FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility

[thekev]

Of course.

Think... And it'll become obvious to you.

It'll also present you with one more opportunity to post another cutesy image to the delight of the juvenile crowd

Go back and read your previous post. If you came across something written like that, would you type a serious response?

 

[nt5672]

Though now on a serious note, I've read the rules, and it'd take ignoring them almost entirely to abuse them to the extent you're claiming.

Where? The rules have not been published even thought Obama promised the most transparent government ever 6 years ago.

 

[cmwade77]

Really, this is a very good thing, by classifying Internet as a public utility, not only can the FCC ban these companies from throttling speeds. They can also do other things, such as force them to provide high speed data to "rural areas" that currently can't get anything above 1.5 Mbps down and under 1 Mbps up (when they are lucky).

Programs can now be setup for those that can't afford the internet, which given how connected we are is almost as essential as electricity now.

Additionally, this can help clear the way for new delivery methods that have worked very well in other countries, such as delivering data over the electric lines, which has been hampered by various regulations.

 

[nt5672]

What are you seeing that I'm not?

Reality, based on our history in the last few decades and world history since we started keeping records.

 

[bradl]

You do whatever you like, short of moral outrage (ex.: ISIS should be eviscerated immediately for what it's doing) or attacking our friends (ex.: invade Israel, we'll pound you until you leave).

If you're going to listen to and respect the USA, it's because we've earned your attention and respect, not because we're compelling you to.
Just like we US citizens view our government: consent of the governed, not compulsion of the oppressed.

Invading a country based on lies (Cuba, Grenada, Iraq), torturing those captured (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib), and invading privacy without due process (NSA, Patriot Act, Warrantless wiretapping) sure as hell isn't a way to earn respect. And for attention; we certainly got it, and all in the negative.

I would suggest taking a trip out of the country and get an opinion of the USA from those who do not live in it. You will find it to be a hell of a lot different than you've been spoonfed and left drunk by the Kool-Aid.

BL.

 

[samiwas]

There's over 300 pages of rules.
You haven't read a single one of them.
YOU can't understand how beneficial, or not, it is because YOU HAVEN'T READ IT.
AFAIK, the text is still secret. Can't find it anywhere.
You've defined "net neutrality" as you like, and berate anyone whose definition thereof differs negatively from yours.
Except you, like the rest of us, really have no idea what's in those >300 pages.

Note that the head of the FCC was adamantly opposed to these rules - and HE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE.

According to every link i've read, the actual rules are a whopping EIGHT pages long, with more than 300 pages of notes of record from the public.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

The Federal Communications Commission approved the policy known as net neutrality by a 3-2 vote at its Thursday meeting, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the policy will ensure "that no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/fcc-net-neutrality_n_6433510.html

WASHINGTON/LAS VEGAS, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The top U.S. communications regulator on Wednesday endorsed the regulatory standard applied to telephone companies in remarks seen as the strongest indication yet that he planned to side with President Barack Obama on strict "net neutrality" rules.

Comments by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas appeared to show he leaned toward regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) more strictly under Title II of the U.S. communications law, as Obama has suggested.

Doesn't sound like he's very opposed. Can you source his "adamant opposition"?

 

[nt5672]

I have just one question for ALL you anti government people on this forum.

If your are talking about me, then I am not anti-government. I am anti-corruption and pro-government in the terms of our founding fathers.

What we have today is exactly what our founding fathers were most concerned about. One cannot possibly understand how screwed up our government is today, until they read what our founding fathers were most concerned about. That is a government that is successfully able to buy votes by stealing from some and giving to others in return for votes while promising things they have no intention of delivering.

It has led to poverty and hardship for regular people every place this process has played out.

 

[powers74]

Give me the ability to have multiple cable providers vying for my business and offering 100 Mbps up and down for $50-$75/month and I will be satisfied. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like this move by the FCC does anything to increase meaningful competition.

And AT&T Uverse is anything but meaningful competition for the cable companies. 6 Mbps down is pathetic in 2015 and that's the fastest "high speed" service AT&T offers at my home, which is 40 minutes from downtown Atlanta. Oh, but it's only $19.95/month for the first 12 months (and then it goes up to $52.00/month). I don't know how they can offer 6 Mbps down for $52.00/month with a straight face.

Move a few minutes further north, the fiber is great

 

[Renzatic]

Reality, based on our history in the last few decades and world history since we started keeping records.

