and Again, freedom hits the skids

[skate]

freedom...you know what it is, when you see it...Skatesperien.

Now keep in mind, now we DO have freedom of the internet, gov does not rule.

And they come accross with the term "fredom and openness"


—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would (first time) give the federal gov. authority to regulate Internet traffic, how much or for how long remained unclear.

"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."

Basically, what i see is that the playing field is under fire by the Fed Gov. not just here.

What they want is too regulate higher cost ISP with lower cost ISP.

So , no more lower price for what may be the service you need, regulation come to play.
Also, not in this Bill, that i saw, but it wont be long before the Tax Man commith.

[ArlJim78]

it was about the only thing that runs well, is relatively free, and a source of continuous innovation, all done WITHOUT government regulation.

so now even though they admit that nothing is broken, the regime rides in to take over. nothing to worry about either, with the governments sterling track record of achievement.:rolleyes:

anyone who believes that this was done in the interest of freedom and openess is a fool. the reason for this is that they want less of both.

[boxcar]

Can anyone spell ham radio? This might end up becoming the next tsunami-like communication wave.

Boxcar

[dartman51]

I don't know why you would be surprised at this, COMMUNIST CHINA, has been doing this from the get go.

[skate]

I don't know why you would be surprised at this, COMMUNIST CHINA, has been doing this from the get go.


yeh ok, but the fact is that China gets less with controls, while we (*USA) get more. It's the direction that is serious.

and they must lie about the process.;) While china is upfront, wrong at times but at least upfront, they bend, while we turn YELLOW, as in jaundice.

[ArlJim78]

Rush on net neutrality and Holder;

V_ZVEAqheAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ZVEAqheAc&feature=player_embedded

[ArlJim78]

I don't know why you would be surprised at this, COMMUNIST CHINA, has been doing this from the get go.
so what does that mean to you, that China is out in front on this and we need to catch up?

why shouldn't we be surpised when we find ourselves following in China's footsteps?

[Native Texan III]

Net neutrality is to protect freedom and access for all - not just the more wealthy or elites. Private ISPs in the age of on demand video and film-streaming want to throttle back on average Joe user bandwidth to avoid investing in extra infrastructure. If you don't want throttle back you will be forced to pay a hefty premium price and will have less choice of ISP.

Why cannot self styled righties ever understand what freedom is and fight for freedom?

What is network neutrality?
Network neutrality is based on the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) are to treat all web traffic equally, regardless of content type or origin - for whatever data is passing from content providers to end users.

That extends to the idea that ISPs should not block any lawful content or control their infrastructure to preferentially deal with any kind of data.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10924691

[skate]

Rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to PAY extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes.

Rates would increase for those that do not need the speed.

[Dave Schwartz]

Net neutrality is to protect freedom and access for all - not just the more wealthy or elites. Private ISPs in the age of on demand video and film-streaming want to throttle back on average Joe user bandwidth to avoid investing in extra infrastructure. If you don't want throttle back you will be forced to pay a hefty premium price and will have less choice of ISP.

Permit me to predict what is coming and YOU (Texan) decide if it is freedom. (Please note that I have heard scuttlebutt about this for over a year and what I am going to share is a learned opinion from some very connected people.)

What is coming is a taxation plan that will mean only people who can afford "server farms" will be able to host a website that looks at all commercial. By "commercial," I mean if you have affiliate links (like we have right here on PA) you are considered a commercial site.

The cost for hosting + taxation (which will be on the bandwidth used by the host, including all those graphics and links) will increase the cost of basic hosting by 50 times or more. In other words, that $15 hosting package might become $750 per month or more.

Guys like PA will be forced to pass the cost on to the end users, of course. All this generates revenue to justify the taxation in the first place.

These "freedom-things" always come with a cost and, amazingly, the cost is often a loss of freedom.


I really hope my sources do not know what they are talking about.

Dave Schwartz

[ArlJim78]

anyone having any trouble now with freedom or access to the net?

