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

[samiwas]

It's good to be ignored.

Carry on assuming...

Looks like we'll be in the same boat. Hopefully, it's dropping us off in different locations. Hopefully, yours is one that manufactures lots of tin.

----------

I study both sides with an open mind.

Okay so...

The administration has its hands in everything and politicize various issues in order to take control. You can deny that all you want, but it's happening as we post here. The golfer's got his hands in everything.

The only people that are misinformed are those who fail to read the material surrounding the issues from both perspectives. By remaining open minded and reading both the Democratic and Republican views I stay very well informed.

The tragedy for the victims is their propensity to assume. It's a disease running rampant here and all over in our society. Closed minded people that fail to educate themselves on the entire issue. They pick a side, then pick a fight with their opponents.

It involves more time and energy yet it's essential to being well informed. I've not taken a stance on this issue horribly labeled Neutrality to dupe the public. Once the government releases the bill then we'll know what's in it. Until then one can only laugh at the idiots that pass it without reading it, or those who claim to know the truth. I've simply shared information written by others.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories nor am I paranoid as some_assume. It's not that big of a deal. A problem is something one can solve. An issue that's stuffed down our throats by the government isn't a problem it's a fact of life. An ugly fact created by nefarious selfish narcissistic thinking. Life goes on.

Yeah, you sound real open.

Pray tell, which sources are you getting your varied open-minded viewpoints from? Republican from Fox and Democratic from Breitbart?

Hate to tell you dude, but you make Southern Dad look like a hippie when it comes to partisanship.

 

[nsayer]

My own take on this is that all told, net neutrality is a good thing.

But I suspect our bills are going to go up.

 

[pdjudd]

But I suspect our bills are going to go up.

What the regulations did had nothing to do with price reguating and should have no impact on pricing since the FCC didn’t impose fees. If costs go up, there’s no proof that it had to do with this ruling since the ISP’s can increase their prices no matter what and make any claim that they want to and never have to prove anything.

 

[Z400Racer37]

They did just that. Comcast ignored it, and demanded payment for access to their customers under the guise that it was causing network congestion.

And what you're basically saying is that the people who act as the gateway to this huge, free speech loving, free market equivalent thing we call the internet are more important than the internet itself, right?

Netflix does not own an end and network infrastructure. They still need to use the networking of a lot of ISP's, including Comcast. To the extent that Netflix uses Comcast's networking utilities, Comcast has a right to charge Netflix whatever they want, or even block the data if they want to. After all, it's their network. Companies have a right to discriminate against the data that flows through their utilities however they want. If the government didn't effectively legislate monopolies at the local level, if Comcast decided to charge too much for Netflix, Netflix would go through another ISP. This is pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately for us, government decided that monopolizing ISPs at the local level is a prudent thing to do. Therefore, when companies discriminate against data, there's no competition that can come in underneath that company, and take that business from them. Therefore, some government officials, and some under informed people feel that they need to legislate that all data needs to be treated equally. There are plenty of people who recognize this as a bad thing, because they actually understand what's going on. The entire process is completely ass backwards from a free market, so let's not pretend that there's a free market in the Internet.

And yes, the individual rights of the companies that operate the Internet are more important than your ability to watch Netflix without a buffer or two. Frankly, I've never gone over someone's house and seen Netflix buffer, assuming they paid for a high-speed Internet package, so let's also not pretend that the Internet was broken before the FCC screwed this up.

This no more regulates the internet than the first amendment regulates free speech.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Eraserhead]

Netflix does not own an end and network infrastructure. They still need to use the networking of a lot of ISP's, including Comcast. To the extent that Netflix uses Comcast's networking utilities, Comcast has a right to charge Netflix whatever they want, or even block the data if they want to. After all, it's their network. Companies have a right to discriminate against the data that flows through their utilities however they want. If the government didn't effectively legislate monopolies at the local level, if Comcast decided to charge too much for Netflix, Netflix would go through another ISP. This is pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately for us, government decided that monopolizing ISPs at the local level is a prudent thing to do. Therefore, when companies discriminate against data, there's no competition that can come in underneath that company, and take that business from them. Therefore, some government officials, and some under informed people feel that they need to legislate that all data needs to be treated equally. There are plenty of people who recognize this as a bad thing, because they actually understand what's going on. The entire process is completely ass backwards from a free market, so let's not pretend that there's a free market in the Internet.

