Posted on 02/27/2015 11:59:42 AM PST by Kaslin
How predictable… The Federal Communications Commission voted on strict party lines to adopt Obama’s 332 page “Net Neutrality” proposal. Given that everything the government touches ends up as a rousing success-story, I’m sure you’ll be able to keep your internet if you like your internet. According to Fox News:
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote. On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
Of course… Because if there is one thing the government is known for it is protecting truly free markets, right? At issue is a concern that service providers might unfairly target certain companies for preferential (or discriminatory) treatment. However, I can’t help but notice that this is largely a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Apparently the big government fanatics over at Obama’s FCC believe it is prudent governance to restrict freedom because someone might (someday) abuse it.
How terribly Orwellian. I think George Washington is credited with a quote about such overzealous governance:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
Democrats fear that a lack of competition within the industry is leading to monopolistic injustice; and evidently believe that slapping a 21st century technology with rules designed for rotary telephones, will somehow level the playing field. (I call it socialism for broadband… Let’s make sure everyone has equally atrocious internet service.)
On almost every level, the proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. While the Liberals at the FCC opine about too few service providers, it’s probably worth pointing out that affordable access to the internet has been growing exponentially for years. Over the course of the last 20 years, the internet has become more accessible, substantially faster, and profoundly more user friendly. In today’s America, quality access to the web is almost considered a given. Heck, even remote corners of rural America tend to have Wi-Fi hotspots at local coffee shops, public libraries, and public schools. And almost anyone in America can get their hands on a web-enabled smartphone.
Moreover, it should be worth noting that “competition” isn’t exactly suffering among service providers. While certain companies might have relative control over small geographical areas, innovation has been shifting the balance of power for the last few decades to more dynamic competitive methods of delivering the internet. (Remember when cable providers weren’t the ones who you called to get hooked up to the interwebs?)
America’s transition from dial-up, to DSL, to cable, and now to fiber, seems to demonstrate that competition and innovation are alive and well within the industry. As a result, the consumer is routinely introduced to new and improved methods for watching Netflix and checking their status updates. Accessibility to quality service has never been greater, and as a result the richness of the internet has fundamentally impacted the way Americans interact with the world.
Due to such stunning advancements in accessibility, the internet has become the largest democratizing machine for information since moveable type. The internet is an entertainment hub, a news source, the world’s largest library, a communication device, a soapbox, and a conduit for information. This great explosion in tech, industry, and democratized accessibility did not happen because of government “oversight”… It emerged due to government’s general inability to regulate, tax, and control the 20th century’s most influential contribution to human discourse.
And now Obama’s FCC will get their bureaucratic hands on it in an effort to fix an injustice that doesn’t even seem to exist. In an effort to ensure an “open” internet, the FCC will impose upon an already-unfettered marketplace regulations originally written for telephone companies in the 1930s. If you like your internet as it is, you’re probably in luck… Nothing will be changing anytime soon with the FCC breathing down the necks of would-be innovators. After all, there’s probably a reason that our home phone service has remained largely unchanged while the unregulated interwebs have become an exponentially growing marketplace of ideas and innovation.
Far from being “progressive”, Obama & Co seem dedicated to clinging to an early 20th Century model of centralized power, and restricted free-market advancement… All in the name of preventing an abuse that hasn’t even materialized in the real world.
In fact, the term “progressive” is almost as misleading as the term “Net Neutrality”.
People keep mentioning “300 pages” as if that’s the length of the regulations. I wish people would try to be more accurate and say the right number of pages of regulations.
They consist of about 20 or 30 pages (that was reported) with the rest being filler stuff like comments from the public and commentary about the background related to this. If they just posted the regulations alone, you’re talking 10% of what is usually said ... LOL ...
At least get the page count for the regulations correct ... :-) ...
This is a marxist plan to not only ruin free speech on the Internet but all information so that the individual is kept small and the economy ruined. it will ruin free speech and ruin the Internet. with the internet anyone has all the knowledge and tech ever created and can learn anything or solve most problems using google searches and youtube videos.
anyone can learn how to do home repairs on youtube
Still way too many. "IPs must treat each packet the same regardless of where it originated." That's it!
