So who here wants the government to rule the internet

So you don't believe broadband Internet service providers should provide nondiscriminatory access to Internet content, platforms, etc., and should not manipulate the transfer of data regardless of its source or destination?

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. So you believe the broad band provider should charge different rates for the same service, block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors, so they can eliminate their competition?

If so it sounds like you are in favor of keeping a large portion of the population ignorant and uninformed, and an advocate of crony capitalism.

Of course net neutrality is not what democrats are working for, but I am just curious why you think it is a bad idea.

 

I put "net neutrality" in quotes for a reason, because it's just liberal code word; sort of like "pro-choice" is liberal code word for abortion. It sounds good semantically, but is actually quite horrific in practice.

So just as being "pro-choice" is semantically a good thing, so is "net neutrality" semantically a good thing. The problem is in determining how it is actually being applied, towards a good end, or towards a bad end. I don't see giving the government greater regulatory control as being a good end to "net neutrality".

 

True, but no regulatory effort at all is the same as anarchy. We can't trust the best government corporate money can buy to do anything that is actually good for the country as a whole. The two party scam is nothing but isolated corruption that can't be dealt with. Remove one sock puppet and the country club dwellers have another standing by to take their place. Stick a fork in it this country is done.

 

It's the wealthy elite who owns the government.

 

No, if you look at the doctrine and the way it was enforced, it clearly had that effect. If a radio station received a complaint about any broadcast that could be considered controversial, they were automatically on the hook for the cost of responding to the complaint, the cost of providing opposing views and potentially loss of their license. That being the case, no radio station would willingly take that risk. That's why shows like Limbaugh and Hannity didn't exist until the Fairness Doctrine was no longer in force.

I don't care about the content of talk radio except as an example that illustrates the suppressing effect of government intervention in the medium.

If you believe what your signature says, why would you trust the government to do anything but screwup the internet?

 

Please, cite what you know is actually in this 'regulation' ... the truth is, you and the rest of us really have no clue what is in it, but you support it because it's your party and presidents proposal.. i object because I have zero idea as to what the text is in this proposal. I may end up liking it... I doubt it, but since I dont know what's in it.. i cannot support it.. this isn't nancy pelosi's "we have to pass it to, uh, know whats in it" kind of bill... or wait.. maybe it is...

 

That is not a clear and concise argument, It does not stand any factual ground. The internet is not claimed by any nation as property of its own.

 

Government doesn't care about facts or logic, only money and power.

And the government already owns it. Don't forget, they want and probably already secretly have a kill switch.

 

Yeah, I agree, no idea where government control = lower prices comes from. I do think more competition would equate to lower prices, and that does go with my point of the net being treated as infrastructure could and should help. Still, that's not my main point.

 

Yeah Comcast is a creator of the internet in the same sense that Firestone created the tire. The difference is that Comcast has no competition. You can't lose market share in a market where you are the market. It's like saying a town of 7-11 will lose to a mom and pop shop that's constantly out of stock.

Also, if you think Comcast is big because they please their customer, I invite you to look at this: http://consumerist.com/2013/04/09/c...the-third-worst-company-in-america-this-year/

People use Comcast because they have to, not because they want to. Believe me I tried to get away from them, but there is no other provider that can work for me here in Portland, a city which has a good tech industry. I could lose my job tomorrow and be fine, I could not lose Comcast and be fine.

 

I won't deny the internet is new, and it is odd for people to get their heads around, but it is modern day infrastructure. You will not find good modern day business in a place without internet, nor will you find successful people. Our dynamic has changed from industrial to technological. You need the net to get ahead in anything other than a union job. I'm being plain and blunt but wanted to address your post. The internet is extremely important in day to day life an unless you're working a completely non-tech job and don't have kids you pretty much need it at your house. Even then it's a huge avenue of communications, education, and entertainment. The later may be the focus of the nay sayer, but it does not dispute the first two.

