Welcome to your NEW Internet courtesy of the FCC. It contains only 400 pages of never-before-seen regulations. $#@&!!

I have only one other thing to say..."Here come de judge!" The lawsuits are about to flood Wash., DC.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... lity-rules

Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

97grad wrote: Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

I'm fine with the move to "politics." I'm self-certified as being crazy ; just crazy enough to be well versed on how this is being jammed down our throats by bureaucrats and high-rolling lobbyists w/o any citizen, judicial or congressional oversight. Can you say Netflix? It's purely Obamacare for the Internet. Mark my words, it's headed for the federal courtroom, and soon. All the while, our access to the 'Net is going to get slower and more expensive.

Of course, changes need to be made, but this stinks to the high heaven, both in what it mandates and in how it is being force-fed to users.

http://www.etherspeak.com/blog/net-neut ... -benefits/

I work in tech so I'm "well versed" also. And anyone who claims Verizon, AT&T and the like "love this" regulation, as the author of your linked article does, obviously hasn't been paying attention. Broadband speeds in this country can't get much worse. We invented the internet and now lag behind countries like Latvia in speeds. There is no competition, and the companies that have these de-facto monopolies are not regulated like monopolies. They have next to no incentive to upgrade their offerings.

Edit: As for being "force fed", I'm sure you know there were a record number of public comments submitted to the FCC on this matter, the vast majority of which were in favor.

What kind of weight does etherspeak.com carry? Zero?

Is this about Net Neutrality? - can someone explain the basics of this argument for me? --- thanks

WVAPPeer wrote:Is this about Net Neutrality? - can someone explain the basics of this argument for me? --- thanks

The way I understand it is that this will make your ISP be treated as if they are a utility (like the phone or electric co, etc.). Consumers will pay more in fees and taxes so the government can regulate the ISP to make sure everyone pays more to have equally crappy service.

WVAPPeer wrote:Is this about Net Neutrality? - can someone explain the basics of this argument for me? --- thanks

Today, everyone gets equal access to the internet. Some people believe that ISPs may one day, on their own, charge a premium for fast internet service, leaving "poor" people in the dust with slow internet.

So the FCC has taken it upon themselves to fix this problem (that hasn't occurred) by categorizing the internet the same way that telephone communications are classified. Basically this classifies the internet as a comm service and not data service which subjects the internet to the same regulations that were created before cellphones and cable TV.

The "tech" people who claim superiority of knowledge and understanding of this topic simply because they're in the "tech" world fail to grasp that you don't have to be an expert to understand that a federal, unelected body swiftly jamming these regulations home and taking control of one of the greatest inventions in our lifetime by subjecting them to ancient regulations is a stupid idea.

Also, whenever you hear a "tech" person complain about competition, consider this quote from an FCC commissioner:

There are a lot of markets where consumers want and could use more competition. That’s why since I’ve become the commissioner, I’ve focused on getting rid of some of the regulatory underbrush that stands in the way of some upstart competitors providing that alternative—streamlining local permit rules, getting more wireless infrastructure out there to give a mobile alternative, making sure we have enough spectrum in the commercial marketplace—but these kind of Title II common carrier regulations ironically will be completely counterproductive. It’s going to sweep a lot of these smaller providers away who simply don’t have the ability to comply with all these regulations, and moreover it’s going to deter investment in broadband networks, so ironically enough, this hypothetical problem that people worry about is going to become worse because of the lack of competition. - Ajit Pai

appchicago wrote:

If you're interested in what a liberal, pro-government entertainer thinks about net neutrality, please consider this slick, 13-minute piece of state propaganda.

Well gosh, doesn't everything improve with federal regulation? Come on guys, regulators have no self-interest- only ours!

Remember when we had a lot of poor people? Thank Jesus the Feds stepped in and fixed that. Eureka!!

There have already been cases of AT&T and Verizon slowing or blocking VPNs, VOIP services that they didn't sell and Netflix (or other streaming services that they didn't provide). It's clear where they intend to go. They have a monopoly on Internet service so there are no market forces to make them give a crap about their customers. I have zero faith in the government to regulate anything, but I trust these ISPs even less.

APPARJ wrote:

WVAPPeer wrote:Is this about Net Neutrality? - can someone explain the basics of this argument for me? --- thanks

Today, everyone gets equal access to the internet. Some people believe that ISPs may one day, on their own, charge a premium for fast internet service, leaving "poor" people in the dust with slow internet.