“If they just posted the regulations alone, you’re talking 10% of what is usually said ...”
Fine. That shouldn’t be too hard to post then.
Here in Washington they just passed a new law requiring background checks on buying weapons. Well - that was what it was reported as being.
The new law runs 18 pages, and it isn’t about “buying” - it is about “transfers”.
It is now illegal in the State of Washington for me to go shooting with my son at a gun range, and let him try out the new shotgun I bought at Christmas. That is a “transfer”.
I disagree with this. There are large portions of South Carolina, where I live, that have access only to dial-up. There's no cable, let alone fiber.
These folks are stuck with staying with dial-up, getting satellite service (expensive) or a cell modem (which also don't work where's there's little or weak cell service).
The folks who have chosen to "live out in the country" are largely being bypassed by these modern technologies.
I believe the regulations are going to be released in three weeks, if I remember correctly.
You’re right ... everyone should have the same kind of access, as the Internet is an important thing to have these days. These people should have the service built out to them, too!
I expect a “fee” will be added to every network user’s bill. This fee will be to fund subsidized or free access to “communities whose critical information needs are underserved”, and of course to fund a compliance oversight and enforcement bureaucracy. Can hosting services be far behind? Will they be forced to collect a fee and to provide subsidized or free service?
Aside from First Amendment issues this is also an assault on free markets. As if we need another example of the failure of central planning we can look at the PPACA whose authors, central planners, failed to plan on states rejecting federal inducements to establish so-called “exchanges”. The same regime no brings us central planners determining what the “public interest” is and dictating to private businesses that build and operate networks what services they provide and the manner in which they are provided.
I agree with the concept of not having “specially paid speed lanes” for the Internet packets, as that creates a bottle-neck for those who don’t pay.
I don’t think that Free Republic is going to pay millions of dollars like Netflix had to do with Comcast just so their customers could see movies.
That’s crazy ... because ... Netflix already pays for their bandwidth and access to the Internet. I already pay for my bandwidth to the Internet from my side too.
There should be NO THIRD CHARGE for something “in the middle” so you don’t get stuck in the slow lane!
While on the face, I am not opposed to that definition of Net Neutrality, you should know damn well that this isn’t what this ruling is about....It’s a Trojan Horse, and you should know better how these guys operate.
All of it will still be there after those regulations. The content will not be affected. Whatever content is and was legal under our US Constitution before this ... will also be legal and available after this ... according to that same US Constitution.
I don’t doubt that there will be regulations to follow, but those are not going to affect the laws on Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution. What I expect will happen will be regulations to build out access to the last segment of population in the USA who can’t get it right now. And that will cost, which is why the carriers haven’t wanted to do that. That cost will be added and it will cost more for everyone for that full build-out.
And I know some relatives who can’t get Internet right now, except on their cell phones, and they are less than 10 miles from the center of a good sized city in Oklahoma! That’s crazy!
This was never about fair and free access to the Internet. It's about putting the Internet under the control of the FCC, so that it can be regulated and controlled in the name of the greater good.
Just like it is in China.
Whoa calm down!
I said in my post that it is unconstitutional. Which means they don’t have the authority...but it hasn’t had any challenge yet, which will happen as it’s inevitable.
If you’d read my other posts on the topic you’d also know that I agree this is an attempt to have influence over the Internet in many new, expanding, ways.
So no, I’m not as “ridiculous beyond belief” as you think. We’re on the same side!
I’ve studied the history of expanding communication capabilities and understand how it has transformed many societies, it is a primary enemy of anyone that wants to control and impose tyranny. I get it. I don’t need an explanation of how trans-formative the Internet has been - or the how much information there is or how much easier it has become to communicate a message. The Internet is also the *reason* for these globally radical times, our enemies use it against us everyday. However, I’m not in a panic over it. I understand the technology very well. If these guys think they can put a stop to online political speech they disagree with they’ve another thing coming. They’ll be causing their own demise if they try.
They’re just not capable of ruining the Internet to the extent you’re claiming. They may want to, they may think they can, they can try...but they’re ignorant of how it works and what can be done.