And yes, the individual rights of the companies that operate the Internet are more important than your ability to watch Netflix without a buffer or two. Frankly, I've never gone over someone's house and seen Netflix buffer, assuming they paid for a high-speed Internet package, so let's also not pretend that the Internet was broken before the FCC screwed this up.






That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Actually Netflix can't go through another ISP as end users use Comcast to connect to the internet...

 

[Treq]

Netflix does not own an end and network infrastructure. They still need to use the networking of a lot of ISP's, including Comcast. To the extent that Netflix uses Comcast's networking utilities, Comcast has a right to charge Netflix whatever they want, or even block the data if they want to. After all, it's their network. Companies have a right to discriminate against the data that flows through their utilities however they want. If the government didn't effectively legislate monopolies at the local level, if Comcast decided to charge too much for Netflix, Netflix would go through another ISP. This is pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately for us, government decided that monopolizing ISPs at the local level is a prudent thing to do. Therefore, when companies discriminate against data, there's no competition that can come in underneath that company, and take that business from them. Therefore, some government officials, and some under informed people feel that they need to legislate that all data needs to be treated equally. There are plenty of people who recognize this as a bad thing, because they actually understand what's going on. The entire process is completely ass backwards from a free market, so let's not pretend that there's a free market in the Internet.

And yes, the individual rights of the companies that operate the Internet are more important than your ability to watch Netflix without a buffer or two. Frankly, I've never gone over someone's house and seen Netflix buffer, assuming they paid for a high-speed Internet package, so let's also not pretend that the Internet was broken before the FCC screwed this up.






That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You don't actually know how the internet works, do you. ISP stands for internet service provider. Thats how people connect to the internet. Netflix pays it's internet service provider, and netflix customers pay their internet provider. After that the customer should be able to connect to netflix and watch content as both netflix and the customer are connected to the internet. But, as happened recently, comcast told netflix that if it wanted to reach comcast customers, they need to pay them to do so. It would be like fedex owning the road to your house and charging the usps a fee deliver to your house, while letting fedex trucks go freely. Both the customer and Netflix pay for access to the internet, there is no reason for comcast to charge netflix if one of their customers wants to watch a movie. They just need to let that traffic go without discriminating against it.
Also, the "free market" is a myth. It doesn't work. Just like trickle down economics. You should look up the Nash equilibrium to learn just one reason why free markets won't work.

 

[APlotdevice]

The number of people believing the government is doing something good is quite predictable, given the administration's success influencing those who only have marginal knowledge of the Constitution and how government is_supposed to work. Nor do most even care as long as their entitlements keep flowing.

Not that it actually has anything to do with this, but I do just love how conservatives have managed to turn "entitlements" into a four-letter word. Guess what? People who are starving are entitled to food. People who have paid into the system all their working lives are entitled to Social Security benefits. People who have risked their lives in combat are entitled to veterans benefits.

For pete sake, stop repeating propaganda and learn what these words actually mean!

 

[Renzatic]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The one thing every single one of you arguing against this fails to realize is that internet traffic has been regulated by the FCC for most of its life. It was regulated during the heydey of BBS. Regulated during the AOL days. Regulated during the early days of broadband. The days of deregulated internet were only a 10 year stretch in the 40 year history of the internet.

You could easily argue that competition was more fierce during the Title II days. Hell, forcing telcos to act as common carriers is practically one of the main reasons why we even have an internet today in the consumer sector.

Make all the arguments you want about free market this, and government censorship that, and whatever else. It's all hot air and self righteous fury with nothing factual backing it up. You don't know what net neutrality is, and you obviously aren't aware of the history of everything that's led up to today.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

We've presented the facts over the past 15+ years on this issue, but we can't force you to read it.

One person's "fact" is another person's line of BS. Hell is paved with the road of good intents. I've outlined a number of areas where the government has utterly utterly FAILED to do its job and live up to its obligations. They aren't made up fantasies. Every single one of them was true. Now you expect that same government to NOT screw you over without a verbatim law (which are often then overruled by the court system by activist judges "interpreting" it any way they damn well FEEL LIKE IT and yeah, we're living in a cesspool alright, but you are too and just don't seem to know it.

