FCC internet control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BreeLake -> FCC internet control (5/13/2010 12:09:15 PM)

I don't normally get political online however I am sick and tired of BIG Government taking our freedoms away.



"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski did their dirty work this week by announcing that he plans to reclassify broadband lines so his agency can regulate them under rules that were written for Ma Bell in the 1930s. This means subjecting the Internet to new political supervision—from the federal government and 50 state public utility commissions. The goal is to put one more industry under Washington's political thumb.

"Even Bill Clinton's FCC, under Chairman Bill Kennard, had refused to go this far. 'Classifying Internet access as telecommunication services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet,' said Mr. Kennard in a 1998 speech. 'We recognized the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it.' ...

"Autos, health care, energy, Wall Street and now telecom. Is there any American industry this Administration doesn't want to run?"


Sign the petition to stop congress from allowing this to happen.


http://nointernettakeover.com/



Real0ne -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 12:17:17 PM)



hey cant say I have not tried to inform these people about that noose tightening around their neck, but they are perfectly content with a beer, remote and a chat board.

They are also attacking web sites that have the information that teaches how to bail out and many have already gone underground.



mnottertail -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 12:24:24 PM)

alright!!!!!!!!!!! Its about time those fuckin FCC pussies got down on ISPs!!!!!!!!



captainblack -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 1:07:45 PM)

Let me provide you with some clues......Those of us that have been on the internet, and helped build it since about 1977 are in favor of the FCC regulating the internet. We have been pushing for regulation to preserve the freedom of the internet.

When the internet started one could send any traffic one wanted from one host on the internet to another with no restriction. Now with the chock points of the internet controlled by a few big companies it is near impossible for most citizens to have a clear and unfettered internet connection. I would bet that your ISP blocks ports and throttles certain types of internet traffic. Most of the big boys do at this point. That is why only a very few of us have web servers and mail servers at our homes. In most cases the ISP just blocks the traffic. They also tend to block or slow up any traffic they feel competes with so called "premium services" that they offer such as web hosting, email, on demand video.

If the internet companies are not classified as common carriers and required to carry any traffic that meets the TCP/IP standards then in very short order there will be no more free and open internet as those long in the tooth know it. The inovation that gave us things like web servers, skype, video chat, and so much more will be no more because the transport mechanism that the it requires will not be there.

While I can not say the FCC has all the clues it needs to do the job of protecting the internet it is much better they try with the guidance of educated informed members of the public, than if we allow the communications cartel to continue to block, slow, and destroy the open standards of the internet.

The above is your official clue. Now that you have been given a clue do some real research on the matter, educate yourself on internet protocals, and how the internet was designed to work, then report back to us.

CB



Musicmystery -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 1:27:10 PM)

black,

THANK YOU for sharing that information. It was news to me. I appreciate it!




Real0ne -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 3:46:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: captainblack

Let me provide you with some clues......Those of us that have been on the internet, and helped build it since about 1977 are in favor of the FCC regulating the internet. We have been pushing for regulation to preserve the freedom of the internet.

When the internet started one could send any traffic one wanted from one host on the internet to another with no restriction. Now with the chock points of the internet controlled by a few big companies it is near impossible for most citizens to have a clear and unfettered internet connection. I would bet that your ISP blocks ports and throttles certain types of internet traffic. Most of the big boys do at this point. That is why only a very few of us have web servers and mail servers at our homes. In most cases the ISP just blocks the traffic. They also tend to block or slow up any traffic they feel competes with so called "premium services" that they offer such as web hosting, email, on demand video.

If the internet companies are not classified as common carriers and required to carry any traffic that meets the TCP/IP standards then in very short order there will be no more free and open internet as those long in the tooth know it. The inovation that gave us things like web servers, skype, video chat, and so much more will be no more because the transport mechanism that the it requires will not be there.

While I can not say the FCC has all the clues it needs to do the job of protecting the internet it is much better they try with the guidance of educated informed members of the public, than if we allow the communications cartel to continue to block, slow, and destroy the open standards of the internet.