[Tom]

Net neutrality is nothing new.
It has been done to the press by the nazis, the commies, the banana republic dictators....you name the oppressors of freedom and it has been done.

The FCC has outlived it's usefulness and must be dismantled. It is now the gestapo arm of a rouge government, flaunting the law and the courts. The chairmen is a criminal and needs to be arrested.

This is part of the progressive agenda....read Alinsky...and his boy OBama, both enemies of freedom and of America. The Kenyan is FAR worse than Bin Laden.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/130505-rockefeller-censorship

Since when did having more scrutiny of politicians and their activities by news organizations lead to the travesty of justice Rockefeller is claiming? Apparently, Sen. Rockefeller and his colleagues don’t like to be bothered by a meddling media, investigating their moves and challenging them on questionable actions.

The answer to the infection that is DC, the cancer that lives on the Hill.....check this out.....bout damn time!!!!

http://www.repealamendment.org/

"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

[Tom]

anyone having any trouble now with freedom or access to the net?

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd.....you know, the proven liars and thieves and scoundrels.

[mostpost]

freedom...you know what it is, when you see it...Skatesperien.

Now keep in mind, now we DO have freedom of the internet, gov does not rule.

And they come accross with the term "fredom and openness"


—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would (first time) give the federal gov. authority to regulate Internet traffic, how much or for how long remained unclear.

"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."

Basically, what i see is that the playing field is under fire by the Fed Gov. not just here.

What they want is too regulate higher cost ISP with lower cost ISP.

So , no more lower price for what may be the service you need, regulation come to play.
Also, not in this Bill, that i saw, but it wont be long before the Tax Man commith.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html?tag=mncol;txt
Here are the two main parts of the new regulation. (It is not a bill :bang: )
The first rule requires both wireless and wireline providers to be transparent in how they manage and operate their networks.

The second Net neutrality rule prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet.
Explain to me how a rule that prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet,
give(s) the federal gov. authority to regulate Internet traffic. To do that you would need a rule that permitsthe blocking of traffic on the Internet. What the FCC is doing is preventing a provider such as comcast from refusing to carry content by yahoo or google. Here is another possible scenario. AS you know, Comcast is negotiating to purchase NBC. If the deal goes through, what is to prevent Comcast from banning all other networks' content? The new rule does prevent that.

[newtothegame]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html?tag=mncol;txt
Here are the two main parts of the new regulation. (It is not a bill :bang: )
The first rule requires both wireless and wireline providers to be transparent in how they manage and operate their networks.

The second Net neutrality rule prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet.
Explain to me how a rule that prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet,
give(s) the federal gov. authority to regulate Internet traffic. To do that you would need a rule that permitsthe blocking of traffic on the Internet. What the FCC is doing is preventing a provider such as comcast from refusing to carry content by yahoo or google. Here is another possible scenario. AS you know, Comcast is negotiating to purchase NBC. If the deal goes through, what is to prevent Comcast from banning all other networks' content? The new rule does prevent that.

I bolded a section I would like you too look at Mosty...and ask yourself this question. How can the government require something of someone when it knows NOTHING about what it is asking? Let me give you a hint...TRANSPARANCY?????
As to the bill or proposed bill or whatever, I havent read enough to make an informed decision yet...but, I will say most things the government touches...goes to hell in a hand basket rather quickly!

[mostpost]

Permit me to predict what is coming and YOU (Texan) decide if it is freedom. (Please note that I have heard scuttlebutt about this for over a year and what I am going to share is a learned opinion from some very connected people.)
What is coming is a taxation plan that will mean only people who can afford "server farms" will be able to host a website that looks at all commercial. By "commercial," I mean if you have affiliate links (like we have right here on PA) you are considered a commercial site.

The cost for hosting + taxation (which will be on the bandwidth used by the host, including all those graphics and links) will increase the cost of basic hosting by 50 times or more. In other words, that $15 hosting package might become $750 per month or more.

