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

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
No, I do not.

And you're rational for Chairman Wheeler doing something extraordinarily illegal is… what?

Actually, what bothers me is the that the situation is the exact opposite of what you suggest, extraordinarily legal.

Furthermore, it isn't what he proposed himself last year and there is every indication that this is a set of regulations and restrictions authored by the executive branch and submitted for ratification by an unelected committee of bureaucrats.

In secret.

a reply to: stosh64

LOL, Yes it was

Sarcasm doesn't come across the internet very well, or maybe its me.

a reply to: interupt42

Thanks interupt.

So you agree with SO its the best tasting piece of # we have. I can accept that.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Has the government cut off or limited your access to electricity based on your political views? What about your water? I don't expect them to suddenly start censoring utilities with the internet. Although if they do, I'll be safely tucked away in Tokyo away from the fallout. I'll make sure to e-mail you the current happenings from beyond the second great firewall (first China, now the U.S.?). Last sentence should have sarcasm quotes. Nobody is going to censor American internet. If they did, the veritable army of neckbeards and perverts that would be knocking down the white house's door would innumerable.

You're asking the wrong questions...
1. Has the government cut off or limited your access to electricity based on your political views?
No, but has the government mandated the manufacture and sole use of certain appliances and bulbs in the name of energy efficiency? Have they mandated smart meters? Do they dictate times when the consumer must conserve their energy and/or make declarations on what that energy may be used for? Is there any record of them using energy consumption data to identify illegal activities, such as grow operations?

2. What about your water?
No, but have laws been passed declaring mandatory times when water use was to be severely restrained? Have they banned watering lawns? Has the government enacted "water rights" laws that effectively prevent users from such things as growing their own garden, fruit trees, and even instalation of a swimming pool with obtaining prior special permits and approvals? Has the government mandated the presence of dangerous substances into municipal waters, such as fluoride and chlorine? Have they regulated private well owners, forcing people who wished to remain on their own water source to capitulate and connect to city water? Have some local governments passed ordinances aimed at restricting bottled water, forcing people to ultimately drink from their taps?

I'm not concerned that the FCC is going to "Shut down the internet." Far from it! There's way too much money being made on the web for any bought and paid for agency to ever do that. I am, however, concerned about two things.
1. The price tags: NOTHING the government touches remains a good business deal for the average working American. We taxpayers always have and always will take it in the seat once those bastards claim control over something.
2. Regulations, regulations, regulations, red tape, red tape, red tape. no privacy, no privacy, no privacy.

a reply to: interupt42

You made me leave this thread with a smile. Thanks.

How do people deal with this world with no humor?

Peace
Steve

originally posted by: greencmp
Actually, what bothers me is the that the situation is the exact opposite of what you suggest, extraordinarily legal.

You misunderstood. If the fact sheet summary is different than the actual rules, that would be extraordinarily illegal.

a reply to: stosh64

So you agree with SO its the best tasting piece of # we have. I can accept that.

Absolutely, it was the lesser and smaller T[]rd of the bunch.

The ideal solution would have been for the Telecom to have continued to agree to keep net neutrality principles in place. However do to the lack of competition in the market place they decided to strong arm the internet market place and their customers and remove it despite the destruction of the internet.

They were to hungry and they couldn't keep their hands out of their cookie jar , so they started to try to get everyones cookie jar that touched the internet.

The telecom industry was warned about the FCC from the online tech industry several times for numerous years . Google even started their own ISP business to show the Telecom industry that they were fully committed to net neutrality principles because their business depends on it.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Actually, what bothers me is the that the situation is the exact opposite of what you suggest, extraordinarily legal.

You misunderstood. If the fact sheet summary is different than the actual rules, that would be extraordinarily illegal.

I don't see how, it would simply be a misleading explanation which we are all too familiar with.

What bothers me most about all of this is that the people who it impacts most have no say.


Why do we have congress? To sort out big decisions for us little people.
At least, that's what I was told growing up.

We should be voting on stuff like this- we the people. It's not like votes need to be carried on horseback to the whitehouse to be counted these days, this system of voting it antiquated and has proven that it doesn't work.


I'd like to vote on this myself- but not until I've been able to read the damn thing. How is the government allowed to make decisions on things without at least keeping us in the loop?
That's not what our country was supposed to be.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You make some very good points, and I will concede on many of them, except for the privacy part. Even today, there really is no expectation of privacy for what you post on the internet. And even when the government classifies internet as a Title II utility, I doubt that will change. And even if it does, there is nothing in the infrastructure of the internet that the government can change that will restrict my ability to utilize proxies, rootkits, and other means of obfuscating my internet activity. A person concerned with privacy on the internet will always have tools available to them to ensure that privacy, from using encrypted mail and chat, to proxies in order to hide true traffic, etc.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: interupt42

You genuinely made me lol. Thank you!