The above is your official clue. Now that you have been given a clue do some real research on the matter, educate yourself on internet protocals, and how the internet was designed to work, then report back to us.

CB


so then the "real" issue isnt regulating the internet as the fcc was stating in the OP or reclassify it but to regulate the suppliers to insure no infringement.

So people will accept the wrong definition and by accepting the wrong definition for the right cause give the goob carte blanche control over the regulating the internet rather than the supplier and end it right there.



DomKen -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 5:41:11 PM)

Actually as usual RO is wrong. Regulating ISP's as common carriers under telecom law is what is neeed amnd what has been needed for some time.



Termyn8or -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 7:25:39 PM)

Hmmmm, a declaration that someone is wrong followed by only an opinion ? You feeling alright ?

The internet is one of the very last vestiges of actual market forces at work. It will figure itself out. To let the government do it leaves it open for abuse, but they would never do that now would they ? Look at Micheal Powell's actions at the FCC.

They are already selling levels of speeds, such as the three tiers of DSL around here. I got second tier and have never used up all my bandwidth. If you need more you pay for it. In fact, there was a noise made not too long ago about ISPs charging by the MB. Theoretically this would allow nice super high speed to those who need it intermittently to save a few bucks. Those who want to do their own hosting would pay more. But then ISPs are not in business to lose money. Any major moves those companies make are to that end. To do otherwise is not only not in their best interests, but those of the stockholders' as well. Those in charge could be accused of conflict of interest and come under quite a bit of scrutiny. Squeezing the last dollar possible from the consumer is only moderated by it's effect on public relations and customer retention.

Some minor modifications to truth in advertising laws should suffice.

T



Real0ne -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 7:59:51 PM)




well ken has a one color world; grey.

doesnt deal with distinctions very well.  Nothing like repeating what I said claiming I am wrong and completely missing the distinction. 



DomKen -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 9:21:58 PM)

Since you both have no clue what is being discussed I wish you'd both do some basic research before making more grand pronouncements.



Real0ne -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 9:30:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Since you both have no clue what is being discussed I wish you'd both do some basic research before making more grand pronouncements.



I based what I said on the words used in the OP.

If they were incorrectly stated, well I suppose that means that I really dont care.



Termyn8or -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 10:49:01 PM)

C'mon Real, you give up too easily.

A big part of the purported  issue is ISPs throttling bandwidth to certain sites or domains to their liking. But Ken trusts the government to keep this to the ad hoc purpose.

Consider what I would consider a successful ad for an end user ISP :

'Maximum speed to ALL internet sites everywhere, no throttling. The speed is based solely on your venue and it's traffic level. No site is blocked or hindered.'

Of course the end user ISP would have to make the proper agreements with it's providers. This would be public information due to enhanced truth in advertising laws. The ISPs that do this would enjoy a marketing advantage, at least to customers who care about it.

If the government handles this in short time we would probably see something like the ATT debacle. In the end all that happened was that a bunch of lawyers got rich, and guess who paid them all.

Sounds ironic, but I am not all that abject to some regulation, I just don't want our government to do it. They too are in business to take money. Don't want to wear out that printing press too much now y'know. So undoubtedly there will be a tax applied, and an ISP operates within commerce so would have no choice but to comply or fight, which would cost just as much even if they won. Guess who pays the lawyers then.

I see it as a lose lose.

T



DomKen -> RE: FCC internet control (5/13/2010 11:12:10 PM)

Do you even know what "common carrier" means?



Termyn8or -> RE: FCC internet control (5/14/2010 1:17:32 AM)

Sure do, but it really means alot of things, from the pizza delivery guy to the electric company to truck and cab companies and yet more not coming to mind right now. In this context it obviously means ISPs.

For a quick example we have a curve on the highway named dead man's curve. Now that the trucking companies have been regulated halfway out of business that did nothing to prevent the overturned semis on dead man's curve. What it did was to supply a source of revenue and appear to fix the problem. The ridiculous regulations imposed on the industry have increased the overhead of almost everything you buy, yet the trucks still overturn. When you hire a common carrier to haul your goods you don't do it for the insurance money, if you have a decent market and the load doesn't get there, well that's not what you paid them for. The insurance money does not satisfy your customer. Market forces would prevail without such draconian measures. But people are careless.