Guys like PA will be forced to pass the cost on to the end users, of course. All this generates revenue to justify the taxation in the first place.

These "freedom-things" always come with a cost and, amazingly, the cost is often a loss of freedom.


I really hope my sources do not know what they are talking about.

Dave Schwartz
Excuse me if I think your "very connected people" are full of c--p. Is there any mention in the new FCC rules about taxes? Of course not, since taxes can only be imposed by the Congress. Is there any legislation pending before Congress to impose taxes such as you fear? I did not look it up, but I feel confident in saying "No"
Of course I pay taxes as part of my cable/internet bill, and I'm sure Mike pays taxes on revenue he receives from advertisers and other sources.
Your "very connected people" raise the spector of new taxes and higher rates because they do not want to give up the "freedom" to do whatever they want regardless of how it affects others. They do not want to give up the "freedom" to limit the freedom of others.

[mostpost]

This is part of the progressive agenda....read Alinsky...and his boy OBama, both enemies of freedom and of America.
I took your advice. I read Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. And I am confused. According to you, the progressive agenda is all about concentrating power in the hands of the government and minimizing the freedom of the people. Yet, in "Rules For Radicals" Alinsky is all about using the power of the people to neutralize the power of government and of big business.
Perhaps you could point me to passages in "Rules For Radicals" that would explain where I am wrong. That is, if you have actually read Alinsky yourself and are not just parroting something you heard.

[ArlJim78]

The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop=#articleTabs%3Darticle)

__________________________________________________ _
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."
_____________________________________
more at the link.

congress and the courts have said to the FCC to stand down, to not act in this manner. that hardly matters though to an out of control authoritarian regime.

[Dave Schwartz]

Mosty,

You are entitled to your opinion.

I believe this is the first step of others. Once the jurisdiction is determined, they will have a field day.


Just give it time.


Dave

[Tom]

The goal is to FORCE carriage of certain content.
Wake up mostie......your freedoms are being attacked and you are helping them do it.

[mostpost]

The goal is to FORCE carriage of certain content.
Wake up mostie......your freedoms are being attacked and you are helping them do it.
By "certain content" do you mean government content? The government already has access to the internet. They have many websites covering all aspects of government. Those opposing the government also have access. There is no requirement that those opposing the government have to tell the truth. See Breitbart et al.
Perhaps you are speaking of liberal groups. I am definitely in favor of rules which require carriage of that content. At present it is carried, but what is to prevent a provider from refusing to do so in the future. Owners of large corporations tend to be conservative. I do not trust the civic mindedness of such people.

It is now 11:43AM in Chicago. I am wide awake and have been for several hours. Far from being an attack on my freedom, I see this as a protection of my freedom. Nothing in the new rules says that any content will be prohibited. Just the opposite.

The internet is public domain. Neither the providers nor the government has the right to determine what should not be allowed on it.

[Tom]

The internet is public domain. Neither the providers nor the government has the right to determine what should not be allowed on it.

And yet the is exactly what they are doing, with your support.

[boxcar]

Mosty,

You are entitled to your opinion.

I believe this is the first step of others. Once the jurisdiction is determined, they will have a field day.


Just give it time.


Dave

Exactly! And this "first step" as you say is a huge one because the FCC acted unilaterally in defiance of an appeals court ruling and congress -- who both essentially told the FCC that it doesn't have the authority to do this. If the FCC is allowed to get away with this, increased taxes, will be the least of our worries -- relatively speaking.

Most 'net experts have said that the FCC (with all BO appointees, I believe) is basically making a power grab to fix something that isn't broken. The Internet works just fine the way it is. The ultimate goal is censorship, such as what Chavez is doing currently in his country. It is of paramount importance for communist nations to control free speech (which the Left in his country champions also), and this is what unfolding before our eyes.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

the basic principle of net neutrality is very simple -- the carrier networks should be traffic agnostic, i.e. the carrier does not arbitrarily degrade traffic from certain sources in favor of traffic from other sources.

