FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules

[Billnew]

FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules - CNN.com

CNN) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved "high-level rules of the road" designed to ensure that internet providers grant everyone equal access to the Web.

I guess my first question, who put the internet under the control of FCC?

next, even if under FCC control what right does the FCC have to direct these rules?

The Federal goverment makes another instep to expanding thier control and power.
They can direct internet providers, soon they will regulate what gets to the internet.

 

[blueapplepaste]

The last thing we need is a few big corporations controlling and censoring the internet. The government had to step in and do something.

 

[Supreme]

Good. The FCC has seen sense with these rules. From the link above, I can only see this as a good thing. Net neutrality is a something the FCC should be pushing for.

 

[Umaro]

People talk about how the government shouldn't be intruding into the internet like they're the only force of power. Without this bill that says everyone must be treated equally, a corporation could for instance slow Christian forums to a crawl, while making Atheist Forums lightning fast. Then where would we be? Probably blaming it on the government.

 

[blueapplepaste]

People talk about how the government shouldn't be intruding into the internet like they're the only force of power. Without this bill that says everyone must be treated equally, a corporation could for instance slow Christian forums to a crawl, while making Atheist Forums lightning fast. Then where would we be? Probably blaming it on the government.

Exactly. I don't think that many who are against net neutrality fully understand the alternative. Without it Comcast or some other provider could slow Fox News to dial up speeds, while letting MSNBC traffic fly.

I have no doubt that they'd be screaming even louder if something like that happened. No doubt screaming that the government should have done soemthing.

 

[dawiyd]

FCC approves controversial 'net neutrality' rules - CNN.com



I guess my first question, who put the internet under the control of FCC?

The internet isn't under control of the FCC. Essentially what the FCC has said to the ISP's is: "You HAVE to treat all internet traffic the same." Pretty much meaning an ISP can't other a two tier service to different protocols, all traffic must be treated equally. This is good for the end consumer, but not so much for the ISP as they can't limit bandwidth at peak times or in general to specific services. So they have to invest in infrastructure to cope with the ever increasing demand for bandwidth for services, online video streaming for example.

next, even if under FCC control

It's not.

what right does the FCC have to direct these rules?

That given it by the United States Government I would assume, I'd imagine part of that is they have to serve the people...

The Federal goverment makes another instep to expanding thier control and power.
They can direct internet providers, soon they will regulate what gets to the internet.

They already do... They have been seizing domains left right and centre. But this isn't the FCC's doing.

What the FCC is doing is good, and it will stop the fragmentation of the internet.

 

[Billnew]

People talk about how the government shouldn't be intruding into the internet like they're the only force of power. Without this bill that says everyone must be treated equally, a corporation could for instance slow Christian forums to a crawl, while making Atheist Forums lightning fast. Then where would we be? Probably blaming it on the government.

MOst posts say the same thing but yours is most specific.

Goverment is the one force that has the power to restrict any and everything. The people generally only influence the people in power once every 2 - 4 years.

One company slowing down certain areas of the net can easily be overcome with competition. The goverment has no competition. If an area of the web is clearly slower then others, and other providers sre not, then move to the provider that is quicker.

It is far easier to corrupt goverment then to corrupt all internet providers.

Goverment gets a foot in the door, then keeps pushing and pushing.
Also anything the goverment touches slows down, becomes a beurocracy.
Easily becomes over restrictive.
People are worried that all the different providers will handicap the internet, when the goverment can do it alot more easily.

 

[Umaro]

MOst posts say the same thing but yours is most specific.

Goverment is the one force that has the power to restrict any and everything. The people generally only influence the people in power once every 2 - 4 years.

One company slowing down certain areas of the net can easily be overcome with competition. The goverment has no competition. If an area of the web is clearly slower then others, and other providers sre not, then move to the provider that is quicker.

It is far easier to corrupt goverment then to corrupt all internet providers.

Goverment gets a foot in the door, then keeps pushing and pushing.
Also anything the goverment touches slows down, becomes a beurocracy.
Easily becomes over restrictive.
People are worried that all the different providers will handicap the internet, when the goverment can do it alot more easily.

Internet lines are not something that lends itself to competition. Most areas in the US only have lines from one service provider, so you only have one choice for that area you live. This is because it's silly to have cables run to neighborhoods for one house. Even if there is another company, they're still running through the first's lines. If Comcast owns the cables that run to your neighborhood, and they decide to slow Christian forums, it doesn't matter who your ISP is, Comcast will still slow your access.

 

[Bubbahotep]

The last thing we need is a few big corporations controlling and censoring the internet. The government had to step in and do something.

And your solution is to get the government involved in controlling and censoring the net?