So all the FCC has to do is "reclassify" something. How nice for them. I'd like to reclassify them as Communists ruling by fiat instead of elected government. I mean the Internet has existed since '50s/60s really and they just NOW realized NONE of the people working in that organization for the past 50+ years had a freaking CLUE about ANYTHING that it was classified incorrectly all that time? That's a load of horse manure and you KNOW it.

It's like reclassifying 'gold' as nuclear waste and demanding all private citizens hand it over since it was classified wrong and it's dangerous and you don't have a permit to handle it. Oh wait! They didn't even need to do that to STEAL our gold (and give it to the Federal Reserve which is more or less a private company). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102) Notice how it's an EXECUTIVE ORDER. I guess the government did evil underhanded bullcrap things back then too.

They later made a law to enforce it, but that didn't change the fact the Federal Government are THIEVES. But you trust them implicitly.

So by all means, continue to live and wallow in your cesspool of misinformation. when you decide to read and get informed, we'll be here.

I'll live in my cesspool and you can live in your land of personal BS insults.

I know I've won the argument when the other side resorts to personal insults.

 

[Renzatic]

One person's "fact" is another person's line of BS.

No. Facts are pretty much facts. It's personal beliefs that are subjective.

Unfortunately, people tend to mix up the two. Case in point...

So all the FCC has to do is "reclassify" something. How nice for them. I'd like to reclassify them as Communists ruling by fiat instead of elected government. I mean the Internet has existed since '50s/60s really and they just NOW realized NONE of the people working in that organization for the past 50+ years had a freaking CLUE about ANYTHING that it was classified incorrectly all that time? That's a load of horse manure and you KNOW it.

There is nothing factual about this statement. The internet has been regulated under Title II since its inception. It's deregulation under Title I happened in 2005, and lasted until now.

The government isn't doing anything it hasn't already done. And like I said above, classifying telcos as common carriers allowed startup ISPs to broadcast the internet over copper. That regulation, that government control, was directly responsible the internet boom in the mid 90's.

So how is this a bad thing?

 

[MacNut]

One person's "fact" is another person's line of BS. Hell is paved with the road of good intents. I've outlined a number of areas where the government has utterly utterly FAILED to do its job and live up to its obligations. They aren't made up fantasies. Every single one of them was true. Now you expect that same government to NOT screw you over without a verbatim law (which are often then overruled by the court system by activist judges "interpreting" it any way they damn well FEEL LIKE IT and yeah, we're living in a cesspool alright, but you are too and just don't seem to know it.

So all the FCC has to do is "reclassify" something. How nice for them. I'd like to reclassify them as Communists ruling by fiat instead of elected government. I mean the Internet has existed since '50s/60s really and they just NOW realized NONE of the people working in that organization for the past 50+ years had a freaking CLUE about ANYTHING that it was classified incorrectly all that time? That's a load of horse manure and you KNOW it.

It's like reclassifying 'gold' as nuclear waste and demanding all private citizens hand it over since it was classified wrong and it's dangerous and you don't have a permit to handle it. Oh wait! They didn't even need to do that to STEAL our gold (and give it to the Federal Reserve which is more or less a private company). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102) Notice how it's an EXECUTIVE ORDER. I guess the government did evil underhanded bullcrap things back then too.

They later made a law to enforce it, but that didn't change the fact the Federal Government are THIEVES. But you trust them implicitly.



I'll live in my cesspool and you can live in your land of personal BS insults.

I know I've won the argument when the other side resorts to personal insults.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security. The Commission is also in the process of modernizing itself.[4]

The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. The FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC is funded entirely by regulatory fees. It has an estimated fiscal-2011 budget of US$335.8 million and a proposed fiscal-2012 budget of $354.2 million. It has 1,720 federal employees.[2]

 

[Renzatic]

Here's a line that'll blow all your minds.

Government regulation over the flow of communications via the FCC allowed a market to grow up around it, outside the direct controls of the telcos. Ergo, regulations allowed for a free market.

So how is it that saying that no business is allowed to infringe upon your right to do business via communications standards government thievery?

 

[Z400Racer37]

Actually Netflix can't go through another ISP as end users use Comcast to connect to the internet...

Did you even read the post? Try that.

You don't actually know how the internet works, do you. ISP stands for internet service provider. Thats how people connect to the internet. Netflix pays it's internet service provider, and netflix customers pay their internet provider. After that the customer should be able to connect to netflix and watch content as both netflix and the customer are connected to the internet. But, as happened recently, comcast told netflix that if it wanted to reach comcast customers, they need to pay them to do so. It would be like fedex owning the road to your house and charging the usps a fee deliver to your house, while letting fedex trucks go freely. Both the customer and Netflix pay for access to the internet, there is no reason for comcast to charge netflix if one of their customers wants to watch a movie. They just need to let that traffic go without discriminating against it.