So Comcast cannot slow down Yahoo page transit times, while leaving Google at full speed, based on Google paying Comcast some side money to do so. Or, more likely, deprecating something like Netflix streaming and giving favor to Xfinity (Comcast owned) streaming.

The carriers have blocked traffic in the past generated from certain sources (peer to peer) and have gone to court over whether that was lawful. The goal of the FCC guidelines would be to instantiate that this is not lawful.

Network neutrality is essentially cementing the idea that the carriers must act as "dumb pipes". They are there to connect consumers to servers, at whatever speed both the consumer and the server can handle -- not to make editorial decisions.

[boxcar]

Net neutrality is to protect freedom and access for all - not just the more wealthy or elites.

Whose freedoms are currently being violated? I know a numerous people who are neither "wealthy or elites" and they have never complained (to the best of my knowledge) about their internet service -- that somehow they were being deprived of service.

Boxcar

[Hank]

Dave's people are probably on the right track here.It makes sense when the government is viewed for what it really is, a component of a corporation.Also the rhetorical device deployed will invariably suggest the opposite of their real intent.

[boxcar]

the basic principle of net neutrality is very simple -- the carrier networks should be traffic agnostic, i.e. the carrier does not arbitrarily degrade traffic from certain sources in favor of traffic from other sources.

So Comcast cannot slow down Yahoo page transit times, while leaving Google at full speed, based on Google paying Comcast some side money to do so. Or, more likely, deprecating something like Netflix streaming and giving favor to Xfinity (Comcast owned) streaming.

The carriers have blocked traffic in the past generated from certain sources (peer to peer) and have gone to court over whether that was lawful. The goal of the FCC guidelines would be to instantiate that this is not lawful.

Network neutrality is essentially cementing the idea that the carriers must act as "dumb pipes". They are there to connect consumers to servers, at whatever speed both the consumer and the server can handle -- not to make editorial decisions.

With all due respect, I think it's far more likely that you're buying into government propaganda than not.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, wrote Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, in an opinion essay in the Wall Street Journal. "The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist."

As Reagan essentially said (to paraphrase him) the most fearful words a citizen of this country can hear is, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." And we can be dead certain of this when no one is calling for help because none is needed!

I guarantee this power grab will result in more revenue (taxes, fees -- whatever label you want to put on it) for the government and eventually evolve into censorship. The "fairness doctrine" will find its way to the web.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/21/need-care-net-neutrality/#ixzz18roKK9qs

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

With all due respect, I think it's far more likely that you're buying into government propaganda than not.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, wrote Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, in an opinion essay in the Wall Street Journal. "The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist."

As Reagan essentially said (to paraphrase him) the most fearful words a citizen of this country can hear is, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." And we can be dead certain of this when no one is calling for help because none is needed!

I guarantee this power grab will result in more revenue (taxes, fees -- whatever label you want to put on it) for the government and eventually evolve into censorship. The "fairness doctrine" will find its way to the web.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/21/need-care-net-neutrality/#ixzz18roKK9qs

Boxcar

Here is a quote from President of AT&T, at the time of the SBC At&T merger (2005). Believe me, charging the servers you are trying to download content from as a consumer has LONG been on their mind.

How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?

How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

The industry argument against net neutrality is in fact quite open about this. They say that net neutrality will lead to under-investment in their networks. What they don't say, but what is obvious from that statement -- is that they are saying it will lead to underinvestment because it will eliminate potential new revenue sources for them, to help them pay for their build-out. Namely, charging the Googles and Microsofts and Yahoos and Netflixs (and yes, Dave Shwartzes HSH) of the world every time you request traffic from them.

So Dave has a nightmare fear that the gov't will begin taxing him as a server. -- above you can clearly see the head of a carrier nearly salivating over his plans to charge Dave's server for putting up content. That is a reality, an actual plan they are quite open about, rather than a conspiracy.