Utilities, once they know they have a monopoly tend to get greedy. Look at phones, I have one that cost $50 to pay for unlimited local and continental for five years.

Back to the point. Things like transportation and utilities can kill people under the right circumstances, but that is not likely on the internet.

So exactly what problem do YOU see that this will solve ? My point here is maybe I just don't see it. Enlighten me.

The other thing, is that the FCC has a specific purpose and that used to be the allocation of the airwaves. They had nothing to do with much else. You can't have two stations on the same frequency in the same city. These stations could be right at state lines, so it becomes a federal case. The standardization of the telephone system is also acceptable, because you can't have placing a phone call to certain locations damage the equipment. There needs to be standardization.

Even when the FCC limited the old regular modems to 56K, that was because of population density and the ability to keep the signals seperated. You could get more than 56K in some cases by telling the modem (if it has international drivers) that you are in Brazil for example. The system is different there and can handle more speed. But if everone did that it would probably make a mess. But the rest is pretty much emergent technology. They didn't have to tell Alexander Graham Bell how to build his phones, nor could they presume to.

So exactly what is impelling them to spend tax dollars to regulate going to accomplish ? You (et alii) claim that this measure is justified, how so ? What are these heinous problems ?

And no matter how good your answer, it will take quite a bit to convince me that there are not other insidious reasons.

T



pahunkboy -> RE: FCC internet control (5/14/2010 7:46:38 AM)

This does not line up with what other places for net neutrality are saying.


Beware- it could be fake.



pahunkboy -> RE: FCC internet control (5/14/2010 11:08:50 AM)


Internet Showdown: Conservatives v. Justice ScaliaOn one side of the reclassification debate you have the intellectual anchor of the Supreme Court's conservative wing, an FCC with three Democratic commissioners and an FCC general counsel who has served during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. On the other, you have AT&T, Verizon and the people who compared health care reform to the Holocaust. Who do you think is more likely to offer the right legal interpretations and policy judgments?Aparna Sridhar, Huffington Post



Phony Grassroots Group Launches Smear Campaign Against FCC Action to Preserve Open InternetAn outfit called Americans for Prosperity has announced the launch of a $1.4 million advertising campaign attacking FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's recently announced steps to preserve neutrality on the Internet. The message of the well-funded ad campaign is that the government wants to "take over" the Internet. This is a flat-out lie.Jay Stanley, ACLU


Ad Campaign Seeks to Derail Net Plan


A $1.4 million TV advertising blitz has been launched across the United States in an attempt to derail efforts to increase regulation of broadband services.Maggie Shiels, BBC News




FCC's 'Third Way' Plan Will Enable Broadband AdoptionBroadband reclassification not only makes sense, but is how Congress intended for broadband to be treated. In order for the FCC to implement key elements of the National Broadband Plan, it must move forward with its plans to bring the regulatory framework back in harmony with the law.Moira Vahey, Free Pres





Clyburn Expresses Support for Title IIFCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn is an open Internet champion. She understands the importance of a neutral Net for consumers, for businesses and for innovation, and she didn't hold back from expressing her support for reclassifying broadband during a recent speech.Misty Perez Treudson, SavetheInternet.comNew Bill Demands 'Neutral Net Neutrality,' Hamstrings FCCIn an effort to make Network Neutrality impossible for the FCC temperament, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced a new bill that would require "neutral Network Neutrality." And no, that's not a typo.Nate Anderson, Ars Technica


][link=http://free.convio.net/site/R?i=_safhfPLnmgKjKyiFTNFoQ..]Republican Lawmaker: Gov't Broadband Programs Aren't NeededGovernment programs to help pay for broadband deployment and to subsidize its cost for customers aren't needed, in part because many residents of rural areas don't want broadband, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said. Clearly, Rep. Barton has no understanding of the broadband needs of those living in rural communities.Grant Gross, IDG News