Again, you're assuming all data on the internet would be treated equally by saying that once you have an internet connection that you should be able to hook up to Netflix or whatever you want and download without discrimination. So long as you or anyone else is attempting to use their network utilities, Comcast has every right to charge extra for whatever reason they want, or no reason at all. It's their network infrastructure you're using.

You said it yourself, if FedEx owns the road then it belongs to them. It's not their property so long as it serves you or the public best, it's their property regardless of how they use it or how it does or doesn't benefit you. That's the nature of a RIGHT. If you have such a lack of respect for property rights, then why don't you advocate for legislation to allow UPS trucks to use FedEx shipping facilities while your at it? What's the difference between their privately owned pavement in front of the shipping facility, which is not rightfully theirs and that they would have no right to charge UPS or anyone else for using, and the shipping facility itself? Should the shipping facility be theirs just because you don't need to drive on it? Wouldn't it be more efficient to force FedEx to share that facility with UPS trucks, and therefore justify the removal of FedEx's property rights? How about their cash on their balance sheet? What if society has a better use for it? Should they seize it instead of just letting it sit there making the corporations richer and richer at the expense of all of us??

Also, the "free market" is a myth.

BS. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.

It doesn't work. Just like trickle down economics. You should look up the Nash equilibrium to learn just one reason why free markets won't work.

Yeah, right. Hey, ever heard of a country called, um, America? If free markets are so bad, then why the hell are we here? How exactly is it that you're reading this screen right now? Typing on that thing in front of you? Is it because some bureaucrat controlled all the assets and resources that went into making the device you're using? Interesting delusion.

Hey. Question. If free markets are so evil, and they result in monopolies, and "Robber Barons" etc. then why is it exactly that during the late 1800's - early 1900's so many people from around the world were emigrating from their Socialist/Fascist/Communist home countries, where they were literally starving to death from famine, and immigrating to the United States where there were almost completely free markets, with almost no regulation to speak of, where they proceeded to not only survive, but to thrive? Let's hear that one Nash. Really...

Oh, and by the way, how's that "Grow from the middle out" crap working for you for the last 6 years? Employment rate within 1% of where it bottomed at the depths of the financial crisis? Good stuff. Really good idea. Definitely works better than trickle down.

So yeah, I know how the internet works, but more importantly, I know how RIGHTS work, and you don't have a RIGHT to tell private companies how they are going to use their assets. Whether or not it benefits you to do so isCOMPLETELY irrelevant. Do your best to grasp that.

 

[MacNut]

People see to forget what the actual purpose of the FCC is. It's their job to regulate spectrum. How do ISP's provide data from the internet, spectrum.

 

[Renzatic]

Again, you're assuming all data on the internet would be treated equally by saying that once you have an internet connection that you should be able to hook up to Netflix or whatever you want and download without discrimination. So long as you or anyone else is attempting to use their network utilities, Comcast has every right to charge extra for whatever reason they want, or no reason at all. It's their network infrastructure you're using.

Not quite. Some of it is, sure. But the vast majority is supported through leases, tax breaks, and subsidies. In other words, it's taxpayer supported.

A communications network doesn't work if communications made over it can be arbitrarily restricted. No one should be allowed to hold it hostage for their own personal gain. The single major reason why the internet has been as successful as it has is because no one has attempted to restrict access to it in any way...until recently.

 

[MacNut]

Did you even read the post? Try that.




Again, you're assuming all data on the internet would be treated equally by saying that once you have an internet connection that you should be able to hook up to Netflix or whatever you want and download without discrimination. So long as you or anyone else is attempting to use their network utilities, Comcast has every right to charge extra for whatever reason they want, or no reason at all. It's their network infrastructure you're using.