So the FCC has taken it upon themselves to fix this problem (that hasn't occurred) by categorizing the internet the same way that telephone communications are classified. Basically this classifies the internet as a comm service and not data service which subjects the internet to the same regulations that were created before cellphones and cable TV.

The "tech" people who claim superiority of knowledge and understanding of this topic simply because they're in the "tech" world fail to grasp that you don't have to be an expert to understand that a federal, unelected body swiftly jamming these regulations home and taking control of one of the greatest inventions in our lifetime by subjecting them to ancient regulations is a stupid idea.

Also, whenever you hear a "tech" person complain about competition, consider this quote from an FCC commissioner:

There are a lot of markets where consumers want and could use more competition. That’s why since I’ve become the commissioner, I’ve focused on getting rid of some of the regulatory underbrush that stands in the way of some upstart competitors providing that alternative—streamlining local permit rules, getting more wireless infrastructure out there to give a mobile alternative, making sure we have enough spectrum in the commercial marketplace—but these kind of Title II common carrier regulations ironically will be completely counterproductive. It’s going to sweep a lot of these smaller providers away who simply don’t have the ability to comply with all these regulations, and moreover it’s going to deter investment in broadband networks, so ironically enough, this hypothetical problem that people worry about is going to become worse because of the lack of competition. - Ajit Pai

Bingo. An unelected executive agency power grab under the guise of fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

In short, it's chapter 1 of a George Orwell novel. Most people don't realize it yet, but this is likely the single most totalitarian move in the history of American government.

appst89 wrote:There have already been cases of AT&T and Verizon slowing or blocking VPNs, VOIP services that they didn't sell and Netflix (or other streaming services that they didn't provide). It's clear where they intend to go. They have a monopoly on Internet service so there are no market forces to make them give a crap about their customers. I have zero faith in the government to regulate anything, but I trust these ISPs even less.

That's happening today? Right now? Or were they resolved?

Also, don't be so quick to say "no market forces" are available. There are countless regulations preventing other alternatives from even making it to market that you and I are unaware of currently.

The gov't gets in its own way far too often.

Net neutrality is the new global warming... "Give us power or suffer these terrible consequences."

APPARJ wrote:

appchicago wrote:

If you're interested in what a liberal, pro-government entertainer thinks about net neutrality, please consider this slick, 13-minute piece of state propaganda.

And here's what that liberal, pro-government rag Forbes has to say about Ajit Pai;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley ... eutrality/

97grad wrote: Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

APPARJ wrote:
Today, everyone gets equal access to the internet. Some people believe that ISPs may one day, on their own, charge a premium for fast internet service, leaving "poor" people in the dust with slow internet.

Actually, you're wrong. The idea is to prevent ISPs from extorting *businesses* that provide popular services like Netflix, Youtube, etc for extra money to put their traffic on a fast lane, possibly at the expense of a new startup that's trying to compete but can't afford to pay the ransom.

APPARJ wrote: So the FCC has taken it upon themselves to fix this problem (that hasn't occurred) by categorizing the internet the same way that telephone communications are classified. Basically this classifies the internet as a comm service and not data service which subjects the internet to the same regulations that were created before cellphones and cable TV.

It has occurred. See Netflix/FIOS.

APPARJ wrote: The "tech" people who claim superiority of knowledge and understanding of this topic simply because they're in the "tech" world fail to grasp that you don't have to be an expert to understand that a federal, unelected body swiftly jamming these regulations home and taking control of one of the greatest inventions in our lifetime by subjecting them to ancient regulations is a stupid idea.

Yeah, after all they certainly screwed up the telephone system. I wonder how many of us would not have had telephone service years ago in rural parts of NC if it weren't for similar regulations.

NewApp wrote:

97grad wrote: Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

97grad wrote:

NewApp wrote:

97grad wrote: Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

Have you ever known of a federal regulation that hasn't resulted in new taxes? Things change easily. Ever read your telephone bill? I have Windstream telephone and internet at $49.95 for life. None of the fees and taxes are directly related to the internet itself . By the time taxes and fees are added in, it is $64.00+.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I agree with Cline, therefore I must be wrong. I'm so confused.