Hello:

There's talk afoot that the internet is going to be regulated... Should it be? If it should, what rules should be promulgated?

I've talked about the beginning of our economy BEFORE businessmen got politicians to do 'em some favors. There were no rules. The market favored nobody, but the successful. But, to BE successful, you had to PRODUCE. Sadly, some businessmen discovered, that the edge their business acumen didn't provide, bribing a politician did. And, the floodgates were opened...

I LOVED it when there were no rules... It was free. Free is good. It wasn't fair. Fair had nothing to do with it. If you wanted fair, YOU had to be aware. You couldn't rely on the government to be aware for you. Besides, once rules were being made, how do you know WHO the real beneficiary of the rules are?

Today's internet IS that rough and tumble FREE marketplace. You can buy ANYTHING. You can SEE anything. You can learn to DO anything. You can publish anything. You can communicate with anybody. You can start your own website. You can compete with the big guys from your FIRST day. And, no. It's not fair. It's free. Fair has NOTHING to do with it. If you want fair, you have to be aware. You can't rely on government. Because there are no rules, I LOVE it.

Well, that's just TOO damn free for some. They want RULES! And, they're going to get 'em, too. What kind of rules do you want?

We've got one side, the FCC, saying the rules should guarantee the internet's openness... But, it IS already open, isn't it? That's the whole idea. How can RULES insure its openness?? Seems contradictory to me. The other side wants rules that guarantee the survival of competition. But, we don't want rules to insure the survival of somebody who should fail, do we?

I don't have the answer. I like the internet the way Al Gore invented it...

excon

You are chasing an illusion Ex the internet is a place where governments are deprived of taxes, pornographers sell their wares and the unwary and ignorant are cheated and you think this is a good thing, worthy of preservation. Wake up man!

and you think this is a good thing, worthy of preservation. Wake up man!Hello clete:

I'm used to going it alone - forging the way for others...

excon

I'm used to going it alone - forging the way for others...



The way I see it Ex, it is more like going around and around the mountain, you keep coming back to the same subjects with the same comments. The way ahead with the internet as it is with all pioneering, there is a time for the homesteaders to move in and plow the land and law to replace chaos. This is how civilisation grows. That barbed wire is a nuiance isn't it

I wish the internet could return to the days of old. If I were making the rules I would send it back to the time from when it stated. Yes, I was there from the beginning. The internet was never inteded for corporate use at all. And it seems more and more places are wanting money to participate. Also giant hunks are being taken over and grabbing bandwidth more and more by pay as you go. This crap needs to stop. If they want to run those kind of services then let them have their own corporate internet and leave mine alone. Everything is slowing down and more and more its becoming a part of peoples lives. Its being over saturated. It needs to stop and some rethinking go on to where everyone can live with it.

I think a distinction has to be made between the WEB and the Internet. The Internet was originally started as a way for the US Dept of Defense to communicate with its contractors many of whom were academic institutions doing research. The academics found value in this form of communication and it blossomed. Early computer users also made it grow. But it was still a geek's world though an international one, until Tim Berners-Lee developed HTML and the WEB. And it became mainstream.

Do I think the Internet should be regulated? Beyond the regulation that currently exist (and there is some, but its mostly tech rules) no. But I do think the WEB should be regulated, but only so far as things are regulated in the "real world". For example, there HAS to be accountability. In the real world people and companies can be held accountable for their actions. In the cyber world, too often, there is no such accountability. So all the rights AND responsibilities that people have in the "real world" need to be extended to the cyber world. In my opinion no one should be able to access the WEB unless their identity can be traced. There does need to be protections and limitations as to who can do this tracing, but there needs to be that accountability. How many Ghanese women would be trying to get men to pay for them to come to the man's country for marriage, if they could be tracked to there real identity? How many Nigerians would be offering to share the accounts of some dead person if they could be tracked? How many pedophiles would try to lure young girls or boys if the could be traced?

Its unfortunate but the Web (and by extension the Net) has become a dangerous place in many ways. But there are many, many good things about the WEB that needs to be preserved as well.

Then you should be proud of the "party of no."

Senate GOP to FCC: Don’t even try it (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/16/senate-gop-to-fcc-dont-even-try-it/)

The way I see it Ex, it is more like going around and around the mountain, you keep coming back to the same subjects with the same comments.Hello again, clete:

Yet, I still maintain your interest...

excon

Then you should be proud of the "party of no."