[chickenhead]

for anyone who reads his statement and says "makes sense" -- it doesn't. You as consumer pay for use of their pipe. You are their customer. Google at their end is paying someone else to get their traffic onto their end of the network, they are paying their own IP connect charges. Dave at HSHs is already paying to get his server traffic onto the network. It is ludicrous for the end users carrier to try to charge him again.

[chickenhead]

btw (and, Triple Post!)

most of the review of this new guideline has been that it is so full of loopfuls and watered down "compromise" that it will essentially let the carriers do whatever they want.

So it may be fair to say you'll see some sort of these things coming, in one fashion or another, anyway.

So there's still room to hate on the gov't -- for the FCC essentially folding to the lobbyists and not technically restricting any of the changes AT&T and Verizon and Comcast have in mind.

[bigmack]

I still can't figure out how they can pass bills without having all the rules in place but we'll know in time if this is bad or good. Like Santa.

One important thing to note is that the FCC hasn't actually released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet. The Republican commissioners voted against the plan yesterday, and according to FCC procedures, the commission must respond to any dissent before releasing its rules. So it could be another day or two before the commission adds that response and publishes the rules.

What it currently covers:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/fcc.png

i91qWjck_f4

[Tom]

Yes, like Happy Meals are bad for you, so they outlaw the toys.
Then they make you buy carrots, then they take over health care.
Life 101 - the government ALWAYS lies, it can NEVER be trusted, and it is ALWAYS getting it's foot in the door to limit freedom under false pretense.
If that was all they are planning, it could be expressed specifically in two pages and suffice.

The devil is in the excessive wordage.
Fact of life with bottom feeders.

The FCC is acting without authority and against the courts.

But I see your point, Boss, you Basterd, you! (suck up suck up)

[boxcar]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, Chick, you're saying that it's inevitable anyway that everyday users like ourselves are going to pay more money? Is this the bottom line here? The internet will be "free and open" (to borrow Edward Markey's phrase -- a MA Dem) to all who can afford to pay the additional charges?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

there is no bill, its an agency created by congress which has decided to write some rules and broaden its scope. its all about control

[chickenhead]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, Chick, you're saying that it's inevitable anyway that everyday users like ourselves are going to pay more money? Is this the bottom line here? The internet will be "free and open" (to borrow Edward Markey's phrase -- a MA Dem) to all who can afford to pay the additional charges?

Boxcar

The main problem all network providers have is traffic is growing faster than the cost of networking equipment is dropping -- I work for a company that designs and sells networking equipment, this is something we talk about all the time.

So any company involved in transport, like the Comcast and AT&Ts and Verizons of the world have this big issue. So basically the equation is -- (amount of traffic) X (cost of network capacity) = (price charged to consumers).

so if traffic keeps growing faster than network capacity price falls, then consumer prices will go up. Which is just natural. They are all making healthy profits right now, but you can look at the growth curves and they are scary.

What eventually should and will happen in a logical system, is metered pricing rather than all you can eat. Just like you pay for electricity in chunks, and water in chunks, and gasoline in chunks, and you'll pay for the internet in chunks. Everyone will have high speed internet, and you'll pay for it by how many Gb you move around. Network capacity costs money, it should be a metered resource.

So I think thats the right way for things to go eventually, metered billing, it makes the economics of the industry scalable to any amount of traffic. People that don't use much capacity, won't pay much. People that use a lot, will pay more.

[skate]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html?tag=mncol;txt
Here are the two main parts of the new regulation. (It is not a bill :bang: )
The first rule requires both wireless and wireline providers to be transparent in how they manage and operate their networks.

The second Net neutrality rule prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet.
Explain to me how a rule that prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet,
give(s) the federal gov. authority to regulate Internet traffic. To do that you would need a rule that permitsthe blocking of traffic on the Internet. What the FCC is doing is preventing a provider such as comcast from refusing to carry content by yahoo or google. Here is another possible scenario. AS you know, Comcast is negotiating to purchase NBC. If the deal goes through, what is to prevent Comcast from banning all other networks' content? The new rule does prevent that.

