| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
I'm not fully up on the whole issue, but it seems to be big brother trying to butt-in where it is not needed. I pay extra for more wireless bandwidth on my AT&T mobile account. It makes perfect sense. Why is that concept a problem as applied to wireless accounts? I don't watch movies online, yet. Why should I be forced to support the cost of the massive bandwidth use of those who do? Is that what this is about? | ||
| Blake |
Background, but is it related to current push by FCC to regulate internet? http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101 | ||
| Blake |
Interesting read... Excerpt: In Internet time, things change fast. Google is moving into televisions. WikiLeaks is changing the paradigm of international relations. Newspapers, movies, radio and TV are all available on handheld devices. And the FCC is poised to act on far-reaching rules of the road for the Internet. Four new books offer different maps of this territory from different angles, none capturing completely the thin line we tread between information utopia and a preprogrammed cultural dystopia. | ||
| Bott |
and without fanfare- this goes into effect via the F.C.C. TOMORROW! Very little media coverage- seems like pretty important stuff! | ||
| Bott |
According to the Washington Times: "With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the 'freedom' of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations, illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped 'non-public, for internal use only' to ensure that nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled December 21st vote. So much for 'openness.' | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Phuq progressives and their skewed views of fairness. Sideways | ||
| Iamike |
It's only 'fair' when there is a heavy liberal slant. Goodbye alternative media. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I just got a new gun, those that ignore the first amendment, should be prepared to be taught the lessons of the second. Little Kitty kat with 100 round mag of 22LR, no can of cream corn is safe. | ||
| Swordsman |
It's been awhile since I read up on this, but I believe the regulations were aimed at preventing ISP's from bottlenecking bandwith. There have been cases where ISP's are intentionally reducing bandwidth to certain sites, mostly multimedia and wares sites. Unfortunately, to fix that, you have to give Govt. more power, and as soon as they get it, you can bet they'll use it against you before it's over. ~SM | ||
| Crackhead |
I believe the company Sword is talking about is Comcast. I wish The rule would be extend to wireless internet providers. For example Verizon blocking Hulu and Apple stopping Google Voice from their network. The companies that run the internet are now big/ powerful enough to tell consumers "take it or leave it". If Comcast blocks Netflixs because it is reducing OnDemand revenue, what can consumers do? switch to dialup? In many communities, cable is the ONLY choice for high speed internet. Since the internet has changed from having multiple providers competing for your business to MONOPOLIES, the rules governing the companies need to change. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Yea on second thought everyones healthcare premiums went down why not let them work their magic on isp's as well? | ||
| Blake |
It is truly unbelievable what is happening to America. I never would have believed it possible. The revolution is coming. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
Here's how I read the issue... Comcast and others want to restrict competition from Netflix and others for content viewed over the internet. If you watch a Netflix streamed movie, at a fraction of the cost of the On- Demand from Comcast, Comcast doesn't make as much money. So Comcast complains that they should have the right to do this because they spent billions of dollars installing and maintaining this, which is true. What is also true is that Comcast built these networks under goverment regulated monopoly much like the power industry. So they were free from competition for cable TV. Now Comcast wants it both ways. While the power industry has full government regulation of rates in return for monopoly status, Comcast, and others want the monopoly protection for the cable networks but the freedom to charge whatever they want. Netflix would be prohibited from installing their own network in the vast majority of localities by the "utility" status granted Comcast. So all you guys that want no government interference in anything you ever do, what do you think? Should we remove the cable monopoly, and let everyone build and run their own cable networks. That way you can have 15 different cables run to your house and the streets and your yard will be dug up every 15 minutes with the next Tom, dick or Harry who wants to install another network. Or should Comcast and the phone company have to submit to some regulation in return for the monopoly status they enjoy, granted by the government? To me, the compromise of users paying more for higher bandwidth usage seems fair. | ||
| Scooter808484 |