Senate GOP to FCC: Don't even try it (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/16/senate-gop-to-fcc-dont-even-try-it/)I don't think you understand the issue at hand or what's written in that article you posted. People like Comcast want to establish a pay-for tiered system for internet access. The FCC wants to impose net neutrality that says that all data is equal, the GOP opposes this saying that internet access companies can charge content providers to use their pipes. Basically the GOP is against net neutrality.

I don't think you understand the issue at handHello again, NK:

I don't understand much... I wish I knew what was fair... Should I be charged the same as my neighbor, because I consume a TINY bit of bandwidth? I only email and kibbitz here, but he watches MOVIES all day, using a TON of bandwidth??

Do I trust the GOP to protect the internet?? Given WHO they represent, NO! If there isn't ANY of you who think they don't want to give CORPORATE AMERICA an advantage, you haven't been paying attention...

Do I trust the libs to protect the internet?? No! They ALL want to make rules. In my view, it's the MAKING of rules that RESTRICTS the internet - not necessarily WHAT the rule says.

This is actually a crucial issue. Once a direction is taken, it'll go that way for the duration. If EITHER direction is taken, the internet you grew up with, will NEVER be the same.

excon

Hello again, NK:

I don't understand much... I wish I knew what was fair... Should I be charged the same as my neighbor, because I consume a TINY bit of bandwidth? I only email and kibbitz here, but he watches MOVIES all day, using a TON of bandwidth???
That would be charging by usage and that would be OK, since the provider still allows all bits to be equal.

Here's a good overview on net neutrality: Network Neutrality Explained (http://www.mobydisk.com/techres/Network%20Neutrality.html)

If this is not what your thread is about then I apologize.

If this is not what your thread is about then I apologize.Hello again, NK:

That's EXACTLY what this thread is about. I learned a lot in your link - especially that Al Gore didn't invent the internet. Cool.

So, this is a battle between ISP's and everybody else including the big corporations... Certainly, Comcast is going to want me to watch the Universal Studio movies they're going to own when they buy GE, so if they CAN, I'll bet they'd slow down Netflix.

Moby Disk agrees with me, in that NO rules = network neutrality.

excon

Good link from NK, but they spelled Tim Berners-Lee's name wrong.

There are already some tiered systems. My carrier, Cablevision, offers higher speed access at an increased fee. And I don't have a problem with that, but once you connect, there should be no preference given to one connection over another.

Good link from NK, but they spelled Tim Berners-Lee's name wrong.

There are already some tiered systems. My carrier, Cablevision, offers higher speed access at an increased fee. And I don't have a problem with that, but once you connect, there should be no preference given to one connection over another.

Right now it's the cable companies that are ruining the internet. Also most providers are starting to scale back on services you pay for. Its called "throttling" and they reduce your band width or interrupt your connection.

They are worried that with high speed comes new content. Just like Charter Communication has its sites on YouTube and ruining you from seeing videos.

Its sad because they are making the rules as they go.

Bear in mind there is much more to the Internet than the WWW ;)

Oh yeah and Tim is a SIR, not that really means much to non-Brits.

This subject pops up time and again, normally by some "crusading" Yank politco, but once they actually realise the enormity of the subject it is soon forgotten about.
Technically The US President has the power to turn the internet off, or so they think.

Ok the majority of Root DNS servers are in the US, but it would not stop the underlying functionality. After all the net was designed along military specs of obsolescence and redundancy.

Just look at the scales we are talking about in some cases, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The US government is currently attempting to silence Wikileaks and FAILING!!

I don't think you understand the issue at hand or what's written in that article you posted. People like Comcast want to establish a pay-for tiered system for internet access. The FCC wants to impose net neutrality that says that all data is equal, the GOP opposes this saying that internet access companies can charge content providers to use their pipes. Basically the GOP is against net neutrality.

I understand the issue and since it hasn't happened in congress, Obama's FCC wants to establish net neutrality by fiat. They don't have that authorization, do you understand that?

Bear in mind there is much more to the Internet than the WWW ;)

Oh yeah and Tim is a SIR, not that really means much to non-Brits.

This subject pops up time and again, normally by some "crusading" Yank politco, but once they actually realise the enormity of the subject it is soon forgotten about.
Technically The US President has the power to turn the internet off, or so they think.

