FCC WANTS TO 'REGULATE' INTERNET

[andymays]

http://www.reuters.com/article/regulatoryNewsConsumerGoodsAndRetail/idUSN2237873320091022

Excerpt:

* All 5 commissioners vote to seek public comment on rule
* Two Republican commissioners have some reservations
* Draft rule would allow for 'reasonable' net management
* Public comments accepted until Jan. 14
* Telecom firms worry rule would hamper network management (Adds vote by commissioners, quotes, background)

By John Poirier and Sinead Carew

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The proposed rule now goes to the public for comment until Jan. 14, after which the Federal Communications Commissions will review the feedback and possibly seek more comment. A final rule is not expected until the spring of next year.

"I am pleased that there is broad agreement inside the commission that we should move forward with a healthy and transparent process on an open Internet," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.

The vote came despite a flurry of lobbying against the net neutrality rule by telecommunications service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Qwest Communications International Inc (Q.N), which say it would strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition.

[Tom]

Attack on free speech, because as we have seen, Obama is afraid of the truth.

[sandpit]

the only regulation that makes any sense to me has to do with pornography...any site that is distributing that type of material should have a domain of .xxx and there should be some way to restrict it to legal adults through some sort of age verification process. I'm sure the porno lobby would fight this like mad, though.

[mostpost]

the only regulation that makes any sense to me has to do with pornography...any site that is distributing that type of material should have a domain of .xxx and there should be some way to restrict it to legal adults through some sort of age verification process. I'm sure the porno lobby would fight this like mad, though.
I think the responsible porn industry (Responsible Porn Industry....there's an oxymoron for you) would and does favor such a thing. Of course, I've never been to a porn sight myself, :rolleyes: but I heard from a friend that they often have information on how a parent can block the sites from underaged viewers.

[mostpost]

I've read the story over and over again and it seems to me what they are trying to do is PREVENT telecom network operators from censoring content, as long as said content is legal. They are not restricting what people can say on the internet, and they are saying that others (private industry) can't restrict it either.

[plainolebill]

I've read the story over and over again and it seems to me what they are trying to do is PREVENT telecom network operators from censoring content, as long as said content is legal. They are not restricting what people can say on the internet, and they are saying that others (private industry) can't restrict it either.

I believe this is true, they want to prevent providers like Comcast from limiting where their subscribers can browse.

[Tom]

And who are they to tell Comcast how to turn their business?

[mostpost]

And who are they to tell Comcast how to turn their business?
And what if Comcast decides that horseracing is immoral and they don't want their customers to view any horse racing sites? Why would you be allright with a business limiting your rights and be so opposed to the government doing it?
And, yes, the government, which is you and me, does have the right to tell a business how to operate in order to protect the common good. When your company produces one of its duck blinds there is product left over, right? Sawdust and scraps. You are not allowed to take those scraps and dump them in Mrs. McGillicuddy's back yard; nor are you allowed put the sawdust in front of a fan and blow it all over the neighborhood.
Government makes these decisions because individuals won't. Not all individuals.

[jballscalls]

And who are they to tell Comcast how to turn their business?

if there was ever a company i would want to see the government take over or get rid of, it's comcast! god were they a nightmare!! thank goodness for directv

[Tom]

And what if Comcast decides that horseracing is immoral and they don't want their customers to view any horse racing sites? Why would you be allright with a business limiting your rights and be so opposed to the government doing it?

I have NO rights to tell Comcast what to do. My ONLY right is to use Comcast or not use Comcast. My RIGHT is limited to using a provider that offers what I want. You really need to learn what a right is. Common good doesn't not include product selection.

Should I have the right to tell Campbell's that I want apple smoked bacon bacon in their Pork & Beans? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

if there was ever a company i would want to see the government take over or get rid of, it's comcast! god were they a nightmare!! thank goodness for directv

So what is to stop them from talking over Direct TV. And then decide horse racing is not good for you and outlawing TVG? Or, they decide to put a cap on your salary as a race caller because they figure you make too much?
If you want to protect your own rights, you have to protect EVERYONE's rights. Like it or not.

