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

[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.

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.

I thought this was about helping small websites, not big ones. You guys can't seem to make up your minds. Why shouldn't high bandwidth sights pay more? Don't you think people should pay according to what they use? once again the servile government toadies are trying to scare us with a problem that doesn't exist and never will exist.

BTW, if anyone should go to prison for creating artificial shortages, it' Obama. He's bee trying to create artificial shortages of oil and electric power ever since he got into office.

 

[bripat9643]

"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?

They pay for the bandwidth they use. If you need more bandwidth, you pay more. ISPs make huge amounts of money from sites like Netflix.

 

[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?

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.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage of bandwidth?

 

[Jarlaxle]

So two posts, no answer. I'll keep a running tally.

Pogo... really?

Do you remember this?

"If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period." - obama

Net Neutrality is the ACA for the internet.

Now think...

ACA has nothing to do with FCC.
That's three.

Oh my God... are you going to play this? Did I say it DID have something to do with the FCC?

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

Now having to REPEAT myself, I SAID... "net neutrality is the ACA for the internet," MEANING, that now the government can REGULATE, HOW, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY... WHATEVER THEY WANT about the internet, JUST LIKE THE ACA CAN REGULATE HEALTH CARE, and if you think that they won't do it with PREJUDICE, then you need your head examined, brother. That's why I said "THINK."

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.

Pogo is not apathetic. He is just pathetic.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Keep in mind that anything Republicans are 'for' is bad for the working class.

Are you a remarkably stupid person or a remarkably sophisticated spambot?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?.

Who do you think determines what can be shown on television or what can be played on the radio. Where do you think the movie rating system comes from, G, PG, PG-13, R?

Did you really post that?

Operators of television and radio stations determine what "can" be played. Or rather, what "will" be played. The FCC has no hand in that. Never has.

Seriously? Are you THAT FUCKING STUPID?

(Of course you are...)

 

[occupied]

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?

Suppose Comcast had won this one, they would then have every right to block web content critical of Comcast from their service. Or they could create their own streaming service to compete with Netflix and throttle Netflix bandwidth while making sure their service cooks. Or they could simply open a bidding war between Netflix and Hulu to see who gets the "limited" available bandwidth. In any case, striking down neutrality gives so much power to the ISPs to manipulate content in any number of ways that the net would suffer.

 

[bripat9643]

"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?

Suppose Comcast had won this one, they would then have every right to block web content critical of Comcast from their service. Or they could create their own streaming service to compete with Netflix and throttle Netflix bandwidth while making sure their service cooks. Or they could simply open a bidding war between Netflix and Hulu to see who gets the "limited" available bandwidth. In any case, striking down neutrality gives so much power to the ISPs to manipulate content in any number of ways that the net would suffer.

Left-wing clucking about things that could never possibly occur. Comcast could have gotten into the content business a long time ago if it wanted to. Why didn't it? Comcast has seen content provider come and go. Yet, it's still here. It seems Comcast understands that providing content is a much riskier proposition than providing bandwidth. There are also other ISPs, so if Comcast tried to throttle Netflix, people could watch it on AT&T's service or some other service.

Furthermore, in a free market, every day is the opening of a bidding war. However, businesses are always trying to underbid each other, not pay more. Comcast and the other service providers are the ones who are in the bidding war. They try to offer the lowest bid to get the business.

 

[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.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage of bandwidth?

This whole thing started when Verizon claimed in a lawsuit that Netflix was gobbling up all their capacity and wanted to charge them a premium to be on the Verizon network, it was total bullshit but enough people believed it for the case to proceed and win, prompting the government to take steps to keep things the way they are.

 

[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.

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.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage of bandwidth?

This whole thing started when Verizon claimed in a lawsuit that Netflix was gobbling up all their capacity and wanted to charge them a premium to be on the Verizon network, it was total bullshit but enough people believed it for the case to proceed and win, prompting the government to take steps to keep things the way they are.

Why would Verizon need to file a lawsuit simply to charge Netflix a higher price? They've always had the right to charge customers whatever price they like.

 

[Pogo]

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?.

Who do you think determines what can be shown on television or what can be played on the radio. Where do you think the movie rating system comes from, G, PG, PG-13, R?

Did you really post that?