 

It is not possible as the internet does not work there, I am skeptical about this as the United States can only shut out communications under it's jurisdiction, It would be impossible to cut off the internet, it is also phyisically imposible and this notion of a kill switch would not have any implications to servers which are not based in the United States, there is no centralized structure of the internet, the internet can be termed at best as a cooperative anarchy, no government can kill the internet, it is not possible physically

 

I don't agree.

America has some powerful technology and could kill it if it wanted to.

Such as but not limited to electronic scramblers, EMP weapons, and of course, simple wire cutters.

For example:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/interference-defining-source

China itself has used some of this technology to bring the internet under it's control and ban certain parts of it.

 

The scare fantasy is being peddled by the Administration for a problem that does not exist. You have bought into it. More government control and meddling is not needed. This was all based on Netflix and Comcast and they worked that out without government.

 

One thing you can expect to see once government get's its fingers into the internet and with the cable subscriptions decreasing because people are opting out and streaming online is that with crony capitalism and government favors, your internet costs will eventually end up costing as much as cable.

 

"And when Lee says that the American public isn't aware of what's going on, that is in no way hyperbole. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has emerged as a hero for those opposed to the regulation because Pai has been taking to the airwaves decrying the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed. Pai's crusade to make the proposed regulations public is the theme of the the latest ad from Protect Internet Freedom:"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...mas-proposed-internet-regulations_858283.html

Three-hundred-and-thirty-two pages of regulations to solve the Comcast problem? Three-hundred-and-thirty-two pages. Of course, the ludicrously named and massively destructive Affordable Care Act has tens of thousands of regulations. This internet bill is as much about equality as Obamacare was about affordable.

So, those who support the Internet Neutrality Bill without knowing what's in the 332 pages of regulations are exactly like the fools Dr. Gruber referred to voting for Obamacare without knowing what was in its 2000 pages.

 

This is pure irrational rational. Broadcaster understood the rules when they excepted the licenses, it wasn't a secret they just found out about when they turned the power on. It's like claiming that since you bought the license to your vehicle, you have the right to drive it as fast and reckless as you desire, without concern for the public interest. It cost them nothing to offer opposing viewpoints, and in almost every situation the stations who complied did a service to their communities, by assuring they were properly informed on important/controversial topics of the day. Much more than they do today. There is almost NO local information shared on the radio airwaves to inform the public about pertinent issues concerning their daily lives in their community today.

Misconceptions/propaganda/lies about the Fairness Doctrine spread by those who opposed it. It did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. The remedy did not ever amount to equal time. This is the most obvious lie of the bunch. The ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response could differ as much as five to one where air time was concerned or even less proportioned than that.

The FD never cost a broadcast station their license, in fact the FCC went along with the station way more often than the side of complainants as “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view" was for the most part complied with. This was a relevant phrase when discussing this topic, “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view" since the FCC agreed most complaints had no validity, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, since most stations complied, and did so willingly.

It was not a one sided issue as republicans have often times claimed either, since many grassroots conservative organizations used the FD as a tool to expand speech and debate. The NRA, religious organizations, and a conservative organization known as Accuracy In Media.

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, aesthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

More lies. Talk radio, especially the right wing variety was born under the FD, and never, not one time was there ever a Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC concerning talk-shows that leaned either direction. Mostly because of the format which allows callers to participate. Even when scripted/canned callers were used the opposing viewpoints were present and there's that term again, “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view" was provided.

The FD had nothing to do with government intervention, the way some democrats want it to be re-instituted and prostituted, in fact the government never issued grievances, the public did, and only the valid complaints were even addressed. The only examples that went so far as to be addressed by a court were examples of blatant refusals to allow a counter point to be even offered. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) to be exact.

I don't trust either party to use the government for anything but a tool of convenience, and that is the point of the comment. As long as the two party scam can continue to convince the public that "their" government is the answer, it will be a tool of destruction for the people, and the nation as a whole. As I already said, democrats do not want the original intent of the FD to be implemented, or reimplemented (since it has only been shelved and ignored and still in place for all practical purposes to be used), so it can be prostituted by whicever party is in charge of the executive branch.

 

Pssssssssst....

Nobody cares about the Constitution anymore.

