FCC's Net Neutrality Shift a Victory for Open Internet & Grassroots Activism...

[Dibbler]

Open internet maybe means free speech...I like to think so..

 

[Misterveritis]

Open internet maybe means free speech...I like to think so..

Net neutrality means government controlled. Why would anyone want that? Is it that we just cannot get to full blown socialism fast enough.

 

[CMPancake]

Net neutrality means government controlled. Why would anyone want that? Is it that we just cannot get to full blown socialism fast enough.

You clearly do not know what Net Neutrality is.

 

[Misterveritis]

You clearly do not know what Net Neutrality is.

Does it involve government regulation?

 

[ludin]

this is a huge win for google who is trying to roll out their fiber network.

 

[CMPancake]

Does it involve government regulation?

Are you trying to ask if Net Neutrality is a government regulation? No, it isn't a government regulation. It has been around almost as long as the internet has been accessible to the mainstream.

 

[Misterveritis]

Are you trying to ask if Net Neutrality is a government regulation? No, it isn't a government regulation. It has been around almost as long as the internet has been accessible to the mainstream.

I am asking if net neutrality will be enforced through government regulation (and oversight).

 

[Removable Mind]

Does it involve government regulation?

See if this helps...

"In the United States in January 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals sent the regulatory framework of what is commonly referred to as “network neutrality” back to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claiming that the Commission had overreached its authority in barring broadband network service providers from slowing or blocking selected content. In other words the court was saying that the framework that was intended to ensure that these carriers treated all content on an equal and non-discriminatory basis was beyond the authority of the FCC in this context. This stems from an earlier move by the FCC almost two decades ago, in 1996, that elected not to classify Broadband Internet Access Service providers as recognized Common Carriers, and instead classified these service providers as “Information Service Providers”. It may have been an administrative convenience at the time, but the full extent of the consequences of this administrative action are only now emerging. The US Court of Appeals has ruled that as these providers are, strictly speaking, not common carriers then the US Communications Act expressly forbids the FCC from regulating these providers as if they were common carriers. So for the Internet in the US the concept of network neutrality may well be over.

In theory, the FCC could remedy this by appealing the Court decision, but it has been reported in March 2014 that the FCC will not appeal this decision. Another form of remedy would be for the FCC to reclassify these service providers as common carriers, but, predictably, this is not as straightforward as it sounds, as many of the larger US Internet service providers appear to be somewhat resistant to such a move as it appears to imply a number of additional constraints imposed on these providers. Why would a carrier not see an advantage in the protections offered by the common carrier framework? Perhaps part of the answer lies in the increased regulatory oversight of such carriers in many regimes, including elements of regulatory control over retail tariffs, and it could well be the case that the regulatory constraints in the common carrier role may act as an inhibitory factor for further private capital investment in carriage services. Perhaps this is another example of the adage that whatever the question may be, the answer is "money".

The ISP Column, April 2014 - RIP Net Neutrality | Internet Society

 

[Misterveritis]

See if this helps...

"In the United States in January 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals sent the regulatory framework of what is commonly referred to as “network neutrality” back to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claiming that the Commission had overreached its authority in barring broadband network service providers from slowing or blocking selected content. In other words the court was saying that the framework that was intended to ensure that these carriers treated all content on an equal and non-discriminatory basis was beyond the authority of the FCC in this context. This stems from an earlier move by the FCC almost two decades ago, in 1996, that elected not to classify Broadband Internet Access Service providers as recognized Common Carriers, and instead classified these service providers as “Information Service Providers”. It may have been an administrative convenience at the time, but the full extent of the consequences of this administrative action are only now emerging. The US Court of Appeals has ruled that as these providers are, strictly speaking, not common carriers then the US Communications Act expressly forbids the FCC from regulating these providers as if they were common carriers. So for the Internet in the US the concept of network neutrality may well be over.

In theory, the FCC could remedy this by appealing the Court decision, but it has been reported in March 2014 that the FCC will not appeal this decision. Another form of remedy would be for the FCC to reclassify these service providers as common carriers, but, predictably, this is not as straightforward as it sounds, as many of the larger US Internet service providers appear to be somewhat resistant to such a move as it appears to imply a number of additional constraints imposed on these providers. Why would a carrier not see an advantage in the protections offered by the common carrier framework? Perhaps part of the answer lies in the increased regulatory oversight of such carriers in many regimes, including elements of regulatory control over retail tariffs, and it could well be the case that the regulatory constraints in the common carrier role may act as an inhibitory factor for further private capital investment in carriage services. Perhaps this is another example of the adage that whatever the question may be, the answer is "money".

The ISP Column, April 2014 - RIP Net Neutrality | Internet Society

This looks like a government takeover to me.

 

[Carjosse]

This looks like a government takeover to me.

I would call it legal recourse for people and corpoartions if telecoms companies violate net neutrality.

 

[Renae]

It means higher costs, lower innovation and well a bunch of placated sheep who think politicians give a **** about them.

 

[Carjosse]

It means higher costs, lower innovation and well a bunch of placated sheep who think politicians give a **** about them.

You must be confused because that is what will happen without net neutrality. Without net neutrality telecoms companies can charge you for what ever the **** they want, and it will stifle online innovation by putting up massive cost barriers. Net neutrality is the staus quo, it is what makes the internet what it is.

 

[Misterveritis]

I would call it legal recourse for people and corpoartions if telecoms companies violate net neutrality.

It is yet another form of legal plunder. Someone has created wealth in the form of a superior service. Others, who have no right to the created wealth want the government to use force to take what is not theirs.

You are saying that the ones who create must bow to the demands of those who want. How is this any different from any other form of theft? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

We must put an end to legal plunder.

