Nyet Neutrality in Your Face?

Rumors now about a possible broadband tax coming from the FCC Commissioner.

How can it be?

Have we all been slapped in the face.

I don't know how true this is, but it is alarming.

Something seems to be hinging on a court decision soon.


FCC Commissioner Says Broadband Taxes Are Coming

When the FCC announced that it was going to regulate internet service providers as telecommunications companies, the agency was careful to assuage fears about regulatory overreach. The final rule took pains to assure us that the only purpose of a more heavily regulated internet was to enforce the principle of Net Neutrality, a workaround of a federal court’s decision that the agency was exceeding its authority.

A federal Net Neutrality mandate is bad policy on its own, but the further reaching regulations the FCC ultimately adopted were far worse. Recognizing this, Commissioner Tom Wheeler told us not to worry. The agency was going to use “forbearance,” meaning it had no plans to use the new powers it had granted itself.

Now, surprise surprise, those promises are being revealed to be as empty as AMTRAK train, as Commissioner Ajit Pai has revealed that the agency is planning a hefty broadband tax hike in the near future.

What the Devil

a reply to: xuenchen

I'd like everyone who said that this wouldn't happen with the advent of net neutrality to get on here and apologize.

NOW.

Pathetic.

I truly hope this story is false.

I want it to be fake.

I want to trust my government.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

I'd like everyone who said that this wouldn't happen with the advent of net neutrality to get on here and apologize.

NOW.

Pathetic.

Net neutrality had nothing to do with taxes it had to do with service providers gouging their customers for faster service. So no apology needed.

a reply to: xuenchen

The internet is already taxed, always has been.

We can and will just create another internet, watch.

Network ourselves together and stick it to the man.

It can and will happen, Internet 2.0 - Free from all BS , we seem to only adapt when faced with a crisis.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

I'd like everyone who said that this wouldn't happen with the advent of net neutrality to get on here and apologize.

NOW.

Pathetic.

I would like you to go back to threads and point out where anyone was ever arguing about taxes.

NOW.

a reply to: xuenchen

I trust my government the same as I'd trust a hooker on meth with my PIN number and ATM card.

Actually, when I said "government" and "hooker on meth" I was being redundant.

Apologies.

a reply to: xuenchen

If you like your ISP, you can kee.... ah screw it, I'm tired of joking about this joke of a government. I won't even thank Obama, because any additional taxes, regulations, or intrusions which arise from this are squarely the fault of the very vocal supporters who swore "Net neutrality MUST happen" and completely ignored or marginalized the multitude of reports outlining all the reasons it shouldn't have been passed and the FCC shouldn't have been granted authority.



If you liked your country, we'll take your country and the new USA will screw you until you love it.

. . . . . aaaaaand here are the excuses.

"We didn't know"
"We didn't say taxes"
"We just wanted net neutrality"

Pathetic.

a reply to: beezzer

Is pointing out that the taxes had nothing to do with net neutrality really an excuse?


But yes we should have changed the way the internet works and put it in the hands of the private companies to dictate who can access it at what speeds.

That doesn't sound restrictive at all.

a reply to: beezzer

The corporations had plans to do a lot worse than tax the internet, they were going to break it down into something similar to cable television and charge for each set of websites visited. There were also plans in the works to slow down traffic at sites that didn't pay the extortion tax to a crawl to make those websites unviable.

Obama believes the adoption of these Depression-era rules are the best way to preserve a "free and open" Internet that gives everyone in the U.S. the same access to any website hosting legal content, including video, music, photos, social networks, email, and maps.

Adopting these rules would empower the U.S. government to prevent powerful online service providers such as Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable from controlling Internet traffic in a way that suits their own financial interests. This premise assumes the service providers, if left unchecked, will create a two-tier system that funnels Internet traffic into fast and slow lanes. Only the richest companies will be able to pay the extra tolls to ensure their online content is accessible through these fast lanes, according to this hypothesis.

Source

I think net neutrality did exactly what it was supposed to do, and I'm happy. No need to apologize. I would rather be taxed than have a broken internet.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

I'd like everyone who said that this wouldn't happen with the advent of net neutrality to get on here and apologize.

NOW.

Pathetic.

I'm sorry that you thought Net Neutrality was about taxation. The numerous threads outlining what Net Neutrality is, why it was needed, and what would happen if we had not done so must not have been clear and concise enough.

Net Neutrality is not about taxation, it's about the ability to give specific packets of data priority over other packets of data. What the ISP's wanted to do is create a so called fast lane where those who paid more would have their data processed first. On the user end this doesn't matter much, we already have different speed tiers (which are really about maximum throughput, the data all travels at the same speed over the wires). On the content provider end is where Net Neutrality really comes into play. It would allow ISP's to slow speeds to websites who don't pay an additional fee. This would allow ISP's to chop the internet up into blocks like cable television where you pay for the websites you want.