Welp, companys like Comcast, Verizon, ATT,Cox have spent Billions, while partaking in a Capitalistic economy.
They are COMPeting with each other, so, like it or not, it's what got us here economically, right now we still have some spearhead mentality.
As time goes on, as we force the above cos. to accept those that did not take the initial risk/capital , we'll find a situation whereby economically Nobody will take the risk.

That's what Cuba went thru, along with (you know) Russia etc., god, China is the best example.

Sure it's so nice to include everyone, but it doesnt work, unless you are a religion, fine.


Yah sure it sounds so nice when you ask me why its wrong to "block traffic", sounds oh-so-innocent, but what you are really saying is that "you want the gov to step/force the cos. that blazed the trail to accept other companys that THE GOV. says should partake in the success of the successful".

[Tom]

Let the gov provide FREE internet to everyone and then they can do what they want.

[boxcar]

The main problem all network providers have is traffic is growing faster than the cost of networking equipment is dropping -- I work for a company that designs and sells networking equipment, this is something we talk about all the time.

So any company involved in transport, like the Comcast and AT&Ts and Verizons of the world have this big issue. So basically the equation is -- (amount of traffic) X (cost of network capacity) = (price charged to consumers).

so if traffic keeps growing faster than network capacity price falls, then consumer prices will go up. Which is just natural. They are all making healthy profits right now, but you can look at the growth curves and they are scary.

What eventually should and will happen in a logical system, is metered pricing rather than all you can eat. Just like you pay for electricity in chunks, and water in chunks, and gasoline in chunks, and you'll pay for the internet in chunks. Everyone will have high speed internet, and you'll pay for it by how many Gb you move around. Network capacity costs money, it should be a metered resource.

So I think thats the right way for things to go eventually, metered billing, it makes the economics of the industry scalable to any amount of traffic. People that don't use much capacity, won't pay much. People that use a lot, will pay more.

Thanks for writing an informative, cogent reply. Okay...since you seem to think that current IP billings will eventually evolve into "metered billing" systems, why can't this happen naturally within the free market, without government intervention? What am I missing here? Why can't the market place alone dictate what happens?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Thanks for writing an informative, cogent reply. Okay...since you seem to think that current IP billings will eventually evolve into "metered billing" systems, why can't this happen naturally within the free market, without government intervention? What am I missing here? Why can't the market place alone dictate what happens?

Boxcar

I think it will happen on its own. Actually as part of what just happened, the FCC said "yes, you can do metered billing". Which is something the carriers have wanted, clarification that yes they can do that. It's not like things have been totally unregulated prior to this. The Internet has always been under FCC guidelines. The guidelines it has been (and still is) under, Title 1, as it was, is just very unclear, because it wasn't written with the Internet (as it is now) in mind. So the carriers are very happy about that change, and a host of others, because they have clarification.

People act like net neutrality is somehow setting up gov't on one side vs business on the other. Network neutrality (as it should be at least) is really clarifying business vs. business relationships. Comcast on one side, Google on the other. The FCC just clarified how they can treat each other. Comcast et al lobbied hard on one side, Google et al lobbied hard on the other side.

When we talk about protecting business, it's important to remember that prior to this ruling, Google, Yahoo, Netflix, the Dave Shwartz's -- whomever -- internet businesses -- had absolutely zero assurance that their customers could reach them. Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, etc could block a website completely, for no reason or any reason. Those websites are businesses too. And, prior to this, they would have zero recourse if that happened.

That was what the earlier Comcast case was about that really forced the FCC to consider updating Title 1.

Why should those protections be put in place now, before anything "big" has happened? Because if Comcast et al did do something like that, it would take years to get it changed. The FCC (and Google, Amazon, Netflix, and everyone else lobbying for protection) already knew that Title 1, as it stood, didn't provide web properties with protection. So the guidelines needed to be amended to give internet properties these protections. That process takes a long time. This ruling will take much court time to actually be put into place. Which means if you wait until something happens, until some web property gets abused to do something -- by the time you get it resolved, that web property is out of business.