[jballscalls]

So what is to stop them from talking over Direct TV. And then decide horse racing is not good for you and outlawing TVG? Or, they decide to put a cap on your salary as a race caller because they figure you make too much?
If you want to protect your own rights, you have to protect EVERYONE's rights. Like it or not.

i outlaw TVG to myself! i know what you mean Tom, i was more making a joke. you know i'm for less gov't involvement in most things

[Tom]

I know, but you posed a good learing opportunity for mostie.:rolleyes:

Hey - you back to work?

[jballscalls]

I know, but you posed a good learing opportunity for mostie.:rolleyes:

Hey - you back to work?

yeah man, went back monday. should be clear sailing the rest of the season. Was certainly shaking off the 5 month rust this week though....uggh

[boxcar]

And what if Comcast decides that horseracing is immoral and they don't want their customers to view any horse racing sites? Why would you be allright with a business limiting your rights and be so opposed to the government doing it?

You never pay attention, do you? I've addressed this kind of issue previously. You have swallowed so much of the state's kool-aid, you can't even think through the answers to your own most elementary questions. Here is the answer again. Please, listen up this time.

First of all, the premise to your hypothetical is all wet. A private company has the right to dictate its own terms of usage. Therefore, a company doesn't limit your rights per se, as much as they dictate what their rights are -- what THEIR terms of usage are -- what THEIR conditions are. Now, if a paying customer doesn't like these terms, guess what? The customer can tell Comcast to take a flying leap by refusing to remain a paying subscriber. Essentially, the customer has recourse. He can take his own kind of 'punitive" action against the company by cutting the company off from his money. Let's hear it for the Free Market!!!! Let's hear it for Power to The People!!!!

In a free market scheme of things, the consumer ("the people') still retain some measure of power. We're still in the driver's seat. In this environment, We get choose who we will give our bucks to and to whom we won't. But this isn't the case with an oppressive, tyrannical government who desires to control virtually all areas of our personal lives. When the government is in the driver's seat, they get to take the punitive action against The People, whenever we don't agree with an oppressive policy such as it mandating health care coverage for everyone. If we dare disagree, then we're subject to very stiff fines and possibly even prison. In short, Capitalsim is the lesser of two evils compared to the State because the people still get to retain some power (power of money and choices), whereas this isn't the case with the government.

Therefore, the reason behind this move to have the FCC regulate the internet is entirely bogus. It's unnecessary because nothing is broken! Nothing, therefore, needs fixing! All it is, is the the first baby step toward more oppressive government regulation. We already know, for instance, that the BO administration is not very fond of news outlets that are critical of his administration. Who is to say, that more live links to these kinds of outlets won't "mysteriously" disappear off the internet, as is the case now with the FNC?

So, tell me, Mosty -- under which environment -- under which system (Socialism or Capitalism) are the people most free? Under which system do we have the most choices?

Boxcar

[ddog]

The delusional ramblings that you posted here are off the deep end.

The issues(yeah like you care) have nothing to do with free this or that.

Nothing.


You and Tommy teach ok, you teach that you don't know what in the hell you are posting about in this thread. :D


Just for starters, you may wish to understand how the "private"(actually public) company was set up and what THEY agreed to when they were set up or entered various markets.

After that, you may wish to ponder your statement about the company setting their own rules and regs for useage. That would follow that once stated and not amended that the company should follow their own guides.

In this case if they don't YOU will and DO (from your rambling) not have the knowledge to know they are not.
Else you would have not rambled into the deep-ditch of the "freedom" foolishness.

You could have saved all your bluster and b.s by just posting an emo, that is more than you brought to this thread.

I think this would cover it. :blush:

[boxcar]

The delusional ramblings that you posted here are off the deep end.

The issues(yeah like you care) have nothing to do with free this or that.

Nothing.


