Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by kamk2k8, Apr 7, 2010.
A sad day
Repurcussions of court ruling against FCC and Net Neutrality
link doesn't work
Saw that, I don't think this is over yet...BS
Why is this bad news? We don't need the fcc overstepping their bounds. What we need is more competition and the ftc to regulate things, not the fcc.
What's it matter who regulates...the point is that it needs to be regulated. I'd rather the FCC lead the way.
Same, link fixed btw
So then your ok if the CIA started policing people?
lmao. That's all I can think to say.
I can see it all now... FCC is given free access to police the internet as they do radio and TV. Next thing you know, you are talking to one of your buddies on AIM, drop the F-bomb and BOOM... your ISP closes your account. Woohoo.
I definitely want the FCC policing the internet. They've done a bang-up job with everything else.
That's definitely not the point of net neutrality...have you read much about it?
Point is, FCC shouldn't be involved with net neutrality.
I've caught bits and pieces, but I am all ears (or eyes, rather...) if you have something in particular you think I should be reading. I'm quite open minded about most things. Teach me something.
I wish people wouldn't twist and mangle this into looking like some example of the government trying to run our lives, they are protecting our equality and freedom on a vastly important medium that is on the brink of being radically changed by massive corporations
From Google's Blog:
"Network neutrality is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic."
Google Public Policy Blog: Net Neutrality
Or, we could stimulate competition in the marketplace, and they will do it on their own. FCC does not belong in this fight. Period.
The ends do not justify the means.
Honestly I don't think you can make a statement like that until you know what exactly the ends in question would be, and for that matter, the means as well
Your making assumptions. Thats a dangerous thing.
I know whats in the net neutrality the FCC was calling for.
The means, would be the FCC. The FCC is NOT the right means, to pursue this end. Get it now?
Net Neutrality is more than what you quoted in the Google blog. More than anything else, it is equal access for everyone. Companies are already implementing plans that are on a "pay-for-bandwidth" model, which would stifle competition by putting undue expense on smaller businesses or individuals to continue the same level of internet traffic on their websites.
The very nature of the internet puts it squarely under the jurisdiction of the FCC, so a fundamental change in US policy would be required to give to to another department. The FTC could be possible, as it would be regulation of commerce, but the FCC would have final control, like it or not.
No it wouldn't stimulate competition because in many markets there is no competetion and no way for competition to enter those markets due to deals that the internet providers struck to develop those markets.
Hopefully this ruling gets over turned.
Well said, I did lots of reading up about net neutrality a while back when I wrote a paper on it. There are cases already of ISPs blocking traffic and scrutinizing. For example, without network neutrality your ISP could block all bit torrent traffic on their network or throttle it to a point that it's useless. They could also make web content providers pay to have their traffic prioritized...which means the little guys (like you and me) that are trying to introduce new innovative products are screwed. There are so many bad things that can (and have) happen with a non-neutral network. Innovation is great in theory...but what incentive do any of them have to be innovative as long as they all follow the status quo? I don't know about you, but I only have 2 or 3 options where I live and none of them are innovative...if one ISP sucks then I'm stuck going to the other one and they all know it.
But you guys are completely missing my point. The FCC regulating the internet is the absolute last thing we need. It would be like if we put judges on the street to police you. There are boundaries, checks, and balances for a reason, and they all need to be respected. If the ends justify the means, then I assume everyone here agrees with the basic concept that is communism.
now you're just trying to take this offtopic
But my comparison does stand, does it not? The end, does not justify the means.
well no, because you're thinking stalin, mao et al., but i don't wanna get in to that because it's way off topic
oh and i don't know shit about the actual topic, so i'll just shut up now (i'm just subscribed to the thread because of pointing out the broken link)
You are completely missing the point. Net neutrality and this ruling isn't about the FCC regulating the internet. It has everything to do with corporations regulating and controlling internet content and access...no matter if you have a contract with that corporation as your ISP or not.
This ruling is very bad for the internet as we currently know it.
They FCC does NOT want to police the Internet, they want to police the companies that provide access to the Internet. This is a huge difference in what you're saying. They want to insure that the Internet stays free and open...what incentive does any ISP have to make sure this happens? None!
Baby steps though, it would bring the FCC one step closer to policing the internet. Policing the company is the responsibility of the FTC, not FCC, thats what I'm getting at.