Ok the majority of Root DNS servers are in the US, but it would not stop the underlying functionality. After all the net was designed along military specs of obsolescence and redundancy.

Just look at the scales we are talking about in some cases, like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The US government is currently attempting to silence Wikileaks and FAILING !!!

I have not commented on this subject to this point because it really is too complex to deal with in a single discussion. In an ideal world that Ex envisions everything is free and open and accessible and there is no harm that comes from it. I really wish I could take that position because I really do see how authoritarian governments repress information.

On the other hand I already have expressed concern over issues like intellectual property theft ,and the compromising of national security ,the recruitment of criminal and terrorist activity.

Here in NY there is a story about a serial killer on Long Island. They are focusing on a missing women who answered a solicitation for a prostitution on Craig'slist. She is probably a victim of this serial killer.
What civilized nation can allow this type of activity under the guise of freedom ?

I'll continue to favor a balance . That is in my view part of the social contract. There would be no need for nations if there wasn't a need for protections an individual can't fully provide on their own.

I understand the issue and since it hasn't happened in congress, Obama's FCC wants to establish net neutrality by fiat. They don't have that authorization, do you understand that?
This has been going on much longer than Obama has been in office.

Interesting stuffs that belongs here: New UN committee could hand governments internet control ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/20/un_committee_internet/)

Re :Net neutrality... if Viacom and Comcast treat internet service like they do cable television,then I am in favor of doing what is necessary to prevent it.
...
The UN is a sinister organization that has long passed it's usefulness. What is the UN 's accomplishment this year?. bringing cholera to Haiti...

And here's some added stupidity from the UK "Government": 'Porn lock' heralds death of WikiLeaks, internet, democracy, universe ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/20/vaizey_filters/)

Can you say urinating into inclement weather ;)

This has been going on much longer than Obama has been in office.

I know, but this is Obama's FCC, I was clear about that. Net 'neutrality' is about more than tiered systems, it's about furthering a political agenda (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/cheney-rove-and-fleischer_b_176346.html).


Back in the 1980s, the Republican Party had the upper hand with the first computerized donor lists, "soft money" (a Reagan campaign creation), and "direct mail" operations (where Karl Rove got his start), while the left and the progressives were still relying largely on 19th century techniques such as distributing leaflets and organizing demonstrations. During the Clinton years it looked like the GOP might control the Internet when the Drudge Report dominated the 24-hour news cycle and right-wing websites had astounding "synergies" with talk radio, cable news, and whatever party line the Newt Gingrich Congress was pushing. One of the greatest achievements of Barack Obama's presidential campaign was its domination of Internet communications, which fused Netroots connectivity with Grassroots political organizing. The Huffington Post and other progressive news and information sites, along with MoveOn.org and other Internet organizing networks, played a key role in this dramatic shift in communications technology away from the Right and toward progressive social change.

We need to lock in this advantage.

A chunk of the Obama Administration's stimulus money is aimed at laying down Internet connections in areas that are underserved. This expansion and upgrading of the nation's Internet cable system should make it possible for millions of people to by-pass the filter of giant media corporations and access alternative information that undermines the Cheney-Rove-Fleischer revisionist narrative of the George W. Bush legacy. We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.

What's 'neutral' about locking in a progressive advantage?

What's 'neutral' about locking in a progressive advantage?Hello again, Steve:

Been listening to Glenn Beck? Since when is freedom a progressive advantage?

excon

You sometimes don't understand what you read, or your neocon-tinted agenda reads what the far-right blogs tell you've read.

The "advantage" he is referring to is the open web versus the corporate owned conglomerates deciding what you watch and listen to. You really, really need to get educated about net neutrality before entering this discussion.

You sometimes don't understand what you read, or your neocon-tinted agenda reads what the far-right blogs tell you've read.

The "advantage" he is referring to is the open web versus the corporate owned conglomerates deciding what you watch and listen to. You really, really need to get educated about net neutrality before entering this discussion.

You really need to stop the condescension.

The "advantage" he is referring to is the open web versus the corporate owned conglomerates deciding what you watch and listen to.
Admittedly we almost have this now with Google and who can forget the old AOL, keywords and all ;)


So how would you like your browsing ?
Full, free and open or packaged, sanitised and censored ?