And another thing that tickles me... All you guys clamoring for guns and revolution at every turn the government makes. You need to check the election results. Anywhere from 48% to 52% (it's never any more than that, nationwide) violently disagree with you. And a lot of us own guns too!  | ||
| Argentcorvid |
Why you Need to care about Net Neutrality | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
48/52 with one candidate having a virtually monopoly on good press coverage... | ||
| Blake |
Scooter, I don't follow your explanation at all. You are saying that Comcast wants to block netflix and that the law will prevent them from doing so? >>> What is also true is that Comcast built these networks under goverment regulated monopoly much like the power industry. So they were free from competition for cable TV. Comcast's cable network is a monopoly? Huh? Power has recently been deregulated in Texas and rates are among the lowest anywhere. Might want to check your facts on that.  >>> Anywhere from 48% to 52% (it's never any more than that, nationwide) violently disagree with you. "violently"? What are you talking about? Please refer to ALL the elections for federal seats since 2008. Please refer to congress' and the Administration's current approval ratings. | ||
| Blake |
Good link there Agent. The last three paragraphs seem most pertinent... Privacy advocates are worried: watchdogs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation fear that rules will make it impossible for new companies to launch, creating " barriers to entry for the next generation of garage innovators." | ||
| Uncbuell |
Network neutrality allows for all Internet traffic to be treated equally. ISP's such as Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon want the government to allow them to regulate specific types of Internet traffic. ISP's are able to look at the data packets which comprise the Internet traffic traversing their networks and would like to be able to legally discriminate against certain types of packets (Netflix) while offering a higher priority to other types of packets (for example - Comcast's video service which competes with Netflix). This type of discrimination could make it impossible for people to use such services as Netflix, Skype, Vonage or even HTTP (access to Badweb) as a result of the ISP's prioritization. The Internet as we know it now would be gone. Also - Comcast does indeed have a monopoly on Internet and Video services in many parts of the country. The same is true of Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T and many other ISP's. Where I live, the only option for broadband Internet service and cable TV is Time Warner. There was even a case recently where a local municipality funded and built their own fiber network in the town to provide Internet, video, and voice services in a market where the only service provider was Time Warner. Time Warner sued the town arguing that the town would be creating a monopoly by building the network. | ||
| Blake |
That makes sense. Thanks for the simple explanation. Lots of blather about something so simple. I can see the problem you describe. Providers should be able to limit bandwidth versus fee, but not specific content providers. That I agree with 100%. So why the FCC instead of congress, and why not a very simple rule stating the above? I don't trust the FCC. My local cable has a monopoly here in Kilgore. It is irritating that we don't have DSL. In most large cities folks can choose between Time Warner and AT&T. Prices are reasonable. Interesting you mention the city looking to provide their own internet. I've been thinking of looking into that for Kilgore. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
"And alot of us own guns too" No not many of you do. If you do its lever actions and a pump that gets dusted off once every two years. And most of you feel guilty for owning that much firepower. You've bought into the notion that only criminals have guns. Youve governed your large cities to get rid of guns for law abiding citizens. The revolution the left could carry out is a revolution to stop toys in happy meals or stop a young man from wearing a tshirt with the American flag printed on it in school. A change in government is best done at the voting booth. | ||
| Uncbuell |
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (radio and television signals), interstate telecommunications and international communications which originate or terminate in the United States. Obama-appointed FCC chairman Julius Genachowski sold us all out to rules written by corporations - specifically Comcast and AT&T. Those corporations are not looking out for us either. Here's the new rules: 1: Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don't like on your phone -- a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can't do online. 2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality. 3: The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The thing about revolution And I am reading from the same play book these morons are; you only have to take out key entrenched opposition leadership. The rest of the sheep will lay down. go read history, the mass of men, when push comes to shove, will sit and do nothing. (the only caveat is when you feel personally attacked; but if they geremanding 'social' programs for the good of all, you feel quite content to do nothing) The revolution is indeed coming, and it is from the American Progressive Socialists My shiate is already packed, armed, loaded. done and gone in under 30 minutes. Off the grid, see you all in two years. Your clue that it is about to get stupid is any reference to 'Resilience' and Civil Management Corps. the America you thought you knew; aint. | ||
