it is restricting LEGAL and FREE (as in freedom) information.

Unfortunately people will not boycott ISPs that restrict the 'net so simply making them go bust won't be sufficient to stop this.

In the UK, it is looking even more likely that ISPs will prefer some content over others.

Originally posted by Marshall Twinie
Havent read through the entire thread,
so forgive me if someone has already mentioned this.

If the net does become obscenely regulated,
the best way to keep information alive
is to go back to the old school days of BBS boards.

With regular phone lines and digi-boards to allow multiple users on at once.

At least some information can still be spread through message networks in that way.

Marshall

Great idea, but you would have to go back to dial-up to do it.

There will be the commercialized 'net that the masses buy with their TV subscription every month, and there will be the old, open networks used by those who are more technologically inclined.

reply to post by allprowolfy

1) the atsers who have not a problem of the government regulating every aspect of their enviroments.

2) the second group,myself included, you could quit possibly call us anti federalist, but witnessing the government mess life up as we know it for the select few to benifit, such as fat azz Al Gore, Murdoch,Rothchilds, Rockefeller,etc,etc, just does not appeal to me.

I find that when people attempt to categorise others into 1 of 2 groups, as in this case, its almost certainly a false dichotomy, as this is. It just isn't the case that a person is a total authoritarian or a total liberal (the real opposites, flying in the face of the false dichotomy "conservative vs liberal" - oh yeah! If you're anti-regulation, you're some form of liberal alright! You may be a liberal conservative [libertarian], maybe a conservative liberal [support representative democracy], but a liberal of some shade nonetheless.). Personally, you'll not find me supporting regulation on where or when I can buy alcohol or other substances for my consumption or what those substances are; what, if any, clothing I can/must wear; where I can have sex; what I can say to people; what type of music I can listen to in a field in the middle of nowhere; etc. - all these are subject to UK law & there are many others that get right up my nose.

Still, I do want cars to be regulated for safety b/c they're heavy objects travelling @sufficient speed that when out of control plough through people causing misery. I also want big business regulated b/c they're beyond my control & will attempt to gain as much of a monopoly as possible or, failing that, act as a cartel to fix prices. How much misery gets caused is anyone's guess, but it certainly holds back tech development.

Would you repeal US Anti-Trust Law & the regulations that spring from it? If so why?

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Stopping ISPs from selling tier based internet services is a good thing, as many already do with little oversight. Basically it is ripping customers off who think they paying for DSL. When they are paying for filtered speed based services, in other words they paying for one speed of internet and if they faster then they got to fork over more money. Its a classic business world rip off which is what "business" is nowadays.

Regulation by the FCC is part of the fedgov's attempt to control the internet....period.

reply to post by mikelee

Regulation by the FCC is part of the fedgov's attempt to control the internet....period.

Ok. I think we may have a fundamental breakdown of communication. In the context of this quoted statement, would you please define what you mean by "the internet".

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Internet = The Internet, or simply the Net, is the publicly available worldwide system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using a standardized Internet Protocol (IP) and many other protocols. It is made up of thousands of smaller commercial, academic, and government networks.

The Internet as cited above, is what the FedGov wishes to control via regulation.

ATS Video: Obama wants to stop all conspiracys

reply to post by klaatu4711


Make sure you use the word Government before the word internet (Government Internet) You think that all the hidden taxes of land line and cell phones usage is bad just wait until the FCC starts imposing taxes on top of taxes of usage, everything you do, transmit and sell on the net. Your freedom of speech on the net could go down the toilet as you will be constantly monitored. You think you are monitored now you have not seen nothing yet. ^Y^

reply to post by mikeleeOk then. So you agree that there's a fundamental difference between the hardware that is the infrastructure of the internet, the software that allows it to function & the content represented by the data that can be be routed through the system, right? You also know that whilst the internet began in the USA as a DARPA funded project, the World Wide Web, which is the content most of us access online, was created by Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman working at CERN in Switzerland, & that since then the hardware has grown exponentially all over the world: a great deal of it in places beyond the control of any POTUS, right?

Now, from what I've seen of Obama, he seems like a "red-blooded male" with an eye for a beautiful woman. I'd not be surprised if he'd like to do Angelina Jolie. Thing is, a man in his position probably has some chance of making that happen. Whereas, whatever a POTUS would like restricted online, other Governments have a vested interest in keeping up. There are also a whole world full of uber-nerds who would take any restriction of content as a personal challenge to defeat. He, or any other POTUS, has absolutely no chance! Just look @China. Do you think American nerds are any less adept or nerdy?

The djin came out of the bottle a long time ago, but this djin isn't stupid enough to get back in just b/c its challenged to.

Nevermind that tho, can you explain how rules which prevent private companies from using their control over their infrastructure to restrict the content that moves through it equates to Government control of that content? You've said yourself: the internet isn't the content.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


thanks for thinking so about my idea

and good idea on the open networks

that can still be used for the old style bbs boards as well
since some to most of the software can be used with the internet
just a few tweaks and they're up and running with multiple internet users online at once


as the old adage goes: where there's a will, there's a way

Marshall