In a nut shell Net neutrality is concerned with the fair and free access for all.
Why should YOUR traffic be prioritised over mine, simply because you have purchased the Gold subscription.

True that will entitle you to faster access speeds, but not better treatment.

Think of the web as a Ford.
The standard package gives you everything you need to drive at 55 all day long, whereas the upgraded package allows you to drive at 75.

Yes you may get to where you want to go faster, but we BOTH have the same rights on the road.

Hello again, Steve:

Been listening to Glenn Beck? Since when is freedom a progressive advantage?

Nope, I've told you many times I don't watch Beck. Ever. I'm all for freedom ex, but I'm not for the FCC going beyond their authorizations. Now, read what else the left says about net 'neutrality.' Same guy, same article:


Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start...


And while he speaks of "opening up" the media, others are clamoring for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine and people like Al Sharpton are just calling on the FCC to ban people like Rush Limbaugh (http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/84731/rev-al-sharpton-wants-fcc-to-ban-rush-limbaugh).

Do you want more federal agencies out of control? I don't, and that's exactly what Obama's FCC has been trying to do. They've been trying to backdoor it (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104575226583645448758.html?m od=rss_whats_news_us) in spite of the courts (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FCC-loses-key-ruling-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0) and Congress (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005834-38.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=News-PoliticsandLaw) telling them not to do so.

Their response? Trying to turn the internet into a public utility (http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/18/fcc-votes-to-reconsider-regulating-internet-providers/). Now, in spite of Congress, the courts and others telling them to back off (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/tag/harold-ford-jr/), Obama's FCC is pushing it anyway. Enough already, they need to get back in line with doing what they're authorized to do.

Nope, I've told you many times I don't watch Beck. Ever. I'm all for freedom ex, but I'm not for the FCC going beyond their authorizations. Hello again, Steve:

And, I've told you that I speak only for ME - not Democrats. The Democrats want to pass laws that protect whatever the hell THEY want to protect... And, the Republicans want to pass laws that protect whomever the hell THEY want to protect...

I say, don't pass ANY laws, and protect the hell out of everybody.

excon

You really need to stop the condescension.
Y'know every once in a while I get fed up with people knowingly spreading disinformation to further their agenda.

Y'know every once in a while I get fed up with people knowingly spreading disinformation to further their agenda.

Me, too so stop. I furnished links to 6 different news sources in my last post, which was wrong? The fact is, none of us here want our content censored or see others get priority service... but who are we to tell corporations what to do with their property, i.e. servers and other equipment. It may be a problem for rural areas that don't have many options, but I can choose from many providers and if I don't like Comcast's policies I can go with one I like. I would much rather have that then trust the government to control the internet and place even more regulations on private property.

The fact is that there aren't many providers at all in most areas, and there is a possibility of collusion. The barrier to entry is high for any competitors.

You keep talking talking about Obama's FCC when it's the Republicans that are oppose ensuring net neutrality:After GOP Kills Net Neutrality Bill, Focus Shifts Back to FCC - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/gop-kills-net-neutrality-bill-focus-shifts-to-fcc/19655691/)

You keep talking talking about Obama's FCC when it's the Republicans that are oppose ensuring net neutrality:After GOP Kills Net Neutrality Bill, Focus Shifts Back to FCC - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/gop-kills-net-neutrality-bill-focus-shifts-to-fcc/19655691/)

In other words, you've been telling me I don't know what I'm talking about but you haven't actually read what I said.

Try one more time, starting with this from your link:


the FCC, which has been caught in jurisdictional limbo ever since a federal judge ruled in April that the agency lacked the authority to enforce net neutrality

What part of Obama's FCC doesn't have the authority to enact net neutrality don't you get?

Yea I got that steve. I simply mentioned that the net neutrality issue is older than Obama's office. You started getting it wrong here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2638573-post22.html

What the FCC is trying to do is to preserve the status quo, not "a government grab to takeover the internet" like the right-wing pundits keep saying.
Once again: it's not to enact net neutrality, it's to preserve it.

You made an assumption, NK. In that very link I said "I know" it's been going on longer than Obama. I said nothing about "a government grab to takeover the internet" either.

All right.

Cheers.

Which is more than I can say for cable service which is, at least in my area ,run like a utility with the backing of the local government .

There are still some viable alternative to Google so I don't think it is comparable yet. I think the size of Google reflects consumer preferences . I generally use Bing .