You mean like the last time ISPs were Title II'd? Yeah, that was a nightmare straight out of a Phillip K. Dick novel.

----------

You have? where are they?
I don't mean a summary/paraphrase/whatever, I mean the actual 300+ pages kept secret up to and past the vote. I'm looking for them, and haven't found 'em anywhere.

I've been looking for them myself. All I know is that the extra pages are a detailed explanation of the rules, but don't add anything additional specifically. The summary is the law, which is the major point of concern.

Yeah. I know. That's what they tell us. But hell, they don't need to add anything extra if they intend on spying on us. The Patriot Act already grants the government all the access and control it could ever possibly need. If you want to rail against something, rail against that, not this little industry regulation matter.

Everything isn't always a conspiracy.

 

[nt5672]

Invading a country based on lies (Cuba, Grenada, Iraq), torturing those captured (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib), and invading privacy without due process (NSA, Patriot Act, Warrantless wiretapping) sure as hell isn't a way to earn respect. And for attention; we certainly got it, and all in the negative.

Exactly, yet lets just put our head in the sand and trust the FCC because they promised to do the right thing (whatever that is) as defined in the 300+ pages, they are too scared to let anyone see right now, least their real intentions become known while the subject is a hot topic and there is a chance to stop the rules.

The government needs to be judged by what they do, not what they say. Everything about how these regulations were approved just says its another ObamaCare fiasco. No public review of the actual rules before adoption, just a public propaganda statement that most are hailing as saving the internet. At least until the truth comes out 2 or 3 years from now.

 

[bradl]

Exactly, yet lets just put our head in the sand and trust the FCC because they promised to do the right thing (whatever that is) as defined in the 300+ pages, they are too scared to let anyone see right now, least their real intentions become known while the subject is a hot topic and there is a chance to stop the rules.

The government needs to be judged by what they do, not what they say. Everything about how these regulations were approved just says its another ObamaCare fiasco. No public review of the actual rules before adoption, just a public propaganda statement that most are hailing as saving the internet. At least until the truth comes out 2 or 3 years from now.

You totally miss the point. We've done a hell of a lot worse that has garnered us disdain and animosity that you perceive as "attention and respect". This comes from someone who has not viewed or seen their home country from outside of it. Before you ask: I have. I've seen how people live better outside of the US. Does that mean that I don't like our country? no. But having that perspective gives me insight into how we can make this place better, instead of doing what you are saying and sweeping it under the rug and blame it on the government with the same political talking point blather we've heard from the likes of Breitbart, Fox, Limbaugh, and others.

But I digress. If you are so against the FCC's ruling, then you should put the proverbial money where your mouth is, and stop supporting those that do support it; No apple products. No Microsoft products. No Linux products. Safari? gone. Firefox? Gone. Chrome? Gone. If you are so hellbent on how you perceive things are going to be, then you can always stop using the internet for any and all day-to-day activities you have.

We've been waiting for the past 6 years for the Conservatives to say "ha, ha, told you so!" on when this country was going to turn into a huge socialist state, and it hasn't happened yet. I seriously doubt it will with this latest version of Chicken Little.

BL.

 

[Renzatic]

Exactly, yet lets just put our head in the sand and trust the FCC because they promised to do the right thing (whatever that is) as defined in the 300+ pages, they are too scared to let anyone see right now, least their real intentions become known while the subject is a hot topic and there is a chance to stop the rules.

Let's look at this from less of a CHEMTRAILS point of view, and more of a realistic one.

The FCC is well aware that the ISPs are going to attempt to sue the hell out of them over this. Wheeler stated as much earlier on, before the new Title II reclassification went into effect. Sure enough, he was right. They started gearing up for it the very day the law went into effect. He said that they need to make damn sure they don't accidentally forget something they'll end up hanging themselves with, so after they published the 5 pages that make up the law, they published 300 extra pages detailing everything that can possibly be detailed to prevent anything from being used against them by the ISPs when it ends up in court later.

Now let's think logically for a second. It's a rule that reregulates ISPs under Title II, which the ISPs obviously don't appreciate. Do you really think they're going to sneak more Patriot Act BS into something like that? You'd have the CEO of AT&T screaming from the top of the hills over it. It'd make for great publicity for their side of the argument.

"You don't want this, American People! THEY'RE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OLOL! LET US THROTTLE NETFLIX FOR MONEYS!"