Hoyle to Municipal Broadband: Drop DeadState legislator David Hoyle unveiled a bill that if passed, would severely restrict North Carolina municipalities attempting to build their own broadband networks. The bill could kill efforts by communities to sidestep ISPs, such as AT&T and Time Warner Cable, and build their own networks, often at higher connection speeds than those offered by the private interests.Rebekah L. Cowell, Independent Weekly



DomKen -> RE: FCC internet control (5/14/2010 12:38:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Sure do, but it really means alot of things, from the pizza delivery guy to the electric company to truck and cab companies and yet more not coming to mind right now. In this context it obviously means ISPs.

That's actually the point which proves you are simply blowing smoke. Why is anyone's guess.

At present ISP's are not classified as common carriers which i how they can get away with bandwidth throttling based on port or ip address. The FCC proposal is to finally classify ISP's as common carriers which would forbid the ISP's from favoring any traffic over any other.



Silence8 -> RE: FCC internet control (5/14/2010 8:24:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: captainblack

Let me provide you with some clues......Those of us that have been on the internet, and helped build it since about 1977 are in favor of the FCC regulating the internet. We have been pushing for regulation to preserve the freedom of the internet.

When the internet started one could send any traffic one wanted from one host on the internet to another with no restriction. Now with the chock points of the internet controlled by a few big companies it is near impossible for most citizens to have a clear and unfettered internet connection. I would bet that your ISP blocks ports and throttles certain types of internet traffic. Most of the big boys do at this point. That is why only a very few of us have web servers and mail servers at our homes. In most cases the ISP just blocks the traffic. They also tend to block or slow up any traffic they feel competes with so called "premium services" that they offer such as web hosting, email, on demand video.

If the internet companies are not classified as common carriers and required to carry any traffic that meets the TCP/IP standards then in very short order there will be no more free and open internet as those long in the tooth know it. The inovation that gave us things like web servers, skype, video chat, and so much more will be no more because the transport mechanism that the it requires will not be there.

While I can not say the FCC has all the clues it needs to do the job of protecting the internet it is much better they try with the guidance of educated informed members of the public, than if we allow the communications cartel to continue to block, slow, and destroy the open standards of the internet.

The above is your official clue. Now that you have been given a clue do some real research on the matter, educate yourself on internet protocals, and how the internet was designed to work, then report back to us.

CB


This seems about right, based on what I've read, mostly emails from FreePress.net or savetheinternet.com

I find it highly suspicious that this is the OP's first post.... bot??????



vincentML -> RE: FCC internet control (5/15/2010 4:21:50 PM)

The ISPs are near monopolies by way of exclusive deals negotiated with communities. There is very little local competition. In my area we have a choice of only two.

Comcast recently won a court case upholding its right to block file sharing sites. Now, you may say that file sharing is an abomination and should be blocked. But basically what happened here is that the music and film industries gave up on suing college kids and grandmothers for free downloads and pressured the ISPs to act as hall monitor.

Consequently, the ISPs now are free to sell their own content and advertising with much less competition is how I see it. Those of you who defend the ISPs might wish to think twice about having near monopolies who peddle their own content as gateway censors.



Termyn8or -> RE: FCC internet control (5/16/2010 3:17:23 AM)

"Those of you who defend the ISPs might wish to think twice "

Absolutely agreed. But the fact is that you can change ISPs, you can't change governments. Wherever the pressure comes from, the consumers can surely offer an equal or greater pressure via the pocketbook. Once there is government regulation involved, all possible avenues of that are defeated before they even start.

If people were aware enough of this I think it would fix itself. Think of 1,000s of calls per day to an ISP demanding FULL access, which is what they thought they were paying for. If it is the ISP's policy, consumer opinion, or even flight to a competitor speaks louder than any pressure the RIAA or MPAA coud impose, simply because without customers they would not be an ISP. But government regulation would moot, or mute that word that our money could talk. So the bullshit would walk.

T



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625