You said it yourself, if FedEx owns the road then it belongs to them. It's not their property so long as it serves you or the public best, it's their property regardless of how they use it or how it does or doesn't benefit you. That's the nature of a RIGHT. If you have such a lack of respect for property rights, then why don't you advocate for legislation to allow UPS trucks to use FedEx shipping facilities while your at it? What's the difference between their privately owned pavement in front of the shipping facility, which is not rightfully theirs and that they would have no right to charge UPS or anyone else for using, and the shipping facility itself? Should the shipping facility be theirs just because you don't need to drive on it? Wouldn't it be more efficient to force FedEx to share that facility with UPS trucks, and therefore justify the removal of FedEx's property rights? How about their cash on their balance sheet? What if society has a better use for it? Should they seize it instead of just letting it sit there making the corporations richer and richer at the expense of all of us??





BS. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.




Yeah, right. Hey, ever heard of a country called, um, America? If free markets are so bad, then why the hell are we here? How exactly is it that you're reading this screen right now? Typing on that thing in front of you? Is it because some bureaucrat controlled all the assets and resources that went into making the device you're using? Interesting delusion.

Hey. Question. If free markets are so evil, and they result in monopolies, and "Robber Barons" etc. then why is it exactly that during the late 1800's - early 1900's so many people from around the world were emigrating from their Socialist/Fascist/Communist home countries, where they were literally starving to death from famine, and immigrating to the United States where there were almost completely free markets, with almost no regulation to speak of, where they proceeded to not only survive, but to thrive? Let's hear that one Nash. Really...

Oh, and by the way, how's that "Grow from the middle out" crap working for you for the last 6 years? Employment rate within 1% of where it bottomed at the depths of the financial crisis? Good stuff. Really good idea. Definitely works better than trickle down.

You are aware that the "internet" is a wide open pipe of information that isn't censored. The ISP is tapping into that backbone via a connection from their headend. They are then serving that uncensored content to the end user. The FCC's job is insuring that is what happens.

 

[Z400Racer37]

You are aware that the "internet" is a wide open pipe of information that isn't censored. The ISP is tapping into that backbone via a connection from their headend. They are then serving that uncensored content to the end user. The FCC's job is insuring that is what happens.

The internet is nothing but a bunch of networking infrastructure used to allow the flow of bits. Period. To the extent that the state owns this infrastructure it is:

1. Immoral

2. Should treat all data without discrimination.

And just because an ISP hooks up to a backbone does not make it so that they should not be allowed to control the data that flows through the components of the system before or after the backbone that THEY OWN. For instance, I don't have to allow Netflix data to flow through my router at all, even though my messages right now are flowing through a backbone to end up on the servers I'm using to explain these principles to you. I have the RGIHT to block Netflix on MY router if I want, just as Comcast has the right to control or block Netflix if it wants on ITS network components. Understand?

P.S. Just because the FCC thinks that that is what it's job is, does not mean that they have the moral RIGHT to do it. Rights. Get it? RIGHTS.

 

[MacNut]

The internet is nothing but a bunch of networking infrastructure used to allow the flow of bits. Period. To the extent that the state owns this infrastructure it is:

1. Immoral

2. Should treat all data without discrimination.

And just because an ISP hooks up to a backbone does not make it so that they should not be allowed to control the data that flows through the components of the system before or after the backbone that THEY OWN. For instance, I don't have to allow Netflix data to flow through my router at all, even though my messages right now are flowing through a backbone to end up on the servers I'm using to explain these principles to you. I have the RGIHT to block Netflix on MY router if I want, just as Comcast has the right to control or block Netflix if it wants on ITS network components. Understand?

P.S. Just because the FCC thinks that that is what it's job is, does not mean that they have the moral RIGHT to do it. Rights. Get it? RIGHTS.

What the **** are you talking about, nobody owns the internet.

Comcast has NO RIGHT to block Netflix or anything else it wants. They are a pass through of data from the backbone to my computer, nothing more.

 

[Renzatic]

The internet is nothing but a bunch of networking infrastructure used to allow the flow of bits. Period. To the extent that the state owns this infrastructure it is:

1. Immoral

2. Should treat all data without discrimination.

The state doesn't own all those networks! There merely regulate the flow of traffic by stating it shouldn't be regulated.

Okay, imagine this. You're an internet startup. You invest capital, get a website made, build a product. It's selling like crazy. Because of the previous rules of net neutrality, all you have to worry about is paying your bandwidth bill per month.

Millions of people around the world rely on this setup, and expect it to work as is.

But then suddenly, net neutrality disappears. ISPs are now allowed to discriminate against your business by restricting your access to your customers. They say you have to pay X amount of money, or you'll be slowed down in favor of your competitors. The price is too high, you can't pay it. You go out of business because your provider restricts access to your customers on their whim over a network that isn't entirely theirs.