Why would it be fair to let internet business, such as Google, Netflix, Amazon, whomever -- operate under that kind of risk? They put capital up as well, they employ people as well. Why should your ISP, one business, have so much power over a whole other group of businesses, as to be able to shake them down or put them out of business? They shouldn't, and that's really in a nutshell all network neutrality is and should be.

Comcast or Verizon or AT&T don't get to pick the winners and losers on the internet.

[boxcar]

I think it will happen on its own. Actually as part of what just happened, the FCC said "yes, you can do metered billing". Which is something the carriers have wanted, clarification that yes they can do that. It's not like things have been totally unregulated prior to this. The Internet has always been under FCC guidelines. The guidelines it has been (and still is) under, Title 1, as it was, is just very unclear, because it wasn't written with the Internet (as it is now) in mind. So the carriers are very happy about that change, and a host of others, because they have clarification.

This may be so. But from where I sit, since the FCC thumbed its nose at the Congress and the Appeals Court, I see this as a naked power grab. Both these bodies essentially told the FCC that it didn't have the authority to do what it has actually done. They acted unilaterally as a mere government agency with no oversight by Congress or authority by same or a court. This troubles me, most especially during these times when government keeps growing and becoming more powerful with nearly every passing day.

People act like net neutrality is somehow setting up gov't on one side vs business on the other. Network neutrality (as it should be at least) is really clarifying business vs. business relationships. Comcast on one side, Google on the other. The FCC just clarified how they can treat each other. Comcast et al lobbied hard on one side, Google et al lobbied hard on the other side.

But also who is to say that favors wouldn't be able to be bought from the government (through the FCC) with campaign contributions? There will most definitely be government-business relationships established -- as if we don't have enough of these unholy relationships already.

Comcast or Verizon or AT&T don't get to pick the winners and losers on the internet.

But that's not to say government won't, though.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

This may be so. But from where I sit, since the FCC thumbed its nose at the Congress and the Appeals Court, I see this as a naked power grab. Both these bodies essentially told the FCC that it didn't have the authority to do what it has actually done. They acted unilaterally as a mere government agency with no oversight by Congress or authority by same or a court. This troubles me, most especially during these times when government keeps growing and becoming more powerful with nearly every passing day.

They have the authority, I believe. The issue of the appeals court was that Title 1, the guidelines governing all this, didn't give them a say over what they were complaining about. But the FCC are the ones who decided to put the Internet under Title 1 in the first place. There are other Titles they could put it under, ones that give them total and complete control over everything, like Title 2. The FCC has pretty much total authority over everything in that domain, they are the regulators and that is their realm. HUGE LOBBYING, huge interests involved, but it is their realm.

But also who is to say that favors wouldn't be able to be bought from the government (through the FCC) with campaign contributions? There will most definitely be government-business relationships established -- as if we don't have enough of these unholy relationships already.

FCC regulations themselves are a process of granting favors through contributions. There is a reason AT&T and Verizon had all the power, they are huge entrenched businesses that have owned that sector for years. They are the "incumbents". They are the ones that always won the "buy the pol" game.

The reason there is a change now, is that the internet properties now also have pocketbooks to rival, and can wrest some of that power away. The regulations weren't pure before, and they aren't pure now. But they are now slightly more balanced between the two.

This entire thing is a tussle between about a dozen hundred-billion-dollar companies.

[boxcar]

This entire thing is a tussle between about a dozen hundred-billion-dollar companies.

I would characterize that as an all-out tug of war of biblical proportions. :D

Boxcar

[skate]

nothing clear on this issue, but...


Cameron Kerry, brother to Sen.Kerry:lol: ,is the point man, for BO, on what "he" calls "new privacy" "Bill of Rights".
This is what Kerry is "creating", his words.

;)

[Tom]

Just remember, it is never what it seems to be at first.
Read Saul Alynski.
This is part of the blueprint.