You and Tommy teach ok, you teach that you don't know what in the hell you are posting about in this thread. :D


Just for starters, you may wish to understand how the "private"(actually public) company was set up and what THEY agreed to when they were set up or entered various markets.

After that, you may wish to ponder your statement about the company setting their own rules and regs for useage. That would follow that once stated and not amended that the company should follow their own guides.

In this case if they don't YOU will and DO (from your rambling) not have the knowledge to know they are not.
Else you would have not rambled into the deep-ditch of the "freedom" foolishness.

You could have saved all your bluster and b.s by just posting an emo that is more than you brought to this thread.

I think this would cover it. :blush:

Fine. Since you're the Know-it-All on this forum, why don't you provide us with a few examples of how internet providers are breaking their own rules -- in essence, breaking their contracts with subscribers?. This should be no problem for you, should it?

Boxcar
P.S. Don't dare disappoint -- 'cause I know you want to bring so much to this thread. :rolleyes:

[ddog]

Fine. Since you're the Know-it-All on this forum, why don't you provide us with a few examples of how internet providers are breaking their own rules -- in essence, breaking their contracts with subscribers?. This should be no problem for you, should it?

Boxcar


I am not here to teach you , in fact your mind is closed as you stated many times.
When you deride others they may not want to hit back.
I as you know, see you for what you are and have not such inhibtions.

However , as you are TOO lazy to do any work before you post your trash I will leave you a clue. If you are not a clown as you claim then it will be enough.

FCC and RST .

[boxcar]

I am not here to teach you , in fact your mind is closed as you stated many times.
When you deride others they may not want to hit back.
I as you know, see you for what you are and have not such inhibtions.

However , as you are TOO lazy to do any work before you post your trash I will leave you a clue. If you are not a clown as you claim then it will be enough.

FCC and RST .

Good thing you admit that you're not here to teach. After all, what could we possibly learn from an empty suit? Glad to know you have a modicum of sense about your limitations.

Further, I knew about the little slap Comcast got. Big deal! If Comcast screws around, they're ultimately screwing over their customer base, and most customers don't like getting screwed around and would, therefore, they would take appropriate action, such as dumping Comcast. What's so hard about this to understand?

Do you need the freakin' government to change your diapers and brush your teeth, too? (Hopefully, when they do the former they don't clean your bottom with your tooth brush -- although you would probably relish the fresh taste of organic material in your mouth.) :rolleyes:

Any other "flagrant" abuses by ISPs? There should be tons of them out to justify the FCC getting involved in the internet. Or this is all you have?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You never pay attention, do you? I've addressed this kind of issue previously. You have swallowed so much of the state's kool-aid, you can't even think through the answers to your own most elementary questions. Here is the answer again. Please, listen up this time.

First of all, the premise to your hypothetical is all wet. A private company has the right to dictate its own terms of usage. Therefore, a company doesn't limit your rights per se, as much as they dictate what their rights are -- what THEIR terms of usage are -- what THEIR conditions are. Now, if a paying customer doesn't like these terms, guess what? The customer can tell Comcast to take a flying leap by refusing to remain a paying subscriber. Essentially, the customer has recourse. He can take his own kind of 'punitive" action against the company by cutting the company off from his money. Let's hear it for the Free Market!!!! Let's hear it for Power to The People!!!!

In a free market scheme of things, the consumer ("the people') still retain some measure of power. We're still in the driver's seat. In this environment, We get choose who we will give our bucks to and to whom we won't. But this isn't the case with an oppressive, tyrannical government who desires to control virtually all areas of our personal lives. When the government is in the driver's seat, they get to take the punitive action against The People, whenever we don't agree with an oppressive policy such as it mandating health care coverage for everyone. If we dare disagree, then we're subject to very stiff fines and possibly even prison. In short, Capitalsim is the lesser of two evils compared to the State because the people still get to retain some power (power of money and choices), whereas this isn't the case with the government.