Don’t be so aggressive, I was just drawing a parallel to the constraints on the FCC that already exist through constitutional rulings. Those constraints don’t change because it’s the Internet vs. TV vs. radio. Will they try to say, “oh, but this is new, so old rulings don’t apply!”?. Sure they will. We’ll then get to see if the Constitution still means anything or not. If not, the revolt will begin - unlike anything they could possibly imagine, STILL using the Internet. It just isn’t that easy to stop or police to the degree they’d like.
“fast lane” is a bogus analogy.
A web page is a relatively small amount of information and it’s delivery is not time critical. A phone call is time critical, it’s packets must be prioritized versus a web page. Streaming video is a much larger amount of information but it’s delivery is not as time critical as a phone call. “Bandwidth” is capacity. Streaming video consumes more of that capacity than a webpage. Why shouldn’t mass consumption of capacity cost more? Video conferencing is very resource intensive, it is large amounts of information whose delivery is time critical. Unless you are paying for access to more capacity the video will very likely be jerky or pixelated. This is often seen with skype.
Charging more for greater use of their network is how companies fund the construction and operation of these networks. It wasn’t too long ago that there was no youtube, that there was no mobile internet access. These capabilities were built by private companies. Yeah that’s right for profit companies. Profit is not a dirty word, except to commies.
So tell Obama and his commie FCC pals that YOU DIDN’T BUILD IT, SO KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF IT.
Thanks for the info. That’s crazy - three weeks? So much for “most transparent administration”.
IMHO It will be like everything else, about control, intimidation & imposed 'equality'. It will render leftist propaganda as a necessary voice that the public must fund. There will be cries for bandwidth equality and equal bandwidth as a right.... yadda yadda yadda...
Oh yes they can, all you have to do is look at China.
Then you don’t have any idea about the things possible in China. It is a also very different to keep things under control as it emerges and is deployed. It is an entirely different circumstance in the USA.
Well, if you’re talking about the government, the government did build the Internet.
Business wasn’t even allowed on the Internet until the early to mid-1990s. You couldn’t even sell an old pair of socks on the Internet, or else you would lose your Internet connection.
My first connection was $150 a month and that wasn’t broadband but the slowest dialup you could get, and you better not do any “business” of any kind, or else you were kicked off the Internet. You could give away a pair of your old socks, if you wanted, but you better not even get a nickel for them or that was “doing business”.
You signed an agreement that you would do NO BUSINESS of any kind!
There weren’t even web pages back then as the “Internet” did not even consist of webpages. The first webpages showed up in the mid-1990s.
Then ... after the government paid for and built the Internet, they finally decided to let business on the Internet. For everyone who was there “BEFORE” ... getting to “do business” on the Internet was an AMAZING THING ... and people didn’t even know what to do with the Internet, once the U.S. Government allowed it to “go commercial”! Again, that was AMAZING!
There was a considerable number of people and voters who thought that the U.S. Government SHOULD NOT let business have access to the Internet and that it should REMAIN in government hands completely and totally, since it was PAID FOR all by tax dollars! A lot of people complained that it should be free access to all since the PUBLIC PAID FOR THE INTERNET!
BUT ... the US Government did not charge business for building the Internet up over the last several decades and basically “gave it away for free” even though the public paid for it with their tax dollars! A lot of people did not like it that their tax dollars went for “giving it away for free” to business who paid nothing over the decades to build it up. But, that’s what happened.
AND talking about access to the Internet, I’ve got 100 Megabits down and 10 up. I’m paying well over the necessary amount to get movies, which about 15 Megabits down should work well. I OVERPAY for that, so there is no reason for anyone else to get MORE MONEY FOR ANY MOVIE getting to me, since Netflix also pays ALREADY for its access and the necessary capacity to feed all those customers. There’s no need for a THIRD CHARGE to get that Movie Data from Netflix to me ... and get it IMMEDIATELY! If someone is trying to get a THIRD CHARGE (outside of me and Netflix) then that’s someone else’s SCAM to squeeze more money out of the two ends that ALREADY PAY FOR IT and THAT should be totally illegal!
Too bad you weren’t around when the U.S. Government built the Internet with Taxpayer Dollars, or you would realize who owned it and built it in the first place!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.