And what about the networks that restrict your ISPs traffic? That'll cost them money. Your bill goes up. Or the network that's restricting your ISP's traffic? Their bill goes up. In a worst case scenario, it'll be too expensive for startups to do business on what was once a level playing field.

...and you're making the free market claim? You're advocating destroying a free market in order to allow a handful of private corporations to control it in the name of the free market.

I swear to god, all you people are so anxious to jump in on the anti-government circle jerk, you fail to realize all you're ending up doing is pissing in your own faces.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This has nothing to do with entitlements or even the White House.

Sure it doesn't. Just like the Supreme Court decision to let corporations use unlimited money to rig the elections in this country for the ultra rich had "nothing" to do with the Bush White House (he just happened to appoint enough right-wing judges to make sure the job got done their way, but that has NOTHING to do with it. But then I don't live in a place full of sugar plum trees and magical faeries.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/summary-commissioner-pais-oral-dissent-internet-regulation

It appears the FCC Commissioner disagrees with your assessment that Obama had "nothing" to do with it as he called it the FCC implementing OBAMA'S PLAN. Honest to God, I don't know how much more proof you people need to see what is plain as day to the rest of us.

Frankly, his dissent confirms EVERYTHING I've said over the past several pages about what it means for the FCC to regulate the Internet. It will NOT stop at "Net Neutrality". Some of you are obviously BLIND to that FACT. What you WANT is not necessarily what you're going to get and so much more so over the long haul.

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ditto.

This ruling was not done by executive order. President Obama did not play any part in the decisions made by the FCC.

Right and wrong. His people working at the FCC did what he asked them to do just like those judges did what the Republican party asked them to do. When you get appointed by crooks, you OWE them. But you don't believe in that because you believe we live in an actual democracy instead of a for sale to the highest bidder oligarchy. You must be very young to believe such a thing. Live awhile and watch and you'll become jaded in a few years too as they lie, cheat and steal year after year after year. The ones that go to jail are just the tip of the iceberg. They vote their own pay raises. They take "bribes" but call it lobbying and most of them spend FAR more money to get the job than they could possibly make from it (unless they are using that power to rig up money making schemes like Cheney did during the Iraq war). Over 50% of Congress are millionaires. Most of the rest SERVE millionaires. Millionaires make up 4% of the United States. >50% representing <4% is not a democracy in anyone's book that understands even 3rd grade math.

When are you going to admit that everything you've just posted is false and misleading and that you are misinformed?

When are you going to admit you don't know how things work in the real world?

No. Facts are pretty much facts. It's personal beliefs that are subjective.

Unfortunately, people tend to mix up the two. Case in point...

Yes, you are doing a good job of it. Obviously what I'm really saying is that your "FACTS" aren't facts at all. I don't see you backing them up with proof at all. Without proof, it's just an opinion and a bad one at that.

The early Internet was a private network called Arpanet (created by a demand for a defense contract to work against the Soviets) between two and then multiple Universities. While it used telephone networks early on and such networks were regulated, that doesn't make the Internet itself regulated and such lines are not need today. I first used the Internet in the late '80s at a University before the WWW had been invented. What regulation actions did I witness? Oh yeah. NONE. The Universities had their rules for access and that was it. Even the FCC's own history on their web site talks ZERO about regulation because they never attempted to regulate squat until the cases I posted of which EVERY SINGLE ONE of them were dropped or LOST by the FCC. You can claim all day it's been under regulation, but your definition of "regulation" is lacking and not what we're talking about here today.

Does the FCC regulate Cable television? Not really, with a possible exception with some orgination rules and that's up to the cable operator, not the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-content-regulations)

That's because it's not a PUBLIC network like the public airwaves used for broadcast television. Until now, broadband not used through telephone lines were not within the scope of the FCCs control as cable is not really regulated by the FCC. This is why you can get all kinds of foul language, nudity and porn through cable without them stopping you. But now that could change as well since if one service through cable is regulated, why not ALL of them? I'm sure there will be some interesting court cases in the near future, but you won't believe it when it happens. Those UFOs over Washington are just weather balloons!

What the **** are you talking about, nobody owns the internet.

Comcast has NO RIGHT to block Netflix or anything else it wants. They are a pass through of data from the backbone to my computer, nothing more.

