Enter the Age of Censorship, FCC circumvents Congress to classify internet as Public Utility

[bripat9643]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I guess I need to remind everyone every few pages that censoring the internet for content is an impossibility.

Of course most conservatives aren't interested in the facts, just propagating lies such as those expressed by the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A decent graphic of what getting rid of net neutrality might lead to:

The Open Internet A Case for Net Neutrality

It would lead to the situation we have right now, which is perfectly satisfactory

We have net neutrality now.

 

[bripat9643]

A decent graphic of what getting rid of net neutrality might lead to:

The Open Internet A Case for Net Neutrality

It would lead to the situation we have right now, which is perfectly satisfactory

We have net neutrality now.

I obviously meant the situation that pertained before the FCC Gestapo imposed its rule. That is the result of an unregulated internet. We'll know what the result of regulation is in about 10-15 years.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess I need to remind everyone every few pages that censoring the internet for content is an impossibility.

Of course most conservatives aren't interested in the facts, just propagating lies such as those expressed by the OP.

That's a hoot coming form the guy who believes that the Constitution says whatever 9 humans on the SC say it says.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

Capitalism turning equal access into little or no access if you can't find the cash.

 

[bripat9643]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

Capitalism turning equal access into little or no access if you can't find the cash.

Then why hasn't it happened? Why would an ISP want to deny access to the most popular websites on the internet?

 

[Mr Natural]

It's not going to be free. You will still be paying like you do now.
It means that websites won't be held hostage to pay extra in order to compete for bandwidth.

If you're using more bandwidth then you should pay for more bandwidth. The long term result of this is going to be degradation of our Internet infrastructure or higher prices on consumers.

That aside, the FCC will probably get sued again anyway like they were last time they tried to do this and the courts struck down their rules.

So, sue. That's how we resolve conflicts here. It's not the FCC doesn't expect it.

That is kind of futile when the government is the final arbiter of any lawsuit against itself.

Who do you propose, God?

I propose to eliminate the problem by abolishing government. I would especially like to abolish the FCC, a totally useless agency if there ever was one.

I agree!

Because there's not nearly enough foul language or hard core porn on prime time network TV.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

Capitalism turning equal access into little or no access if you can't find the cash.

Then why hasn't it happened? Why would an ISP want to deny access to the most popular websites on the internet?

It doesn't, it wants to drive traffic to them, if they own or host them, and ignore everything else that eats up bandwidth but doesn't make them money.

 

[OnePercenter]

Im not an expert on these things at all, but if Congress felt there should be some explaining, it logicaly leads me to believe its not just a matter of FCC making routine rules. If its no big deal, FCC should address Congress. If its just some matter of making random rules, why does the President need to forcefully get behing it with his power? It seems a little bit more. maybe Congress was curious to what was inside 300 pages of rules that will most likely affect most Americans. The Same Americans Congress is suppossed to represent. Seems to me, Congress is just doing their job.

And your oppossed to that?

Would you want to answer questions about a rule that makes profiteering illegal for companies that fund the politicians that are asking the questions?

 

[OnePercenter]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

 

[Nyvin]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

Capitalism turning equal access into little or no access if you can't find the cash.

Then why hasn't it happened? Why would an ISP want to deny access to the most popular websites on the internet?

It's not the "most popular" sites that would be denied access....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

 

[Pogo]

No, the OP did. That's the question he can't answer.

FCC is not "da gubmint".
And it has never censored anything. So I'm still looking for the basis of this speculation.

OK... whatever... I never knew you you were dense, or such a leftist hack, sorry.

Enjoy your apathy.

That's seven.

Yup, seven times it has been explained to you and you played ignorant.

I'm simply asking where in any of this is any indication of "censorship"; where has the FCC ever censored anything; and how is FCC -- which is a creation of Congress itself -- "circumventing" Congress?

I got no answers. All I get is

. Doesn't impress me.

Eight.

Big government types are not deep thinkers. They'll never admit government regulation of the Internet will lead to censorship. Power corrupts. IRS is an example; so is the ACA when you have tyrants like Obama in charge.

The FCC has never "censored" anything. That's a fact. My question was given that history, on what basis do you hairs-on-fire conclude that suddenly it's going to depart from all that and get into the censoring business for the first time ever?

I continue to see no answer. Not that I was really expecting one.

 

[Pogo]

And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?

Better question, when HASN'T the FCC been involved in censorship? Pogo is a good name for you...you've seen the enemy and it's you.

Has it now? Give me an example then.

 

[bripat9643]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

"Profiteering" is an absolutely meaningless term. It eliminates something that has never occurred.

 

[bripat9643]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

Capitalism turning equal access into little or no access if you can't find the cash.

Then why hasn't it happened? Why would an ISP want to deny access to the most popular websites on the internet?

It's not the "most popular" sites that would be denied access....

Why would less popular sites be denied access? Why would an ISP turn away a paying customer, especially one that doesn't place a large burden on its infrastructure?

 

[bripat9643]

OK... whatever... I never knew you you were dense, or such a leftist hack, sorry.

Enjoy your apathy.

That's seven.

Yup, seven times it has been explained to you and you played ignorant.

I'm simply asking where in any of this is any indication of "censorship"; where has the FCC ever censored anything; and how is FCC -- which is a creation of Congress itself -- "circumventing" Congress?

I got no answers. All I get is

. Doesn't impress me.

Eight.

Big government types are not deep thinkers. They'll never admit government regulation of the Internet will lead to censorship. Power corrupts. IRS is an example; so is the ACA when you have tyrants like Obama in charge.

The FCC has never "censored" anything. That's a fact. My question was given that history, on what basis do you hairs-on-fire conclude that suddenly it's going to depart from all that and get into the censoring business for the first time ever?

I continue to see no answer. Not that I was really expecting one.

Of course it has. They used to call it the "fairness doctrine."

 

[occupied]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft. The ISPs make out like they do not have the capacity to handle high bandwidth sites and want to charge them more but that's total bullshit, they really want the ability to throttle competing sites out of existence or to block them from their servers altogether.

 

[Nyvin]

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

"Ahead" of what, the race to the bottom of the toilet bowl?

Capitalism turning equal access into little or no access if you can't find the cash.

Then why hasn't it happened? Why would an ISP want to deny access to the most popular websites on the internet?

It's not the "most popular" sites that would be denied access....

Why would less popular sites be denied access? Why would an ISP turn away a paying customer, especially one that doesn't place a large burden on its infrastructure?

Content providers do not pay ISPs to host their sites....do you know how crazy rich Comcast would be if this were true?