I always thought the better alternative is for the information provider to charge subscription for access. The reason people use the net for their news and print is dying in part is related to the fact that I have to pay for my daily hard copy of the NY Slimes but can access it free of charge on the Web.

. The reason people use the net for their news and print is dying in part is related to the fact that I have to pay for my daily hard copy of the NY Slimes but can access it free of charge on the Web.

Don't quite understand what you said there Tom but what is wrong with getting the news free. There are any number who rush to provide this service so that they can gain advertising revenue, which after all far outweighs the revenue from selling pieces of paper. Become environmentally friendly and stop giving them an excuse for cutting down trees. I did years ago and I haven't missed the ads

Did you not pay for print copy ? Why should you expect to get content for free ?

did you not pay for print copy ? Why should you expect to get content for free ?

I don't expect anything but I take what is on offer, so if web content is free... it is free. One financial paper here decided to make web access subcriber access only, as the same information is available free elsewhere from any number of sources, I didn't sign up.

The market determines the price and the price is free, capitalism in action. Why should a traditional newspaper expect me to pay because they are slow to realise times have changed. It is like cable offering me what I can get for free, not well thought out.

Not sure where I come down on Net regulation. But I do come down strongly against a government takeover of the web without the authority coming from the legislature.

Unfortunately that is exactly what happened yesterday when the Obama FCC ;without the authority of Congress ,voted themselves new unconstitutional powers to control the internet.

It is up to the next session of Congress to smack the FCC down. Regulatory authority comes from Congress.

Not sure where I come down on Net regulation. But I do come down strongly against a government takeover of the web without the authority coming from the legislature.

Unfortunately that is exactly what happened yesterday when the Obama FCC ;without the authority of Congress ,voted themselves new unconstitutional powers to control the internet.

It is up to the next session of Congress to smack the FCC down. Regulatory authority comes from Congress.Boy you parrot the right talking points perfectly. There was no "takeover of the web". I explained it to you earlier, it's about preserving the current freedom of the way the internet works.

Explain to us how the US government took over the web?

The Net Neutrality Coup (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

By JOHN FUND

The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.

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."

For a man with such radical views, Mr. McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence. Mr. Genachowski's press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press. The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.

Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is supposed to solve. They then fashioned a political strategy similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill. The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a talk at the University of Southern California. Far from being the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Mr. Treglia noted, the campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations like Pew.

"The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot," he told his audience. He noted that "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless." A study by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan website dealing with issues of campaign funding, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote campaign-finance reform in the last decade, $123 million came from eight liberal foundations.

After McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the effort began shifting their attention to "media reform"—a movement to impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the long-defunct "Fairness Doctrine" that used to regulate TV and radio companies. In a 2005 interview with the progressive website Buzzflash, Mr. McChesney said that campaign-finance reform advocate Josh Silver approached him and "said let's get to work on getting popular involvement in media policy making." Together the two founded Free Press.

Free Press and allied groups such as MoveOn.org quickly got funding. Of the eight major foundations that provided the vast bulk of money for campaign-finance reform, six became major funders of the media-reform movement. (They are the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers's Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.) Free Press today has 40 staffers and an annual budget of $4 million.

These wealthy funders pay for more than publicity and conferences. In 2009, Free Press commissioned a poll, released by the Harmony Institute, on net neutrality. Harmony reported that "more than 50% of the public argued that, as a private resource, the Internet should not be regulated by the federal government." The poll went on to say that since "currently the public likes the way the Internet works . . . messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly" to prevent a "centrally controlled Internet."

To that end, Free Press and other groups helped manufacture "research" on net neutrality. In 2009, for example, the FCC commissioned Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society to conduct an "independent review of existing information" for the agency in order to "lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decision making."

Considering how openly activist the Berkman Center has been on these issues, it was an odd decision for the FCC to delegate its broadband research to this outfit. Unless, of course, the FCC already knew the answer it wanted to get.

The Berkman Center's FCC- commissioned report, "Next Generation Connectivity," wound up being funded in large part by the Ford and MacArthur foundations. So some of the same foundations that have spent years funding net neutrality advocacy research ended up funding the FCC-commissioned study that evaluated net neutrality research.