Actually, Comcast WON that case. The courts said they DO have such right. Cable operators have origination rules (see the FCC link above). In other words, it's THEIR CABLE SERVICE business and they don't have to carry something if they don't want to just because it's available. There is limited bandwidth on any given system, just to start. In cable TV, I may want the Travel Channel in HD on my cable company, but I don't get it. There's a lot of stations they don't carry! I can't sue them over it. It's my job to find another service provider if I don't like what their business offers or their prices or their Internet speeds.

If Comcast doesn't want to carry Netflix, they didn't have to until now. Why wouldn't they want to? Bandwidth. They can't guarantee their bandwidth tiers if everyone is using up massive bandwidth at the same time. This hurts their business as people just trying to get their email and some news blogs and download some programs at high speed aren't going to want to continue using that service if it's slow as hell because everyone and their brother is watching Netflix. You can argue they should add more bandwidth, but the reality has mostly been that most people don't do high speed all the time. But one service like Netflix can upset that balance faster than they can rectify the situation and if it costs them more business than they gain, they are probably going to be reluctant to offer it. I mean it's not like all these businesses are doing this stuff just to be mean. They've demonstrated before what happens when the Net has no throttling and it's allowed to just throttle itself when there's too much demand. IT GOES TO HELL FOR EVERYONE. How is that GOOD?

It's what the Net Neutral people don't want to address because they have no good answer to a problem they don't even seem to know exists. Well, they WILL know about it soon when their 25Mbps connection suddenly runs at 3Mbps. Mobile users will likely notice it first. There simply isn't enough bandwidth to go around to let every single iPhone user watch HD movies on their phones 24/7. It's why there are contractual limits and why so many "unlimited" plans did a quick reversal or have throttling in the contracts now. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

 

[Renzatic]

Yes, you are doing a good job of it. Obviously what I'm really saying is that your "FACTS" aren't facts at all. I don't see you backing them up with proof at all. Without proof, it's just an opinion and a bad one at that.

Here's one

Here's another

And another, reporting when the FCC reclassified DSL from Title II to Title I.

And another, showing how some ISPs have willingly put themselves under Title II regulations for tax breaks

And a Wikipedia article

You're arguing from emotion, bias, and willing ignorance. Making a stand against something that directly benefits you due to the half baked reasoning that the government does bad things sometimes. Me? I'm arguing from history. The Internet has been under Title II before, same as mobile communications, and...well...everything that acts as a carrier of data. It was Title I for 10 years. Now it's back.

So explain to me how my facts are wrong.

 

[Eraserhead]

Did you even read the post? Try that.

I did. It seemed to me that you'd misunderstood the issue, as you seem to have shown a complete misunderstanding about how internet access and free markets work in the real world.

so many people from around the world were emigrating from their Socialist/Fascist/Communist home countries,

Which countries were "Socialist/Fascist/Communist" before World War I. Especially Socialist and Communist.

 

[MacNut]

Sure it doesn't. Just like the Supreme Court decision to let corporations use unlimited money to rig the elections in this country for the ultra rich had "nothing" to do with the Bush White House (he just happened to appoint enough right-wing judges to make sure the job got done their way, but that has NOTHING to do with it. But then I don't live in a place full of sugar plum trees and magical faeries.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/summary-commissioner-pais-oral-dissent-internet-regulation

It appears the FCC Commissioner disagrees with your assessment that Obama had "nothing" to do with it as he called it the FCC implementing OBAMA'S PLAN. Honest to God, I don't know how much more proof you people need to see what is plain as day to the rest of us.

Frankly, his dissent confirms EVERYTHING I've said over the past several pages about what it means for the FCC to regulate the Internet. It will NOT stop at "Net Neutrality". Some of you are obviously BLIND to that FACT. What you WANT is not necessarily what you're going to get and so much more so over the long haul.



Ditto.



Right and wrong. His people working at the FCC did what he asked them to do just like those judges did what the Republican party asked them to do. When you get appointed by crooks, you OWE them. But you don't believe in that because you believe we live in an actual democracy instead of a for sale to the highest bidder oligarchy. You must be very young to believe such a thing. Live awhile and watch and you'll become jaded in a few years too as they lie, cheat and steal year after year after year. The ones that go to jail are just the tip of the iceberg. They vote their own pay raises. They take "bribes" but call it lobbying and most of them spend FAR more money to get the job than they could possibly make from it (unless they are using that power to rig up money making schemes like Cheney did during the Iraq war). Over 50% of Congress are millionaires. Most of the rest SERVE millionaires. Millionaires make up 4% of the United States. >50% representing <4% is not a democracy in anyone's book that understands even 3rd grade math.