| Gohot |
Well what to do? I have one up on alot, I live in a rural location, this is the South..... you can start the insults or whatever you want, but as the west coast, New York and some midwest locations are on the verge of collapse, we are doing quite fine by and large. We don't follow the glitter/bling lifestyles, what we have is mostly paid for, and most don't reap their equity every 4-5 years or 'flip' houses or any of that behavior. We are 'Old Money' and though the mills have mostly all closed down, people are managing. Gardens and livestock are the norm, frugality is practiced, comunity has tight bonds, and you don't just show up here with all your convoluted liberal ideas and hope to change things in favor of your Lib agenda, it h'aint happening. While Cali and New York are ripe for anarchy, the rest of the American citizens who lived within their means are not willing to follow the path that got these places in trouble in the first place. We just listen to the tales and shake out heads, realizing that our hard work and 'Real' Patriotic thinking and lifestyles were afterall wise choices. Thats not say that I personally don't have empathy for these places, but you reap what you sew. Alot of the friends from Cali who had so much mocking laughter at my expense, telling me how I was going to the backward 'deliverance' hillbilly yokal land, are now talking out the other side of their neck, broke, unemployed and near collapse financially. Meanwhile I just smiled as the barbs and insults were hurled. Now who's laughing..... It should be me..... but I don't delight in other peoples demise, instead I wish them some kind of skill in survival, because I know the time's coming for them. We as Americans have got to take America back from big corperations and the greedy polititions, if we are to survive. We are going to have to start using long term thinking in our future if this government is to survive intact. And yes, I'm pro NRA. | ||
| Blake |
Which big corporations? | ||
| Reindog |
Gohot, What Blake said. Make sure that you don't buy anything or use a service from one of them thar "big corperations". They are evil and must be robbed in the name of Fairness. That means no gasoline for you but thats OK, you already shouldn't have an automobile, or automobile insurance if you slip slided away. Who is John Galt? | ||
| Court |
Gohot: Amazing observations. How long did you live in New York? . . California? I live in New York City . . yep, looking at the Empire State Building right now. House and cars paid for, we grow vegetables in the garden and if you pulled in my driveway and I wasn't home one of my neighbors would call me within 60 seconds. We have one of the lowest crime rates of any large city and we average about 475,000 folks PER DAY coming her to visit. We have more museums in this city than there are in the entire state of North Carolina, about 10% of our residents list their occupations on their 1040 as writer, artist or performer. The city schools suck. That differs from where I grew up in Topeka, KS. My class in Kansas, of about 700, included a number of Rhodes Scholars and a Noble Prize winner. The good news is higher education here . . I can't count the number of colleges, universities and law schools in town . . oh yeah and Julliard and Parsons . . since I've been here I've received advanced degrees from both New York University (NYU) and Columbia University . . .where I delivered the 2009 Commencement Address and now teach. It's humbling teaching in the building where Enrico Fermi split the Atom (the Cyclotron is still in the basement) and where 42 Noble Peace Prize winners have had offices. The Guggenheim Museum hosted what is arguably the most significant motorcycle display of the last 100 years (The one I came here to help write the catalog for . . see the credits). I need to thank you for telling me what a •••••• place it is . . if you hadn't said anything I'd have never guessed. Court P.S. - Guess where most the gorgeous models in THE WORLD live and work?  | ||
| Court |
I started to make a comment but then figured that was intentional to add a bit of levity. By the way . . .right here . . smack dab in the middle of New York City . . I'm pro NRA and an expert marksman . . go figure??? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
free speech isnt free case in point I just got banned on another internet forum for listing a dozen reasons why the Civil War was not about slavery...... Any more than the new American Affordable Care Act HR32oo is about Health Care... or being affordable. weeeeeeeee Its going to be a long winter. | ||
| Blake |
Civil war not about slavery? Yes, "states' rights", namely the right to continue slavery. Absent the issue of slavery, would the civil war here have happened? If the answer is "no", then wouldn't all the other contributing factors seem secondary? |