 

So, who created Comcast's network? Does the internet exist without the network?

According to the link I provided earlier in this thread, there are 44 broadband providers in Portland. A google search indicates that list isn't comprehensive. Are none of them a viable alternative to Comcast?

Comcast could be big for one of two reasons. Either they please their customers enough to keep them or they've had help from the government in the form of barriers to competition and probably a government enforced monopoly at some point in time. If people stay with Comcast because they're the least bad option, why would government intervention be necessary? If Comcast is big because of government intervention, why would you want more of it?

 

Understanding the rules they were subject to doesn't change the result. Government interference changed the content of the programming. Responding to complaints cost money as does airtime and compliance may or may not have been a beneficial service.

Nitpicking. Now you admit there was a time component to compliance. The Fairness Doctrine was a bad implementation of a bad idea. Government intervention in broadcast content was a bad idea and using listener complaints as a basis for enforcement was even worse.

And you've probably never gone to prison for not paying your taxes but that doesn't mean the threat isn't real and doesn't have an effect.

Certainly, you deal with the world as it is. When you have this sort of government intervention you have to use the tools that will be used against you just to stay in the game.

And the text of the First Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law...". Maybe that doesnt' apply if an unaccountable, unelected government agency enacts a doctrine that inflicts its view of what the marketplace should look like. That kind of sounds like central planning.

When was the Fairness Doctrine discontinued, '86? Who were the radio ideologues before that time? Limbaugh was in radio but he certainly wasn't making any headway in the ideology department.

The public complaint component was one of the worst parts of the deal. It made any radio station subject to the whims of any person or organization to effectively levy a "fine" by making a complaint and forcing the station to spend resources responding to the complaint.

The two party system is made of people. There isn't anything magic about any other system that would preclude corrupt power mongers from getting into office and abusing the system. People granted power over other people is the problem.

 

I've not heard any proposal that would increase competition. I would think the opposite is more likely, and we'll wind up with some sort of internet Ma Bell.

 

we end up with a cable type system where we buy a bundle of websites we can access without net neutrality, with it we keep the freedom of the net we have now

basically republicans want the cable companies (ISP's) to decide what we can and can not view on the net


.


.

 

That's absurd, and it shows the weakness of your argument that you can't point to real problems that need to be corrected, you have to make them up. Has there ever, been even one ISP in the US that has offered a "bundle of websites?" I would be very interested in that story.

 

that is exactly what is happening, cable companies want companies like netflix to have to pay them to let you have access to them....

do you think a company like netflix would of ever existed if they had to pay off every ISP in this country, the logistics of that alone is too much for a startup

I pay for my internet and should be able to access anywhere I want at the speeds I paid for

cable companies are trying to charge both ends of the connection, like if you called someone and they and you had to pay for the call...it's called double dipping

.

 

OK so you don't have an example of an ISP selling bundles of websites. That's what I figured.

As far as Netflix goes, on a typical night one third of internet usage in North America is Netfix; just Netflix. So think about that private company monopolizing a third of the continent's bandwidth.

So should Netflix pay? Absolutely! Do you think they shouldn't?

You guys forget that the internet is only theoretically an infinite resource. Really it's finite, limited to the built infrastructure. So it seems clear to me that Netflix is taking more than it's paying for in bandwidth, and should pay to make up for that, including the extra servers they have set up with ISP's to handle the demand (FYI Google does the same thing). And I say that as a Netflix customer.

So...do I want the current situation, where Netflix can help pay for and finance it's increasingly heavy demands on the internet infrastructure, or should I want a situation that's "neutral" and Netflix and use no more bandwidth than the little old lady who just checks her email daily hoping to get a message from grandchildren? Or Google can't install extra servers at the source at Time Warner or Comcast, because it wouldn't be neutral? So if I want to search Google I have to stare and a little revolving circle for 15 or 20 minutes?

That would be fair and neutral, but it would suck on the customer service level, and I hate it that you guys have allowed yourself to be manipulated to support something that will end up screwing you.

Of course, it worked with Obamacare so.....

A