When are you going to admit you don't know how things work in the real world?



Yes, you are doing a good job of it. Obviously what I'm really saying is that your "FACTS" aren't facts at all. I don't see you backing them up with proof at all. Without proof, it's just an opinion and a bad one at that.

The early Internet was a private network called Arpanet (created by a demand for a defense contract to work against the Soviets) between two and then multiple Universities. While it used telephone networks early on and such networks were regulated, that doesn't make the Internet itself regulated and such lines are not need today. I first used the Internet in the late '80s at a University before the WWW had been invented. What regulation actions did I witness? Oh yeah. NONE. The Universities had their rules for access and that was it. Even the FCC's own history on their web site talks ZERO about regulation because they never attempted to regulate squat until the cases I posted of which EVERY SINGLE ONE of them were dropped or LOST by the FCC. You can claim all day it's been under regulation, but your definition of "regulation" is lacking and not what we're talking about here today.

Does the FCC regulate Cable television? Not really, with a possible exception with some orgination rules and that's up to the cable operator, not the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-content-regulations)

That's because it's not a PUBLIC network like the public airwaves used for broadcast television. Until now, broadband not used through telephone lines were not within the scope of the FCCs control as cable is not really regulated by the FCC. This is why you can get all kinds of foul language, nudity and porn through cable without them stopping you. But now that could change as well since if one service through cable is regulated, why not ALL of them? I'm sure there will be some interesting court cases in the near future, but you won't believe it when it happens. Those UFOs over Washington are just weather balloons!



Actually, Comcast WON that case. The courts said they DO have such right. Cable operators have origination rules (see the FCC link above). In other words, it's THEIR CABLE SERVICE business and they don't have to carry something if they don't want to just because it's available. There is limited bandwidth on any given system, just to start. In cable TV, I may want the Travel Channel in HD on my cable company, but I don't get it. There's a lot of stations they don't carry! I can't sue them over it. It's my job to find another service provider if I don't like what their business offers or their prices or their Internet speeds.

If Comcast doesn't want to carry Netflix, they didn't have to until now. Why wouldn't they want to? Bandwidth. They can't guarantee their bandwidth tiers if everyone is using up massive bandwidth at the same time. This hurts their business as people just trying to get their email and some news blogs and download some programs at high speed aren't going to want to continue using that service if it's slow as hell because everyone and their brother is watching Netflix. You can argue they should add more bandwidth, but the reality has mostly been that most people don't do high speed all the time. But one service like Netflix can upset that balance faster than they can rectify the situation and if it costs them more business than they gain, they are probably going to be reluctant to offer it. I mean it's not like all these businesses are doing this stuff just to be mean. They've demonstrated before what happens when the Net has no throttling and it's allowed to just throttle itself when there's too much demand. IT GOES TO HELL FOR EVERYONE. How is that GOOD?

It's what the Net Neutral people don't want to address because they have no good answer to a problem they don't even seem to know exists. Well, they WILL know about it soon when their 25Mbps connection suddenly runs at 3Mbps. Mobile users will likely notice it first. There simply isn't enough bandwidth to go around to let every single iPhone user watch HD movies on their phones 24/7. It's why there are contractual limits and why so many "unlimited" plans did a quick reversal or have throttling in the contracts now. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

If Comcast can't keep up their network to be able to handle more data that is their problem. Cable companies need to know that the future is the internet, they are stuck in their cable model to make money, but those days are dying. Lets say Comcast can't handle the bandwidth of Netflix, then how can they have the abilities to do their own video streaming? There is the rub, they don't want you using outside services when they can force you to use their in house solutions.

 

[Eraserhead]

Oh, and by the way, how's that "Grow from the middle out" crap working for you for the last 6 years? Employment rate within 1% of where it bottomed at the depths of the financial crisis? Good stuff. Really good idea. Definitely works better than trickle down.

The Americans haven't done a whole lot of growing the middle class out since the 1970's. And the ordinary man on the street isn't doing so well.

 

[onepoint]

For those of you so vocally opposed to the FCC's action(s), where do you see this going?