The FCC's "National Broadband Plan," released last spring, included only five citations of respected think tanks such as the International Technology and Innovation Foundation or the Brookings Institution. But the report cited research from liberal groups such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Pew and the New America Foundation more than 50 times.

So the "media reform" movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That's quite a coup.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We've been scammed, big time.

The FCC has no authority to impose these new rules. If Congress gives them the authority then maybe there is merit to it .

The Obots think they will bypass Congress in a number of important decisions coming up ,including the EPA imposing Kyoto like green house controls .

But I do come down strongly against a government takeover of the web without the authority coming from the legislature.Hello again, tom:

If the government takes over the internet like it took over health care, I'm not too worried. That would be, of course, because there wasn't a government take over of health care... So, I highly doubt there's a government takeover of the internet...

You LIKE government regulations about your meat and your drugs... Would you say big pharma and the meat industry were taken over by the government? I don't know... You might.

In any case, given that you've already felt the effect of Comcasts' unbridled power, I'd think you'd be the first one to approve of these regulations...

excon

Pssst, you do realise that the US Congress has ZERO powers to impose regulations on the GLOBAL internet ;)

Just thought I'd throw that is for y'all..

We've been scammed, big time.No, you're believing a very poorly written slanted article and taking it as your gospel without doing any research whatsoever.

Did you know that the internet is a distributed network with no central hub? How can someone take that over?

If you don't believe in preserver net neutrality that's your choice, many of us enjoy the way the data is treated equally at present. If the status quo of neutrality is lost then you have this:
http://cache-02.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2009/10/340x_nnprev.jpg

Hello again, tom:

If the government takes over the internet like it took over health care, I'm not too worried. That would be, of course, because there wasn't a government take over of health care... So, I highly doubt there's a government takeover of the internet...

You LIKE government regulations about your meat and your drugs... Would you say big pharma and the meat industry were taken over by the government? I dunno... You might.

In any case, given that you've already felt the effect of Comcasts' unbridled power, I'd think you'd be the first one to approve of these regulations...

excon
I don't use Comcast . I pay a fee to a provider and in return have access. Are you telling me that the FCC is going to preserve that ? I think there is zero chance of that . Instead ;I think the government will decide winners and losers... just like they are doing to private insurance ;the auto industry , the banks .

By the way ;the last place I would get my service from is a cable company. I've seen them in action. They get their power with a huge assistance from local governments that lock out their competition.

I pay a fee to a provider and in return have access. Are you telling me that the FCC is going to preserve that ?


http://www.k-osmusic.com/images/yes_logo.png

At what cost ? The cable providers now make a fortune and still divide content into packages. Is the FCC planning on setting price controls too ?

The cable providers now make a fortune and still divide content into packages. Not for internet access. It is indeed what they want to do though.

They will instead charge a premium price for a larger comprehensive package. In case you haven't noticed ;they did make huge infrastructure investments in the $billions to bring their services to your home.

At best all I see here is the FCC acting punitively against an industry for what it "might do".

Meanwhile it is considered perfectly reasonable for a US run company like the postal service to charge premium prices for fast tracking deliveries.

The best way to prevent this is to get local and state governments to end the local franchise monopolies in the services. (another example where government is the problem... in this case stifling competition) .

But the biggest concern is that regardless ;content will be prioritized. The question is ;who does it ? You are content with the government making the call.

content will be prioritized. The question is ;who does it ? You are content with the government making the call.Hello again, tom:

In right wing land, you believe the governments prime job is to keep us safe. Toward that end, you cede power to the government to make THOSE calls.

You trust 'em there. Why don't you trust 'em here?

excon

Because there is no safety concern .

At best all I see here is the FCC acting punitively against an industry for what it "might do".
It's exactly like antitrust laws. You're not punished until you break the law.

In the US at least anti-trust laws did not exist until there was monopolies. So far ,the only monopolies that exist in the server business are the ones I mentioned above... the ones that are State sanctioned.

[QUOTE]No, you're believing a very poorly written slanted article and taking it as your gospel without doing any research whatsoever.

No, you're just making assumptions again and ignoring the other side of the coin.


Did you know that the internet is a distributed network with no central hub?

Enough of the condescending bullsh*t.


How can someone take that over?

Enough of the misrepresentation, too. I have not warned of any government "takeover" of the internet. But if you want to know how someone can take it over in their country, visit China.