I agree with most others on this board that the American public is being used as collateral in a political game, but I side with what I see as the lesser of two evils.

Not me, I <g>'d because that's how old school I am!

I was BBS'ing in my early teens and I've been on the Internet since the pre-web days (IRC'ing since '92), before Trumpet Winsock opened the floodgates to the lamer horde. In that time I've witnessed the consolidation of the ISP market and dealt with some seriously draconian measures put in place by unregulated ISPs.

People should pay a little more heed to those of us who are IT professionals but when that's not enough, I remind them that I have seniority!

a reply to: lordcomac

What bothers me most about all of this is that the people who it impacts most have no say.

What makes you think you have any say in any of it?

Wouldn't you find it silly for the lobbying industry to spend billions on their lobbying efforts with their dream team of lawyers if they weren't making the legislation.

Who do you think actually sits down and creates the legislation in this country. Our beloved and trusted politicians or the lobbying industry that spends hundreds of millions a year with a team of lawyers standing by?

I will give you a hint when Pelosi said "We Have to Pass the Bill to Find Out What’s In It" she wasn't kidding. They are just robosigners.

There is a reason despite what political party is in office our gov't keeps getting bigger , you get less rights, and corporations always get the friendly end of legislation. If the gov't controls more it just means that the big Corp control more, remember they create the legislation. With big gov't they control both the market and the consumers.

This net neutrality was pure luck that two Oligopolies had conflicting business models and the one best in tune with the consumers interest won , for now.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: interupt42

You genuinely made me lol. Thank you!

I agree with most others on this board that the American public is being used as collateral in a political game, but I side with what I see as the lesser of two evils.

Not me, I 'd because that's how old school I am!

I was BBS'ing in my early teens and I've been on the Internet since the pre-web days (IRC'ing since '92), before Trumpet Winsock opened the floodgates to the lamer horde. In that time I've witnessed the consolidation of the ISP market and dealt with some seriously draconian measures put in place by unregulated ISPs.

People should pay a little more heed to those of us who are IT professionals but when that's not enough, I remind them that I have seniority!

It's uncommon to meet someone who hails from BEFORE the Eternal September! Oh those were the good old days, weren't they? I was but a youngin' at the time but some of my best memories of the internet were from that golden age.

a reply to: stosh64

Sorry I'm lazy and haven't put it together. I just ordered this history textbook that highlights much of what isn't talked about in grade school history I want to go over as well.

a reply to: lordcomac

Congress can overrule any of the FCC's regulations. They have this power over regulations established by any agency of the federal government.

Input: I don't understand net neutrality. Everything I have ever read about it has had a ridiculously partisan bias towards it one way or the other. Thanks for the obfuscation, govner.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The actual context of "police the Internet for abuses" is specific to ISP's throttling traffic, not regulating free speech.


Alarmist nonsense.

This is a classic example of the Hegelian Dialect being played-out before our eyes.

Problem, reaction, solution.

The internet is going to be ruined by the FCC, the same way they ruined radio and television.

We all fell for it.

Do you really think that--given our consumption of web-related content--if ISPs tried to take control of the Internet the way they were alluded to wanting to, that we would not have revolted?

AT&T would have gone out of business over night.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Nobody is going to censor American internet. If they did, the veritable army of neckbeards and perverts that would be knocking down the white house's door would innumerable.

I love this quote.

We give government more power to protect "the people" from greedy businesses, always stating that we can't have a free market because "the people" are too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to protest corporate abuse and need to be saved from themselves.

But, here you are implying that it's OK to give government more power because "the people" will actually revolt against government.

If intentions and obvious meanings held sway over the government, then the South would have peacefully separated in 1861 without a war.

Whatever the short term benefit from "Net Neutrality", it crosses the line of government access and makes the internet government property.

Like the income tax, originally 1% on the richest only, set the precedent that the government can take any amount of your income. Your income belongs to the government.

Soon the internet will belong to the government.

“Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
www.goodreads.com...

a reply to: grandmakdw

I brought this up in one of the other threads and you never answered.

Do you even have the slightest clue as to what Net Neutrality is or what the FCC's proposal means?

We'll start with the easy one: Define Net Neutrality