FCC to regulate the net ?

Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
edited December 2010 in A Moving Train
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... ity-rules/

I don't know much about this but it sounds like a storm is brewing.

Godfather.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    More big government taking over.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    How could this ever go wrong? The FCC is one of the shinning stars of our efficient and ever-evolving government. As the internet is constantly changing as technology advances, mostly unhindered, why wouldn’t you want the FCC to step in and share their vast expertise?

    This only has upside, right?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Protecting net neutrality is a good thing, obviously, but it appears the FCC might have made it WORSE in their attempt at protecting neutrality. Loopholes in the rules that allow exploitation, questions about how it will be enforced, and the fact that there wasn't a problem to begin with... means that this was totally unnecessary - just like almost all federal regulation.

    Why is the FCC so fucking incompetent?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Protecting net neutrality is a good thing, obviously, but it appears the FCC might have made it WORSE in their attempt at protecting neutrality. Loopholes in the rules that allow exploitation, questions about how it will be enforced, and the fact that there wasn't a problem to begin with... means that this was totally unnecessary - just like almost all federal regulation.

    Why is the FCC so fucking incompetent?
    In high school I did a report on the deregulation of Ma Bell and the FCC ... it stands to be one of the worse decisions I have ever made (at least in regards to school projects). The FCC has so many layers of boredom and bureaucracy, combined with lawyers and lobbyists involved at all times, that it makes for some of the most dry and boring research I have ever encountered.

    I think that if you work in the FCC, your brain is slowly turned to mush by the bureaucracy. Plus, they are not working towards a goal that could lead to profit, thus their driving motivation is to appease the politicians that give them their power.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • green disease. $$$$
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    everything is motivated by money,it's a un-tapped resource and it should make spying on just about anyone a lot easier, I was surprised to read the repub's are against it......sure. :o

    Godfather.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Godfather. wrote:
    everything is motivated by money,it's a un-tapped resource and it should make spying on just about anyone a lot easier, I was surprised to read the repub's are against it......sure. :o

    Godfather.
    I was too, but larger corporations are at risk at losing return-on-investment. They have been able to block smaller networks to an extent from using their resources. This will open things up on the wired side for smaller companies to evolve. On the flip-side, larger companies say they will not have as much incentive to develop networks ... which is probably BS.

    All and all, it looks like a typical power struggle and it doesn't look like it will impact me, thus I will reserve my mental calories on more important issues like Tom Brady's ongoing hair plug expansion.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Jason P wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    everything is motivated by money,it's a un-tapped resource and it should make spying on just about anyone a lot easier, I was surprised to read the repub's are against it......sure. :o

    Godfather.
    I was too, but larger corporations are at risk at losing return-on-investment. They have been able to block smaller networks to an extent from using their resources. This will open things up on the wired side for smaller companies to evolve. On the flip-side, larger companies say they will not have as much incentive to develop networks ... which is probably BS.

    All and all, it looks like a typical power struggle and it doesn't look like it will impact me, thus I will reserve my mental calories on more important issues like Tom Brady's ongoing hair plug expansion.

    now I understand, thanks.

    Godfather.
  • Paradox of the day: Government steps in to "fix" a problem that doesn't even exist, but exacerbates an issue that otherwise wouldn't have been troublesome.

    Actually, now that I think about it, that is sort of how our government usually works. It's not a paradox - it is the norm.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Paradox of the day: Government steps in to "fix" a problem that doesn't even exist, but exacerbates an issue that otherwise wouldn't have been troublesome.

    Actually, now that I think about it, that is sort of how our government usually works. It's not a paradox - it is the norm.
    That is why some of us are in favor of limiting the government's control and power.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason P wrote:
    Paradox of the day: Government steps in to "fix" a problem that doesn't even exist, but exacerbates an issue that otherwise wouldn't have been troublesome.

    Actually, now that I think about it, that is sort of how our government usually works. It's not a paradox - it is the norm.
    That is why some of us are in favor of limiting the government's control and power.

    You're preaching to the choir. :D I'm in favor of a purely "administrative" government on most days, on my more cynical or idealist days I'm an anarchist. One side of the aisle wants to give me only economic freedom (to a minimal extent) and the other side only social freedom (to a minimal extent).

    "That Government is best which governs least" - Thoreau
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Jason P wrote:
    Paradox of the day: Government steps in to "fix" a problem that doesn't even exist, but exacerbates an issue that otherwise wouldn't have been troublesome.

    Actually, now that I think about it, that is sort of how our government usually works. It's not a paradox - it is the norm.
    That is why some of us are in favor of limiting the government's control and power.

    You're preaching to the choir. :D I'm in favor of a purely "administrative" government on most days, on my more cynical or idealist days I'm an anarchist. One side of the aisle wants to give me only economic freedom (to a minimal extent) and the other side only social freedom (to a minimal extent).

    "That Government is best which governs least" - Thoreau

    AGREED. I think most people just want the gov't to leave us alone. They're in our bedrooms, bathrooms, cars, medicine cabinet, workplace, now the internet, and even in my fridge. And everytime they "regulate" something they tell us it's "for our benefit", or to "ensure freedom and openness". I wouldn't buy anything from a salesman that talked that way.

    I'm not saying all gov't reg is bad, but this is an example of "give em an inch, they take a mile."
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Now they can create a set of "Rules/Laws", break em, you'll pay $$$.
    thats it, no protection, no greater good, just another way to fuck people.
    Superised it took this long really.
  • The hits just keep coming from the Obama administration.

    Any time he talks about a policy which will benefit the people, it's safe to assume it won't. The man has nothing but contempt for this country and it's traditions.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    http://www.freepress.net/press-release/ ... y%E2%80%99

    Free Press: FCC Net Neutrality Order a ‘Squandered Opportunity’

    WASHINGTON -- By a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved new rules intended to prevent Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from acting as gatekeepers on the Web. The rules, however, heavily favor the industry they are intended to regulate, and leave consumers with minimal protections. Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps voted with Chairman Julius Genachowski, while Republican Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker voted against.

    Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron made the following statement:

    “We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real Net Neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination online. This proceeding was a squandered opportunity to enact clear, meaningful rules to safeguard the Internet’s level playing field and protect consumers.

    “The new rules are riddled with loopholes, evidence that the chairman sought approval from AT&T instead of listening to the millions of Americans who asked for real Net Neutrality. These rules don't do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes, and they fail to protect wireless users from discrimination. No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop. The rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and to require you to use its own preferred applications.

    “Chairman Genachowski ignored President Obama's promise to the American people to take a 'back seat to no one' on Net Neutrality. He ignored the 2 million voices who petitioned for real Net Neutrality and the hundreds who came to public hearings across the country to ask him to protect the open Internet. And he ignored policymakers who urged him to protect consumers and maintain the Internet as a platform for innovation. It’s unfortunate that the only voices he chose to listen to were those coming from the very industry he’s charged with overseeing."
Sign In or Register to comment.