To put it in non digital terms, the network is a road, and the data that travels over that road is the cars and their passengers. Net Neutrality would be like giving the Department of Transportation the ability to dictate how much McDonalds can charge for a burger because they have a drive thru.

If a tax happens, that tax is completely independent of a government agency being in control. Just look at how many private industries out there have a tax on their products.

a reply to: xuenchena reply to: xuenchen

It will let them know how strong their programming is. If you are ready to dip into the savings to hold onto your cage, they win.

My cell phone died over a year ago, one month after the warranty was up. Verizon played hard ball, I dumped my phone and have not looked back. My laptop is dying, when it's gone, it's gone, no replacement. I have my brother's crappy hand me down tablet. When he stops throwing out his gadgets, I am done. Unless they start charging for the internet as a utility, then it is over, and goodnight. I refuse to pay for it.

I do not get, what is it with you, Americans... You are being exploited by different ISP companies heavily. Round here (Northern Europe), I can get 400 mbit internet for 30 bucks a month, while you have to pay times that amount for much worse internet.

And now, when it comes to internet neutrality (which has been in effect in EU pretty much since the beginning of internet, despite the official definition coming later) you want it to not happen to create a situation where ISP services can charge even more for near-to-inexistent internet speeds...

Net neutrality is about creating a situation where every site is treated the same. even if Netflix was willing to pay the ISP providing billion a year, their site does not run faster for the user than any random personal site created for 1 dollars a month by some grandfather or teenager. Id personally prefer that if I created a site right now, it would run as fast as google for any person using that site whatever they are willing to pay for, rather than my site would take seconds longer to load to google for users just because google is willing to pay millions if not billions a year to make their site run faster...

a reply to: Cabin

You may be correct and if it plays out that way here, I will stand corrected.

American businesses are known to eat their young. It is likely to be just another fee added to what you are already paying. Like all other utility labeled bills in America, the added fees are usely greater than the actual cost of the utility. It doesn't just stop at utilities. The average mortgage payment is comprised of so many mandatory add ons that they can equal the amount of your principle.

Americans are a bitch and complain, but go with the flow crowd. Usually, the only time you will see a few of them actually appear to be proactive, is when it is something that is communally accepted, and it will get them Facebook creds.

a reply to: xuenchen


Did anyone with at least two functioning brain cells believe that new regulations would not lead to either new taxes or higher service prices?

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, we all knew this was one of the many consequences to expect.

Frankly, it is nearly insignificant compared to what could come about now that our government potentially has regulatory control over the content and availability of our primary means of communication.

If this was the 19th century, this would be a library tax.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, we all knew this was one of the many consequences to expect.

Frankly, it is nearly insignificant compared to what could come about now that our government potentially has regulatory control over the content and availability of our primary means of communication.

If this was the 19th century, this would be a library tax.

Our government has never failed to remove the lint from our pockets, the moment they think they have something we want so badly, we are willing to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to, as long as we get what we want. This has never fared well for us, but we keep on repeating the same mistakes, and they keep on raping us and making us pay for the privilege.

I enjoy my time on the internet, and I admit I probably spend more time here than is healthy, but circumstances provide me a legitimate excuse, at least in my mind. I'm afraid this old broad is on a tight budget, and there just isn't anything on the internet I can't live without. In fact, I lived without the internet over 50 years longer than I have lived with it, and I did just fine. I will have to say no to the internet, just like I said no to paid TV and to a cell phone, if it is going to cost me one cent more.

I guess I am lucky enough to be of the age where I can get away with dropping away from the fold. I am sure quite a few, on noticing my departure, will hope I went for the long walk. Not my style. I am more of the quiet, clandestine, observer type. People watching can be quite entertaining sometimes, albeit, also sometimes very, very, sad.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: beezzer

The corporations had plans to do a lot worse than tax the internet, they were going to break it down into something similar to cable television and charge for each set of websites visited. There were also plans in the works to slow down traffic at sites that didn't pay the extortion tax to a crawl to make those websites unviable.

Obama believes the adoption of these Depression-era rules are the best way to preserve a "free and open" Internet that gives everyone in the U.S. the same access to any website hosting legal content, including video, music, photos, social networks, email, and maps.

Adopting these rules would empower the U.S. government to prevent powerful online service providers such as Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable from controlling Internet traffic in a way that suits their own financial interests. This premise assumes the service providers, if left unchecked, will create a two-tier system that funnels Internet traffic into fast and slow lanes. Only the richest companies will be able to pay the extra tolls to ensure their online content is accessible through these fast lanes, according to this hypothesis.

Source

I think net neutrality did exactly what it was supposed to do, and I'm happy. No need to apologize. I would rather be taxed than have a broken internet.

The FCC is going to do the same thing eventually so we were screwed either way. Its only a matter of time till the FCC dictates sites as being legal or not and anything not stamped good to government is banned.