Therefore, the reason behind this move to have the FCC regulate the internet is entirely bogus. It's unnecessary because nothing is broken! Nothing, therefore, needs fixing! All it is, is the the first baby step toward more oppressive government regulation. We already know, for instance, that the BO administration is not very fond of news outlets that are critical of his administration. Who is to say, that more live links to these kinds of outlets won't "mysteriously" disappear off the internet, as is the case now with the FNC?

So, tell me, Mosty -- under which environment -- under which system (Socialism or Capitalism) are the people most free? Under which system do we have the most choices?

Boxcar
Whether you posted on this subject is not relevant. Your ideas are wrong. Therefore I need not concern myself with them. But just for the purpose of showing where and how you are wrong,

First of all, the premise to your hypothetical is all wet. A private company has the right to dictate its own terms of usage. Therefore, a company doesn't limit your rights per se, as much as they dictate what their rights are -- what THEIR terms of usage are -- what THEIR conditions are. Now, if a paying customer doesn't like these terms, guess what? The customer can tell Comcast to take a flying leap by refusing to remain a paying subscriber. Essentially, the customer has recourse. He can take his own kind of 'punitive" action against the company by cutting the company off from his money. Let's hear it for the Free Market!!!! Let's hear it for Power to The People!!!!
A private company's rights end where the impinge on the rights of others. In other words your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. An internet provider does not have the right to regulate legal content because it does not like that content. A particular website would have that right. You would not want this week's Playmate on the Sesame Street site. But the provider is non specific.
Your argument to let the Free Market work does not hold water either. Assume that a person is interested in; knitting, collecting Civil War artifacts; photography; and Astronomy. He signs up for Comcast only to find that Comcast does not allow any content related to knitting. He goes to Yahoo but yahoo forbids websites which deal with the collection of Civil War artifacts. AOL won't let him see anything related to photography and ATT is opposed to Astronomy. Admittedly these are prposterous examples but you see my point. No.....you probably don't.

In a free market scheme of things, the consumer ("the people') still retain some measure of power. We're still in the driver's seat. In this environment, We get choose who we will give our bucks to and to whom we won't.
This is illusory. This power exists only where there is real choice. Insurance companies, being exempt from Anti Trust laws, have colluded for years over benefits and costs. Even where there is competition, there is little variance in price for items of similar quality.

We already know, for instance, that the BO administration is not very fond of news outlets that are critical of his administration.
There are two things wrong with that statement; at least.
The Obama administration is fine with news outlets that are critical of them. What they are not so fine with is news outlets that are critical of them and use false information and uninformed opinion to make their case.
Second, the Obama administration has not banned any Fox reporters from the White House, they haven't frozen them out of any White House press briefings, and they have not prohibited White House staffers from appeaing on Fox shows. Not to mske this about the last administration, but Helen Thomas sat in the White House briefing room for the last several years of the Bush Administration and was never called on.

So, tell me, Mosty -- under which environment -- under which system (Socialism or Capitalism) are the people most free? Under which system do we have the most choices?
The system does not determine that. How the system is implemented does.
Under Communism, an extreme form of Socialism the people had no freedoms.
Under the Nazis, with an extreme form of Capitalism the people were no less slaves.

[Tom]

You have absolutely NO right to tell Comcast what to offer in their business. Period. That is where YOU interfere with their rights. Internet access is not a right to anyone.

[Tom]

"There are two things wrong with that statement; at least.
The Obama administration is fine with news outlets that are critical of them. What they are not so fine with is news outlets that are critical of them and use false information and uninformed opinion to make their case. WRONG. They have not been able to disoute a single FOX story and they have been invited repeatedly to come on Beck live and correct ANY erros he may report - no takers.

Second, the Obama administration has not banned any Fox reporters from the White House, they haven't frozen them out of any White House press briefings, They tried to avoid the normal Press Pool because of FOX, by holding a separete one and not inviting FOX. To their credit, the other 5 news member refused to participate unless ALL were allowed - meaning FOX. and they have not prohibited White House staffers from appeaing on Fox shows. Yes, they have.