 

[nt5672]

And AT&T Uverse is anything but meaningful competition for the cable companies. 6 Mbps down is pathetic in 2015 and that's the fastest "high speed" service AT&T offers at my home, which is 40 minutes from downtown Atlanta. Oh, but it's only $19.95/month for the first 12 months (and then it goes up to $52.00/month). I don't know how they can offer 6 Mbps down for $52.00/month with a straight face.

Yet, my sister-in-law lives in central Missouri, 15 miles from the nearest town (it has a population of 945), she travels 45 minutes to get to a shopping mall and yet she has fiber to her home with gigabit service. You see there is no government regulation where she lives in central Mo.

Atlanta is full of regulations that limit your internet service. It is government regulations that have caused the current situation and no amount of additional regulations will fix it, regardless of what you have been promised.

Who elects our government representatives. Its big business and as long as they have the government in their pocket they don't have to worry about competition. If competition exists, then companies have to adopt to it, but with government regulation, any company that donates enough money can and will work to negate any and all competition, then they only have to get away with it.

 

[Renzatic]

Yet, my sister-in-law lives in central Missouri, 15 miles from the nearest town (it has a population of 945), she travels 45 minutes to get to a shopping mall and yet she has fiber to her home with gigabit service. You see there is no government regulation where she lives in central Mo.

It's funny. I live in a suburb of Chattanooga, where we have gigabit fiber. State regulations make it so that EBP can't expand the service beyond city limits. These recent Net Neutrality laws bypass the state, and would allow EPB to install fiber all across their service area.

And of course the local republicans are rather hypocritically screaming about the government taking away their freedom of self governance due to regulations this, and regulations that. It never ****ing ends. People out in the boonies want fiber, but couldn't get it because that'd make them competitors with ISPs. Now they can do it, but we're all too busy screaming about THE GOVERNMENT! BLACK HELICOPTERS! BENGHAZI!

You just got your damn way, people! When exactly did we become a nation of such paranoid, kneejerk whiners?

 

[samiwas]

You just got your damn way, people! When exactly did we become a nation of such paranoid, kneejerk whiners?

Somewhere around January 20, 2009...

 

[nt5672]

The FCC is well aware that the ISPs are going to attempt to sue the hell out of them over this. Wheeler stated as much earlier on, before the new Title II reclassification went into effect. Sure enough, he was right. They started gearing up for it the very day the law went into effect. He said that they need to make damn sure they don't accidentally forget something they'll end up hanging themselves with, so after they published the 5 pages that make up the law, they published 300 extra pages detailing everything that can possibly be detailed to prevent anything from being used against them by the ISPs when it ends up in court later.

The FCC will certainly appease the ISPs and major providers. Then the resulting small print will completely obliterate the promises. This is how our government works now. The people won't be in the courtroom. Probably the transcripts will be sealed, since neither the government nor the ISPs and other providers will want a public record.

How many times do people have to be slapped in the face to realize it.

And where are the 5 pages? Can seem to find them.

 

[Renzatic]

The FCC will certainly appease the ISPs and major providers. Then the resulting small print will completely obliterate the promises. This is how our government works now. The people won't be in the courtroom. Probably the transcripts will be sealed, since neither the government nor the ISPs and other providers will want a public record.

How many times do people have to be slapped in the face to realize it.

And where are the 5 pages? Can seem to find them.

Right Here

This is the law. Everything you read here is everything it is. There is no small print, no caveats, no hidden bits and pieces. If it's not within these 5 pages, then it doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned.

 

[nt5672]

It's funny. I live in a suburb of Chattanooga, where we have gigabit fiber. State regulations make it so that EBP can't expand the service beyond city limits. These recent Net Neutrality laws bypass the state, and would allow EPB to install fiber all across their service area.

Government does not have to be bad. Maybe you are lucky to have it better than some. Until a couple of years ago I lived in Chicago for 18 years. Trust me, they have not seen good government for years and we could not get better than 1.5 megabit service (living in one of the highest taxed counties in the nation.)

The problem here is that for the first time in history our Federal government has proven completely untrustworthy. Sure they had lapses in the past, but now we have blatant disregard for our constitution and the rule of law. How can anyone read the news about the Administration law breaking (Bush and Obama) going on and not be absolutely petrified. The media ignores it, and the judges condone it, and everyone ignores Congress (unless it serves them). Our system of checks and balances are completely out of whack.

