-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FCC rules broadband internet service a public utility
- Thread starter Fury Sense
- Start date
- Status
BoboBrazil
Member
Republicans are more like give me your glasses and I'll share my extra large glass with you. I promise. Then once you give it to them they try to charge you for a drink.
Well I'm still not a fan of the rules per se as I think content prices will go up even tho access prices to said content will go down.
I hate the parrot talk tho.
Holy shit how much of America is brainwashed into thinking that Net Neutrality is bad? Just by actually reading the context you can see that these new laws stop big ISP's controlling who gets what speeds. On what Earth is that a bad thing?
Reading that Fox piece is just...what. Where did this "government is going to watch you" thing come from? Scaremongering?
Reading that Fox piece is just...what. Where did this "government is going to watch you" thing come from? Scaremongering?
That's what they're conditioned to do.
Within a day of Cruz making the obamacare internet line, my dad was already repeating it
Unknown One
Member
Yeah all the news sites have those stupid comments.
Edit: That Verizon comment. Didn't these guys made Netflix pay an extortion fee?
a simple lesson
Code:
If My.President.Obama.Policy.Support = Tenuously.positive Or _
My.President.Obama.Policy.Support = Tenuously.Negative Then
Republican.Policy.Support = Opposite.Obama
End IfI don't fuggin' know how to code
Poltergust
Member
eBay Huckster
Member
so i shared the vox post about this on my facebook earlier
and someone is now complaining that the FCC didn't make the regulation text available 30 days in advance
and someone is now complaining that the FCC didn't make the regulation text available 30 days in advance
Heh, close. If it was a white democrat would the uproar be as bad?
ryutaro's mama
Member
It wasn't this bad for Bill Clinton, no.
No one ever questioned the legitimacy of his birth or disrespected him during a State Of The Union,
It depends, can you play the Saxophone?
ryutaro's mama
Member
No one ever referred to Hillary, his wife, as his "baby mama".
benjipwns
Banned
More Presidents need to be heckled during the joke theater of the SOTU until they go back to just sending it as a document.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Funny no one did it till "B. Hussein Obama" became the President.
Bush started the ball rolling Baraka just picked it up~!
And nobody will give two shits about it if Ted "I was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father" Cruz decides to run for President.
You know, because reasons.
Net Neutrality - from the same entity that doesn't want you see a nipple on broadcast television.
After reading through the summary on the FCC's website, I've realized how truly scary this all is. Although they try to cushion it by specifically exempting broadband from some of the rules that now apply to it, we cannot expect it to stay that way forever. It never does with the government. They slowly worm their way into every nook and cranny they can until they have control. We are talking about the government here, and if there is one thing government has proven to be over the last, oh I don't know, 5000 years, it would be corrupt and inefficient. If people had any kind of forethought, they would have opposed this. Its just the start, people. The internet in its current form (that is, it being a part of our every day lives) has really only been around for about 10 years and they are already starting to regulate it. Now they just have the rest of eternity to continue regulating it. Have fun while you can folks, it'll will be very different in just a few years, and I'm not talking specifically about the effects of these net neutrality rules, but the endless laws and regulations that will inevitably pass in the coming years. They were just testing the waters here and I pity anyone who can't see these rules for what they are - a first step.
Besides that more philosophical argument, the rules are extremely unfair. My website that has maybe 400 hits per month should not be forced to be treated the same as, say, Youtube, which has over 1,000,000,000 users, by the broadband providers. And add to that the fact that, had they not passed this bill in 2010 and just approved these new rules, our communication through email and web-browsing would have been basically the same as they are now, maybe with some minor differences in which content providers you have access to on your specific service.
But, it passed. And, as usual, the corporations will continue to exist and the added costs of business will be passed on down to the consumer, as they always are when the government intervenes in the economy. Yawn. Wake me up when the government passes laws that are good for the people.
After reading through the summary on the FCC's website, I've realized how truly scary this all is. Although they try to cushion it by specifically exempting broadband from some of the rules that now apply to it, we cannot expect it to stay that way forever. It never does with the government. They slowly worm their way into every nook and cranny they can until they have control. We are talking about the government here, and if there is one thing government has proven to be over the last, oh I don't know, 5000 years, it would be corrupt and inefficient. If people had any kind of forethought, they would have opposed this. Its just the start, people. The internet in its current form (that is, it being a part of our every day lives) has really only been around for about 10 years and they are already starting to regulate it. Now they just have the rest of eternity to continue regulating it. Have fun while you can folks, it'll will be very different in just a few years, and I'm not talking specifically about the effects of these net neutrality rules, but the endless laws and regulations that will inevitably pass in the coming years. They were just testing the waters here and I pity anyone who can't see these rules for what they are - a first step.
Besides that more philosophical argument, the rules are extremely unfair. My website that has maybe 400 hits per month should not be forced to be treated the same as, say, Youtube, which has over 1,000,000,000 users, by the broadband providers. And add to that the fact that, had they not passed this bill in 2010 and just approved these new rules, our communication through email and web-browsing would have been basically the same as they are now, maybe with some minor differences in which content providers you have access to on your specific service.
But, it passed. And, as usual, the corporations will continue to exist and the added costs of business will be passed on down to the consumer, as they always are when the government intervenes in the economy. Yawn. Wake me up when the government passes laws that are good for the people.
benjipwns
Banned
The government is us.
Yeah, how dare the government regulate things, like food, water quality, air traffic, banks, ISPs, etc, worming its way into everything. Get a grip on reality.
And the whole nipple thing was already addressed. That's like blaming Obama for Bush's Iraq war because Obama is also a president.
You don't need to qualify it with an if statement.