People talk about how the government shouldn't be intruding into the internet like they're the only force of power. Without this bill that says everyone must be treated equally, a corporation could for instance slow Christian forums to a crawl, while making Atheist Forums lightning fast. Then where would we be? Probably blaming it on the government.

Key word, "could". Until they "have", then getting the government invoved in regulating the net is as bad an idea as it gets.

 

[Umaro]

Key word, "could". Until they "have", then getting the government invoved in regulating the net is as bad an idea as it gets.

They already "have." Here's just one example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html

 

[wanderingone]

And your solution is to get the government involved in controlling and censoring the net?



Key word, "could". Until they "have", then getting the government invoved in regulating the net is as bad an idea as it gets.

Comcast already DID.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Comcast already DID.

And it's a valid concern. It's just that I'm more concerned with a government known for its corruption and duplicity getting itself involved with the great and freest source of information for people.

Anyone not worried about that needs to get a serious clue.

 

[Umaro]

And it's a valid concern. It's just that I'm more concerned with a government known for its corruption and duplicity getting itself involved with the great and freest source of information for people.

Anyone not worried about that needs to get a serious clue.

Why should I trust Comcast any more than the government? This bill though is just saying "the internet must remain as it has been since it's inception." It's not changing anything, it's keeping the status quo.

 

[Drekkan85]

And once again - people against net neutrality show their complete inability to grasp the concept and that it isn't about censoring content or anything even remotely related to that.

In fact, if anything, it's a guarantee by the government that the marketplace of ideas that is the internet will remain free and open to all without censorship or other restriction.

 

[lawtonfogle]

MOst posts say the same thing but yours is most specific.

Goverment is the one force that has the power to restrict any and everything. The people generally only influence the people in power once every 2 - 4 years.

One company slowing down certain areas of the net can easily be overcome with competition. The goverment has no competition. If an area of the web is clearly slower then others, and other providers sre not, then move to the provider that is quicker.

The free market defense, which in practice works for many things, except for one small issue, which are minorities too small to garner their own share of the market. For example, let us assume homosexual rights were what they were 100 years ago and the groups were really small. Companies would be able to fully destroy pro-GLBT sites, but pro-homosexuals would constitute such a small minority no business will rise up for them, effectively resulting in the internet not being an option for homosexual activism. And there are groups hated enough that this will be the result if traffic isn't equalized. Basically we will see the same thing as we do with the TV, where the true minorities are never heard of except to be bashed by a larger group.

In the end, the internet stands as the last bastion of free information exchange for true minorities, and without net neutrality, that will be taken away.

 

[blueapplepaste]

And it's a valid concern. It's just that I'm more concerned with a government known for its corruption and duplicity getting itself involved with the great and freest source of information for people.

Anyone not worried about that needs to get a serious clue.

And people who think the internet companies can be trusted also needs to get a clue. Comcast already has tried charging "tolls" and restricting access.

I agree, we should be leery of government regulation, but we should also be leery of the corporations who say "Don't worry, you can trust us".

As others have pointed out, what has been passed will help ensure that the internet remains a good source of information and isn't being manipulated.

 

[mpok1519]

The Federal goverment makes another instep to expanding thier control and power.
They can direct internet providers, soon they will regulate what gets to the internet.

Personally I'd rather have a group of experts involved with the Govt dictate who gets internet rather than four or five communication conglomerates practicing price-fixing and insider-trading deciding whats the maximum dollar amount they can charge so as to extrapolate the maximum profit from provision of the net.

 

[TheDag]

And once again - people against net neutrality show their complete inability to grasp the concept and that it isn't about censoring content or anything even remotely related to that.

In fact, if anything, it's a guarantee by the government that the marketplace of ideas that is the internet will remain free and open to all without censorship or other restriction.

although most christians seem to agree with censorship sadly. That is they want things they don't like censored but also want their own views pushed

 

[Steve Petersen]

So how's this gonna work. If I have a subscription to Netflix Instant Watch, will their net priority be the same as anyone else? Why would I pay for a subscription if my streaming will be the same as someone watching a Youtube video for free?

 

[Drekkan85]

So how's this gonna work. If I have a subscription to Netflix Instant Watch, will their net priority be the same as anyone else? Why would I pay for a subscription if my streaming will be the same as someone watching a Youtube video for free?

1) Quality of video is much higher

2) This is also about, say, Comcast saying "We have a partnership with NetFlix so we'll give priority to their site and slow down Blockbuster online access".

3) Selection - you can't find everything and anything online on youtube that you can get in NetFlix.

4) Legality - putting things on youtube that are copyrighted (or viewing such) is of dubious legality.