It is no longer about liberals or conservatives, republicans or democrats, it is about power and greed. When it comes to power and greed there is not really any difference in the people we are electing.

BTW, its not up to the FCC to create law. That was supposed to be the purview of Congress and Congress has never given that authority to the FCC with regard to the internet (although the FCC assumed it several years ago). Just like its not legal for the Federal Reserve to create monetary policy. Read the constitution, there are specific powers reserved for Congress and most of what the administration does these days violates the law of the land (including Bush going to war).

If laws do not mean anything for our government, then at some point the laws won't mean anything to anyone that wants what you have.

 

[Renzatic]

If laws do not mean anything for our government, then at some point the laws won't mean anything to anyone that wants what you have.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't even try. Here we are, seeing a law pass that reigns in some of the worst abuses the ISPs have foisted upon businesses and consumers, and you're saying it doesn't matter, because there is no law anymore.

This doesn't give the government any more powers than it already had concerning the internet, since it only concerns civilian actors, so why are you bothered about it?

The government doesn't apparently follow the rule of law anymore, so why are you concerned about the abuses this law could enable in the government?

You can't trust anything that works in your benefit because of what it could be used for. You can't believe in anything because of something that might be happening outside the public eye. Your whole ethos is self defeating and pointless.

 

[nt5672]

Right Here

This is the law. Everything you read here is everything it is. There is no small print, no caveats, no hidden bits and pieces. If it's not within these 5 pages, then it doesn't exist as far as the law is concerned.

Wrong!!!!! You really outed yourself here!

That is a press release. There is absolutely nothing in that document that is binding.

"Following are the key provisions and rules of the FCC’s Open Internet Order:" Which could just as well have read, "Following are the provisions we want you to know about at this time."

Note the word "key". The english they used means that there is more than was published in the press release. What they think is "key" and what I think is "key" are going to be two completely different things.

The devil is in the details. Always is. I can't believe that you cannot recognize the difference between a binding description of what was passed and a press release. We really are screwed.

And yes I do believe that government routinely lies in its press releases and public statements. Maybe they did not this time, I have no way to know. If you know anything about how committees work, they vote on specific wording, since the details are often important. Why did they not release what they voted on? All that was required was photocopying or scanning. The answer is that they need time for the propaganda and marketing of the decision to have its effect before they release the truth. Its so simple, yet people continue to believe what they are fed.

 

[APlotdevice]

Seriously I live in a major city. #23 in the country so not that major.

We have Comcast Cable
We have CenturyLink (formerly Qwest) DSL and Fiber
We also have DirecTV broadband via Satellite

The Fiber is ridiculously fast.

Satellite? ROFL... I used to have Satellite internet, and let me tell you, between the high latency and tiny data caps, you can forget about things like streaming!

 

[mudslag]

Of course.

Think... And it'll become obvious to you.

It'll also present you with one more opportunity to post another cutesy image to the delight of the juvenile crowd

The only obvious thing about that post is that you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[nt5672]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't even try.

Just the opposite. We should demand transparency and accountability no matter how important we think the issue is.

BTW, I wanted to thank Renzatic for the dialog. We may not agree on some things, but the thoughtful discourse of ideas is very important in an open and free society. I respect anyone that is willing to stand up for what they believe. Our country was founded on the importance of this respect for the values and beliefs of others.

 

[Renzatic]

Egghghh. I'm tired of this conversation in general, man. It's wearing me out.

Listen. I'm gonna say worry about things you have good reason to be worried about. Not things that can be construed as negative in the right light. I have no reason to believe that this move is anything but exactly what it says on the tin. It's a topic that's been discussed for years now, and it's nothing more than a response to pressure both politically and publicly.

If you can give me hard proof that there's something insidious about it, I'll cave. But right now, all you have are maybes and could'ves that don't make sense when taken with everything that's surrounded the issue before and since. Is it possible the government could be using this as a way to better control the internet? Possibly. But I'm not going to assume that as a default until I have a compelling reason to do so.

If we all worry about the maybes and the could'ves more than the reality, we'll never get anything done.

 

[Treq]

I've read many posts by people who are against this new regulation, and there is something I don't understand. Why do you keep calling it Obama care for the internet? I thought you didn't like it. Why would you try to link it to something positive and successful like The affordable care act? If you don't like it, link it to something bad like the Iraq war or something.