Code:
Republican.Policy.Support = !Obama.Policy.Support
Antiochus
Member
An excellent counter argument against the current decision by the dissenting FCC commissioner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqnnsFiiIwY#t=239
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqnnsFiiIwY#t=239
BoboBrazil
Member
Turned it off when the goof said the US internet was better than Europe's system.
metalslimer
Member
Explain why you think this is an excellent counterargument like at all.
The weird, uniquely American perspective on government sometimes scares the shit out of me.
'We are talking about government here, and if there is one thing government has proven over the last 5000 years it would be corrupt and inefficient'.
I mean, do you understand how staggeringly insanely stupid that line is? The entirety of human history is people coming together to improve their lives, and democratic government is one of the greatest tools for that. Government isn't seperate from the people, it isn't some evil alien entity, government *is* the people.
Look at the last 150 years alone. The ban on slaving. Child poverty laws. Workers rights. Equalities. A man on the moon. The Internet you are posting this nonsense on right now. The entirety of western history has been the slow, incremental move to a stronger democratic government that better protects and serves its people, often against the wishes of nobles, Kings, companies, corporations and other vested interests. During which we have experienced some of the most profound and important changes in human history, and yet there's someone who believes that for the last 5000 years government has been evil. Do you have any idea how utterly, utterly wrong and ignorant you have to be to make that statement? How remarkably ridiculous it is?
America is the only country I know of where on one hand you can have incredible pride about the institutions of government, and the amazing steps forward things like the Constituion were, and then on the other hand condemn government as intrinsically foreign, evil and counter productive. By the same people.
Unknown One
Member
That's what I hate. Like it or not elected officials, you are part of the government. You only hate the government when you don't get shit your way.
benjipwns
Banned
It's interesting enough from him describing how the whole process of FCC regulation works.
The state is a corporation with vested interests. It claims a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence. It differs significantly from "the people" in that it can do things that would be legally and morally wrong for any individual or other "private" organization to do.
As a Brit I'm pleased with the decision because US ISPs have the power to affect all of us, but I'm terrified by the stupidity of opponents to it based purely on partisan feeling. Surely people can see - when all of the internets big players and competitors are campaigning in unison in favour of stopping ISPs from distorting competition on the net - we got the right result!
Really hope another democrat gets in in 2016 and I hope the lesson to republican media is that they need to treat the electorate with more respect and less scaremongering!
Really hope another democrat gets in in 2016 and I hope the lesson to republican media is that they need to treat the electorate with more respect and less scaremongering!
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You actually think that's a bad thing.
I'm sure in your libertarian paradise, there would be violence for all!
MisterNoisy
Member
This is the best thing the Federal government has done this millennium.
benjipwns
Banned
No, I don't think its claim is legitimate. No coercive violence is legitimate. The state is a unique corporation in that its only business is deploying coercive violence in favor of its interests; often against minorities.
this is why we need to go back to twice-yearly account approvals
M0nochromatic
Member
I've been telling friends and family about this, but I'm starting to feel as if I need to hand out pamphlets about how the basics work. "Oh, typical government, regulating something that was fine in the first place, now we'll all get slower speed, data caps, and prices will skyrocket because they forced the ISPs' hand." I try to ask them why they think that, and what they think of internet systems in other countries, but it amounts to nothing more then something they heard from somewhere they don't recall.
Well, we're on a path to improvement at least, let's hope (AND VOTE) that we stay on it.
Well, we're on a path to improvement at least, let's hope (AND VOTE) that we stay on it.
...hoo boy.
If you're this frightened and distrusting of the US government, why continue to live under it?
Good thing he's not in South Korea, they regulate the internet a lot more then this "will"
And they block porn.
benjipwns
Banned
The UK wound up blocking sex education sites and other stuff when they implemented their filter because it basically just searched for terms like "penis" and so on.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Americans having better, more competitive Internet access than Europeans. Yeah, that doesn't reek of lobbyist money. At all.
For the record, Tom Wheeler's heel turn is the best I've ever seen. I no longer travel to America as much as I used to, but I'm damn happy for the lot of you. This needed to happen. Now let's hope there are no nasty loopholes for the telecoms to sneak their usual BS.
Do you actually think that a neutral internet is a bad thing?
Or are you willing to accept less preferable outcome for purist philosophical reasons.
p.s.
I don't really accept the slippery slope argument here, blocking porn (or whatever) has nothing to do with net neutrality, if the government decided to do it they can regardless of what we do with this question, and many country had done it even though they have a neutral net.
benjipwns
Banned
Don't know how accurate this chart is but it's interesting to see that it's taken off more in the Western Hemisphere:
The Kingsbury Commitment was bullshit and I don't trust the government to not create a new version as larger ISPs come to dominate the market completely, as smaller ISPs are driven out by municipal ISPs, and eventually fold into one monopoly entity with protection from anyone setting up competing infrastructure. (As was done with AT&T.)
P.S. I was just responding to the porn thing because of how the UK screwed up their opt-out filter amusingly. I'm less concerned about censorship than some of the other libertarian/conservative posters in the thread.
I don't consider a public utility to be "neutral internet" anymore than I'd consider it "neutral power" or "neutral water" we already have enough problems with monopoly contracts granted by local governments effectively banning choices.
The Kingsbury Commitment was bullshit and I don't trust the government to not create a new version as larger ISPs come to dominate the market completely, as smaller ISPs are driven out by municipal ISPs, and eventually fold into one monopoly entity with protection from anyone setting up competing infrastructure. (As was done with AT&T.)
P.S. I was just responding to the porn thing because of how the UK screwed up their opt-out filter amusingly. I'm less concerned about censorship than some of the other libertarian/conservative posters in the thread.
Captain Tuttle
Member
Something about the Justice Department being less concerned about a monopoly if they're utilities.
Anyway, she's not the only one, apparently it's a common theory on Wall Street
- Status