Internet take over ?

[SteelChip]

I thought there was a thread on this already but I missed it or sumpthin....

A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to see changes that could narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules set for a vote on Thursday. Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of his provisions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.

The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down. It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself and backed tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...s-last-minute-changes-to-net-neutrality-rules

To be truthful, I haven't a clue what 'net neutrality' is, means or will result in but when I saw this video, it started to become clearer.

 

[ark steel]

'net neutrality
I'm not entirely sure of all that it encompasses, but one thing is a virtual guarantee. If the federal government calls it 'net neutrality ', it aint.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

'net neutrality
I'm not entirely sure of all that it encompasses, but one thing is a virtual guarantee. If the federal government calls it 'net neutrality ', it aint.

Exactly. Too much freedom goin' on out 'dere....

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Think license/register, tax, and monitor your website.

 

[MT~Forged]

Think license/register, tax, and monitor your website.

They already do that, through your internet provider.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

They already do that, through your internet provider.

no they don't. You don't need a federal license to get a web site.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Every private citizen and consumer should WANT net neutrality to pass. Net neutrality will prevent internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T from creating an "internet slow lane" and charging users for access to faster service.

The FCC was originally pretty soft on net neutrality, but a strong grassroots campaign of online petitions and responses to an FCC website asking for public opinions swung them to embrace radically stronger net neutrality requirements. This was considered a big win for the public.

The cablecos were clearly pissed, and have been spending tens of millions of dollars lining the pockets of key Congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, trying to get them to pass legislation that will hamstring the FCC and take away their jurisdiction over the net neutrality debate. If they're spending tens of millions lobbying Congress, you know they stand to make BILLIONS off of us if they get their way.

 

[Superman]

my understanding is this started with netflix claiming to have throttled down service. netflix was then told they would have to pay an extra fee, which they objected to.

then people began noticing that they're not getting the internet speeds they're paying for.

they demanded the gubmint, it it's infinite wisdom and sincere duty to protect, do something.

gubmint is now declaring this a utility to be taxed...essentially picking up the biggest ******* strap-on they could find and telling everyone to bend over.

some are willingly doing so. eager to embrace the gubmint looking out for their best interest.

others are looking at China and seeing what happens when gubmint controls the interwebnet.

 

[Rod Farva]

Found this quote on a site that seems to favor net neutrality........

"As of now there are no restrictions on internet access unless specificlly imposed by the government (and unwarranted government interference is a rare occurrence in democracies.)"www.buzzle.com/articles/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons.html..... emphasis mine.

Yes. Between that completely blatant falsehood and this....


"The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...utrality-rules ".....

....what could possibly go wrong?

 

[DBS1970]

my understanding is this started with netflix claiming to have throttled down service. netflix was then told they would have to pay an extra fee, which they objected to.

then people began noticing that they're not getting the internet speeds they're paying for.

they demanded the gubmint, it it's infinite wisdom and sincere duty to protect, do something.

gubmint is now declaring this a utility to be taxed...essentially picking up the biggest ******* strap-on they could find and telling everyone to bend over.

some are willingly doing so. eager to embrace the gubmint looking out for their best interest.

others are looking at China and seeing what happens when gubmint controls the interwebnet.

DING DING DING DING!

It has zero to do with access or neutrality, it has everything to do with streaming services wanting to have a subsidy to deliver their content. And every consumer should be against this because as was stated before it will lead to taxes and regulation if the government gets involved.

 

[Superman]

Found this quote on a site that seems to favor net neutrality........

"As of now there are no restrictions on internet access unless specificlly imposed by the government (and unwarranted government interference is a rare occurrence in democracies.)"www.buzzle.com/articles/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons.html..... emphasis mine.

Yes. Between that completely blatant falsehood and this....


"The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...utrality-rules ".....

....what could possibly go wrong?

...............................

 

[ark steel]

Every private citizen and consumer should WANT net neutrality to pass. Net neutrality will prevent internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T from creating an "internet slow lane" and charging users for access to faster service.

The FCC was originally pretty soft on net neutrality, but a strong grassroots campaign of online petitions and responses to an FCC website asking for public opinions swung them to embrace radically stronger net neutrality requirements. This was considered a big win for the public.

The cablecos were clearly pissed, and have been spending tens of millions of dollars lining the pockets of key Congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, trying to get them to pass legislation that will hamstring the FCC and take away their jurisdiction over the net neutrality debate. If they're spending tens of millions lobbying Congress, you know they stand to make BILLIONS off of us if they get their way.

I understand what people says it will do, but there is always a disconnect between that and what actually comes out of government regulations.

However, if I want faster service, shouldn't I have to pay for it? Why shouldn't the provider be able to charge what it thinks it is worth? While somewhat limited, there ARE other providers I could go to for similar service. The part I do find offensive is if I am pay for XGB of download speed, that is what I should get all the time.

 

[Rod Farva]

See none of this argument (or a lot less of it) would be necessary if we just knew what the ******* "rules" say. And another thing, this is pretty impactful I'm sure regardless and it's being rammed up everyone's *** by UNELECTED bureaucrats. The entire shady way it's being handled just reminds me exactly of obamacare with less public attention.

 

[hamster]

Every private citizen and consumer should WANT net neutrality to pass. Net neutrality will prevent internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T from creating an "internet slow lane" and charging users for access to faster service.