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=mostpost]Whether you posted on this subject is not relevant. Your ideas are wrong. Therefore I need not concern myself with them. But just for the purpose of showing where and how you are wrong,


A private company's rights end where the impinge on the rights of others. In other words your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. An internet provider does not have the right to regulate legal content because it does not like that content. A particular website would have that right. You would not want this week's Playmate on the Sesame Street site. But the provider is non specific.
Your argument to let the Free Market work does not hold water either. Assume that a person is interested in; knitting, collecting Civil War artifacts; photography; and Astronomy. He signs up for Comcast only to find that Comcast does not allow any content related to knitting. He goes to Yahoo but yahoo forbids websites which deal with the collection of Civil War artifacts. AOL won't let him see anything related to photography and ATT is opposed to Astronomy. Admittedly these are prposterous examples but you see my point. No.....you probably don't.

You're right, I don't. Tom stated it most succinctly. When did the internet become a God-given right? Why doesn't Comcast have the right to regulate content? In WallyWorld where you live, it seems that only the U.S. government should have control -- should have regulatory rights.

Plus you're soooooo off base with your dumb analogy. You're rights end wherever a company tells you it does! Period. End of story. Try exerting your rights with your employer when, he tells you, (just as one example) that you cannot talk to the press about any company business. (So much for "free speech", eh?) Or try carrying a concealed weapon into a gun range that prohibits that practice. See how fast you'll get evicted, despite your 2nd Amendment rights or your CC permit!

You're as clueless as they come!

And by the way, I love your equally stupid remark about how there's only power of choice when there are real choices -- you mean like the real choice ObamaCare will give us? What about the real choice of opting out of all insurance coverage, all together without stiff fines for making that choice? :bang: :bang: Or what about my real choice to get to keep my "cadillac" insurance plan without getting hammered with a punitive excise tax? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: We have lots of "real choices" when the state is involved in our personal lives, don't we? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=mostpost]Whether you posted on this subject is not relevant. Your ideas are wrong. Therefore I need not concern myself with them. But just for the purpose of showing where and how you are wrong,


A private company's rights end where the impinge on the rights of others. In other words your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. An internet provider does not have the right to regulate legal content because it does not like that content. A particular website would have that right. You would not want this week's Playmate on the Sesame Street site. But the provider is non specific.
Your argument to let the Free Market work does not hold water either. Assume that a person is interested in; knitting, collecting Civil War artifacts; photography; and Astronomy. He signs up for Comcast only to find that Comcast does not allow any content related to knitting. He goes to Yahoo but yahoo forbids websites which deal with the collection of Civil War artifacts. AOL won't let him see anything related to photography and ATT is opposed to Astronomy. Admittedly these are prposterous examples but you see my point. No.....you probably don't.

You're right, I don't. Tom stated it most succinctly. When did the internet become a God-given right? Why doesn't Comcast have the right to regulate content? In WallyWorld where you live, it seems that only the U.S. government should have control -- should have regulatory rights.

Plus you're soooooo off base with your dumb analogy. You're rights end wherever a company tells you it does! Period. End of story. Try exerting your rights with your employer when, he tells you, (just as one example) that you cannot talk to the press about any company business. (So much for "free speech", eh?) Or try carrying a concealed weapon into a gun range that prohibits that practice. See how fast you'll get evicted, despite your 2nd Amendment rights or your CC permit!

You're as clueless as they come!

And by the way, I love your equally stupid remark about how there's only power of choice when there are real choices -- you mean like the real choice ObamaCare will give us? What about the real choice of opting out of all insurance coverage, all together without stiff fines for making that choice? :bang: :bang: Or what about my real choice to get to keep my "cadillac" insurance plan without getting hammered with a punitive excise tax? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: We have lots of "real choices" when the state is involved in our personal lives, don't we? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Guess what?
Options - real choices - is not a right either. :lol: