- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
WASHINGTON — In a long-awaited decision, a federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules, dealing a punishing blow to telecom and cable companies that have sought to overturn the regulations.Characterizing the government’s net neutrality effort as an “attempt to achieve internet openness” and “the principle that broadband providers must treat all internet traffic the same regardless of source,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the rules are authorized under current law.
The Obama administration’s rules prevent internet service providers from charging content producers for faster or more reliable service, a practice known as “paid prioritization.” The rules also ban blocking and purposefully slowing the traffic of lawful services, and apply to both mobile and fixed broadband service.
Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, praised the ruling in a statement.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web, and it ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,” he said.
Read more @: Appeals Court Hands Obama Administration Major Win In Net Neutrality Case
:applaud:applaudA huge win for the consumer and a free and open internet! [/FONT]
Of course, in the eyes of the Right, this is tyranny, socialism run amok - how DARE the government infringe upon Big Business' "right" to divide their customers by deciding who can have good access and who cannot! It's almost as bad as those tyrannical attacks on those good-hearted, well-meaning for-profit universities (and fake ones like Trump University)!
Tyranny and socialism run amok? No, no it isn't. It's freedom. The right doesn't think that all regulation is bad. Bad regulation is bad, but good regulation is a must. I completely support Net Neutrality regulations. Just because I may not agree with all regulations you may like to see enacted, doesn't mean we can't agree on the ones that do good and not bad.
Read more @: Appeals Court Hands Obama Administration Major Win In Net Neutrality Case
:applaud:applaudA huge win for the consumer and a free and open internet! [/FONT]
My sentiments exactly.
I am all for net neutrality. I hope this decision holds if it is appealed by the special interests who want to monopolize the internet (and any other form of electronic communication).
At first it sounds good. When one applies economic theory to it, the taste goes a little salty. We are talking of a property rights structure that is probably an example of what economists call the Tragedy of the Commons. I have not thought it through in detail, but seems to correspond on all the pertinent points. That would mean that it is inefficient at the national level and might eventually slow the economy, if we do not find a better solution.
At first it sounds good. When one applies economic theory to it, the taste goes a little salty. We are talking of a property rights structure that is probably an example of what economists call the Tragedy of the Commons. I have not thought it through in detail, but seems to correspond on all the pertinent points. That would mean that it is inefficient at the national level and might eventually slow the economy, if we do not find a better solution.
This is not a win for the consumer. When the free market loses the consumer loses. The cable companies own the lines, they own the servers, they should be able to offer services in whatever manner they choose. If what the consumer is supposedly demanding, all traffic to be treated the same, then companies will change their products to meet the demands. We see that with the change in plans from by the byte to monthly. We see that with increased speeds for the same price. We see that with expanded services like streaming video and recording boxes. The fact that the cable companies havent changed the product is proof that the consumer is not demanding the change.
It only sounds good if one stops reading at the title; "Net Neutrality". In reality, that salty taste will come to fruition as people realize they have just handed control of the Internet over to the Government. I have seen the Government in action, therefore I am not buying into the open and accessible theory.
Hmm, well if the costs are soooo onerous that the profiteers can't make the kind of exorbitant profits they wish?
Simply nationalize the cable system and let business and organizations rent access. That might provide a nice little income stream for our government :shrug:
Nah, not a good idea. Government control would give government too tempting an option to spy on us more than they already do... :unsure13:
I know, nationalize it and then turn it over to a non-profit independent organization and rent access from them. Ya think? :think:
I don't think (or hope) it comes to that. I think these special interests will come to terms with net neutrality and simply figure some other way to bilk profits.
"Handed control of the internet over to the government" :roll:
What is net neutrality? | PolitiFact
These regulation would stop internet service providers from entering into financial arrangements that would give particular websites prioritized access to internet users. This would ensure that we continue to "get equal access to the whole Internet -- every website, big and small -- without any interference from the service providers."
Tyranny and socialism run amok? No, no it isn't. It's freedom. The right doesn't think that all regulation is bad. Bad regulation is bad, but good regulation is a must. I completely support Net Neutrality regulations. Just because I may not agree with all regulations you may like to see enacted, doesn't mean we can't agree on the ones that do good and not bad.
If you're a conservative, then your opinion above is certainly the exception to the conservative rule.
That is what PolitiFact tells you is in it. Do yourself a favor and read what is actually in the rules instead of what a leftist site tells you is in it. When you are ready to talk reality, get back to me.
Oh boy. Then tell me... Or are you simply going to rely on a logical fallacy?
I made the claim then defended it. You then essentially said, "Nauh! Politifact is bull****ting you and your argument isnt grounded in reality". So Im now asking you to defend your claim of how what Politifact laid out is not right/"grounded in reality".... I mean, usually when you debate you defend claims being made with evidence, etc.A: Do your own homework. You made the claim.
Called the genetic fallacy. Its when you attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. Its what you did when you implied the information found in the Politifact article was not grounded in reality and erroneous for the sole reason of it being from Politifact.B: What was the logical fallacy?
Let's see who will be the first to impacted by the slowdown in connection speeds. My guess is that businesses that rely on fast connections (pretty much anyone who uses cloud based storage) will see the impact first, with consumers being the next in line.
That is what PolitiFact tells you is in it. Do yourself a favor and read what is actually in the rules instead of what a leftist site tells you is in it. When you are ready to talk reality, get back to me.
If there was a free market you might have a point. But there is no free market when it comes to the telecom companies.
Why are ISP's not competitive? What is not free market about them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?