The FCC was originally pretty soft on net neutrality, but a strong grassroots campaign of online petitions and responses to an FCC website asking for public opinions swung them to embrace radically stronger net neutrality requirements. This was considered a big win for the public.

The cablecos were clearly pissed, and have been spending tens of millions of dollars lining the pockets of key Congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, trying to get them to pass legislation that will hamstring the FCC and take away their jurisdiction over the net neutrality debate. If they're spending tens of millions lobbying Congress, you know they stand to make BILLIONS off of us if they get their way.

If you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it.

 

[Stewey]

my understanding is this started with netflix claiming to have throttled down service. netflix was then told they would have to pay an extra fee, which they objected to.

then people began noticing that they're not getting the internet speeds they're paying for.

they demanded the gubmint, it it's infinite wisdom and sincere duty to protect, do something.

gubmint is now declaring this a utility to be taxed...essentially picking up the biggest ******* strap-on they could find and telling everyone to bend over.

some are willingly doing so. eager to embrace the gubmint looking out for their best interest.

others are looking at China and seeing what happens when gubmint controls the interwebnet.

There are many parts to it and that is certainly is one of them.

Going back as far as 1990 Hillary and Obama wanted control of the internet because it harms them and the socialist cause ...recall though the years Obama expressing his dislike of FOX News, Limbaugh, and the buzz going around of some sort of censorship? We'll its finally here.
The many conservative websites receive more views that the fewer liberal ones...this will be deemed unfair, thereby restrictions to these conservative websites will be imposed.
That is net neutrality...literally.

As in Obamacare, net neutrality is nothing but a leftist power grab under the guise of helping the little man. Oh these low information sheeple that actually believe government is doing great things.

 

[SteelChip]

As in Obamacare, net neutrality is nothing but a leftist power grab under the guise of helping the little man. Oh these low information sheeple that actually believe government is doing great things.

I'm inclined to believe ya Stewey, the more articles I read on this deal, the shakier this whole thing gets.

Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ress-ahead-net-neutrality-vote-andrew-johnson

The "head" of the FCC refuses to testify before Congress ? That's a common practice lately, is it even legal ?

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota argued that by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...lan-could-lead-to-un-internet-powers-20150225

Sure sure....just when I start to think I get it, they introduce a whole new .."international" ...aspect to it.

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...y-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

I don't know about the rest of yinz but this guy's involvement pretty much locks up the conspiracy aspect fur sure.

..

.

 

[Steelr4evr]

So don't tell people what is in it before you take over. Tyranny....shades of bamiecare. We are living in very sad times. down down down down the drain we go.

 

[JupiterBnG]

I understand what people says it will do, but there is always a disconnect between that and what actually comes out of government regulations.

However, if I want faster service, shouldn't I have to pay for it? Why shouldn't the provider be able to charge what it thinks it is worth? While somewhat limited, there ARE other providers I could go to for similar service. The part I do find offensive is if I am pay for XGB of download speed, that is what I should get all the time.

That would be great, except in order to give you faster service that you pay for, they will take away the fast service you currently have and give you slow service in its place for the same price. If you want to have faster internet speeds, you will pay a lot more to get back to where you are today.

 

[Rod Farva]

That would be great, except in order to give you faster service that you pay for, they will take away the fast service you currently have and give you slow service in its place for the same price. If you want to have faster internet speeds, you will pay a lot more to get back to where you are today.

What stopped them from just raising our rates prior to thes rules? Yeah, our ability to switch providers.....wonder if that will still be an option? I trust capitalist pigs more than the gubmint, sorry.

 

[ark steel]

Anybody find out what is says yet?

 

[ark steel]

That would be great, except in order to give you faster service that you pay for, they will take away the fast service you currently have and give you slow service in its place for the same price. If you want to have faster internet speeds, you will pay a lot more to get back to where you are today.

Why aren't they doing that already, then? Unless there is some illegal monopoly or conspiracy between providers, someone will undercut them. Regulation NEVER lowers cost. Ever.

 

[DBS1970]

Anybody find out what is says yet?

There are 360+ pages that the FCC kept secret. I am waiting for the shoe to drop. But remember what Finestein said about the 1st Amendment being for "A responsible press" and not bloggers on the internet? Well I suspect this will play heavily into that.

 

[SteelChip]

Why aren't they doing that already, then? Unless there is some illegal monopoly or conspiracy between providers, someone will undercut them. Regulation NEVER lowers cost. Ever.

Well..it's a done deal....

WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile now must act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under rules approved Thursday by a divided Federal Communications Commission.

The plan, which puts the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone and bans business practices that are "unjust or unreasonable," represents the biggest regulatory shakeup to the industry in almost two decades. The goal is to prevent providers from slowing or blocking web traffic, or creating paid fast lanes on the Internet, said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately "bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight."

Also at stake Thursday was Obama's goal of helping local governments build their own fast, cheap broadband. Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have filed petitions with the agency to help override state laws that restrict them from expanding their broadband service to neighboring towns.

The FCC approved these petitions, setting a precedent for other communities that might want to do the same.

Nineteen states place restrictions on municipal broadband networks, many with laws encouraged by cable and telephone companies. Advocates of those laws say they are designed to protect taxpayers from municipal projects that are expensive, can fail or may be unnecessary.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150226/us--net_neutrality-bc904be3f5.html

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Any countries out there practice free market capitalism? Sounds like an interesting concept.

 

[JupiterBnG]

If you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it.

If you hate Obama, you should be all for net neutrality... he's been one of its biggest opponents.