 

[Misterveritis]

You must be confused because that is what will happen without net neutrality. Without net neutrality telecoms companies can charge you for what ever the **** they want, and it will stifle online innovation by putting up massive cost barriers. Net neutrality is the staus quo, it is what makes the internet what it is.

In my opinion you are completely wrong. Since Obamacare's partial implementation has innovation increased or has it essentially ended? In the electrical utilities industry has innovation exploded under the massive, heavy mantle of government regulation or has it ended?

When you opt to take someone else's property through legal plunder do you believe you will get more over time, or less? Why do you believe that anything good can come from government freezing the net exactly as it is today?

I want greater bandwidth and I am willing to pay more for it. Why should I have to be contented with what I have today simply because you get the government to take it over?

In addition to paying for the service why would you want to pay for the massive government bureaucracy that inevitably comes when you demand that government enslave you and those you perceive as your enemies?

 

[Renae]

You must be confused because that is what will happen without net neutrality. Without net neutrality telecoms companies can charge you for what ever the **** they want, and it will stifle online innovation by putting up massive cost barriers. Net neutrality is the staus quo, it is what makes the internet what it is.

Uh huh, keep telling yourself that. We have a massively invested internet with millions on it without "net neutrality, but... CRISIS!!! It's in DAAANGER, only De'Govt can saves it!!!! Just look at the successes lately! Like the ACA! "With net neutrality, if you like your internet, you can keep your internet!"
RIIIGHT

This is an effing disaster in slow motion, but whatever, can't stop the behemoth from taking over and by the time you realize you were wrong, the spin will be "the Republicans fought against this that's why it failed!" And you'll never have to face the reality of poor judgement or support... you'll embrace the new reality as if it were a problem caused by big ISP and GOP collusion that needs more government to fix.

 

[Deuce]

Net neutrality means government controlled. Why would anyone want that? Is it that we just cannot get to full blown socialism fast enough.

That isn't what it means, no.

 

[Deuce]

Uh huh, keep telling yourself that. We have a massively invested internet with millions on it without "net neutrality, but... CRISIS!!! It's in DAAANGER, only De'Govt can saves it!!!! Just look at the successes lately! Like the ACA! "With net neutrality, if you like your internet, you can keep your internet!"
RIIIGHT

This is an effing disaster in slow motion, but whatever, can't stop the behemoth from taking over and by the time you realize you were wrong, the spin will be "the Republicans fought against this that's why it failed!" And you'll never have to face the reality of poor judgement or support... you'll embrace the new reality as if it were a problem caused by big ISP and GOP collusion that needs more government to fix.

Actually, the Internet grew to what it is with a standard of neutrality. You always had a "neutral" internet, you just didn't realize it.

 

[Deuce]

It means higher costs, lower innovation and well a bunch of placated sheep who think politicians give a **** about them.

Who told you that and why did you believe them?

 

[Verax]

Right-wingers are so indoctrinated they can't even a see a good thing when it bites them in the nose. They're so stone cold sure government is always bad and regulations are always bad they'd drive off a cliff to avoid them.

 

[Cardinal]

Right-wingers are so indoctrinated they can't even a see a good thing when it bites them in the nose. They're so stone cold sure government is always bad and regulations are always bad they'd drive off a cliff to avoid them.

I don't know if it's so much a right wing ideology or even an entirely anti government mindset, because when any conflict arises between employees, consumers, or any victims of corporate malfeasance whatsoever they'll choose the businesses's side every time. As we've seen in every one of these net neutrality threads, the history and facts of who is impacted are simply irrelevant. It's corporatism, pure and simple.

 

[Cardinal]

Uh huh, keep telling yourself that. We have a massively invested internet with millions on it without "net neutrality, but... CRISIS!!! It's in DAAANGER, only De'Govt can saves it!!!! Just look at the successes lately! Like the ACA! "With net neutrality, if you like your internet, you can keep your internet!"
RIIIGHT

This is an effing disaster in slow motion, but whatever, can't stop the behemoth from taking over and by the time you realize you were wrong, the spin will be "the Republicans fought against this that's why it failed!" And you'll never have to face the reality of poor judgement or support... you'll embrace the new reality as if it were a problem caused by big ISP and GOP collusion that needs more government to fix.

Your histrionics are no replacement for an understanding of the topic (let alone a coherent argument).

 

[Verax]

I don't know if it's so much a right wing ideology or even an entirely anti government mindset, because when any conflict arises between employees, consumers, or any victims of corporate malfeasance whatsoever they'll choose the businesses's side every time. As we've seen in every one of these net neutrality threads, the history and facts of who is impacted are simply irrelevant. It's corporatism, pure and simple.

They almost always side with power and wealth. They see that as evidence of morality and discipline.

 

[Cardinal]

They almost always side with power and wealth. They see that as evidence of morality and discipline.

Corporate power and wealth. Because when tyranny comes from a monolithic business entity, it's sanctified by the sweet baby Jesus.

 

[JumpinJack]

Open internet maybe means free speech...I like to think so..

People who want to support small businesses should wholeheartedly support net neutrality. Interesting that Republicans, who purport to be oh so concerned about small business, are against net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the way the internet was set up to begin with. It is the search engines and ISPs that have come up with a scheme to bilk companies. You pay up, or we won't let customers get easy access to your websites. Similar to what the mafioso used to do to small shops in the neighborhood. They required protection money from the small shop owners....protection from the very mafioso demanding the money.

Anyone who is a decent human being will be against such a scheme.

 

[Misterveritis]

That isn't what it means, no.

Explain? How will the government coerce some to give up control of their property without force?