Operators of television and radio stations determine what "can" be played. Or rather, what "will" be played. The FCC has no hand in that. Never has.

Seriously? Are you THAT FUCKING STUPID?

(Of course you are...)

That all you got?

How many broadcast license applications have you been through?

Exactly. Didn't think so.

 

[occupied]

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?

Suppose Comcast had won this one, they would then have every right to block web content critical of Comcast from their service. Or they could create their own streaming service to compete with Netflix and throttle Netflix bandwidth while making sure their service cooks. Or they could simply open a bidding war between Netflix and Hulu to see who gets the "limited" available bandwidth. In any case, striking down neutrality gives so much power to the ISPs to manipulate content in any number of ways that the net would suffer.

Left-wing clucking about things that could never possibly occur. Comcast could have gotten into the content business a long time ago if it wanted to. Why didn't it? Comcast has seen content provider come and go. Yet, it's still here. It seems Comcast understands that providing content is a much riskier proposition than providing bandwidth. There are also other ISPs, so if Comcast tried to throttle Netflix, people could watch it on AT&T's service or some other service.

Furthermore, in a free market, every day is the opening of a bidding war. However, businesses are always trying to underbid each other, not pay more. Comcast and the other service providers are the ones who are in the bidding war. They try to offer the lowest bid to get the business.

I think you are vastly underestimating the possible negative repercussions of losing the internet equivalent of the 1st amendment.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo... really?

Do you remember this?

"If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period." - obama

Net Neutrality is the ACA for the internet.

Now think...

ACA has nothing to do with FCC.
That's three.

Oh my God... are you going to play this? Did I say it DID have something to do with the FCC?

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

Now having to REPEAT myself, I SAID... "net neutrality is the ACA for the internet," MEANING, that now the government can REGULATE, HOW, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY... WHATEVER THEY WANT about the internet, JUST LIKE THE ACA CAN REGULATE HEALTH CARE, and if you think that they won't do it with PREJUDICE, then you need your head examined, brother. That's why I said "THINK."

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.

Pogo is not apathetic. He is just pathetic.

Once again, I invited any documentation of any such instance.
Once again I got zero.
This ain't my first radio. It always works. Nobody can find squat, realize their head's up their ass, and out come the ad homs. Same old thing, every time.

Yawn.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Suppose Comcast had won this one, they would then have every right to block web content critical of Comcast from their service. Or they could create their own streaming service to compete with Netflix and throttle Netflix bandwidth while making sure their service cooks. Or they could simply open a bidding war between Netflix and Hulu to see who gets the "limited" available bandwidth. In any case, striking down neutrality gives so much power to the ISPs to manipulate content in any number of ways that the net would suffer.

Left-wing clucking about things that could never possibly occur. Comcast could have gotten into the content business a long time ago if it wanted to. Why didn't it? Comcast has seen content provider come and go. Yet, it's still here. It seems Comcast understands that providing content is a much riskier proposition than providing bandwidth. There are also other ISPs, so if Comcast tried to throttle Netflix, people could watch it on AT&T's service or some other service.

Furthermore, in a free market, every day is the opening of a bidding war. However, businesses are always trying to underbid each other, not pay more. Comcast and the other service providers are the ones who are in the bidding war. They try to offer the lowest bid to get the business.

I think you are vastly underestimating the possible negative repercussions of losing the internet equivalent of the 1st amendment.

It' exactly the opposite of the First Amendment. It's an infringement on speech.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

I'm sure China will be interested to know that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Can anyone name a public utility where they live where more than one company offers the service?

Anyone?

Doesn't matter.

We all get clean water, reliable gas and/ or electricity, 24 hour telephone service, garbage picked up regularly and now.......unfucked internet access. All of that comes with being a contributor to the commons.

If the service is lacking or too expensive....the people can VOTE to make changes. It is as it should be.

No, we do not "all" get that. Offhand, the ONLY thing on that list I had was phone (on equipment so old the area didn't get touch tone service until about 1990) and, usually, electricity. (It was a long way from reliable.) No "public" water, no gas, no trash pickup.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The basic concept of net neutrality is of great benefit to all.

It's all the crap that's hanging off it like so many obscene Christmas Tree ornaments that's the problem. The provisions that will make the internet more expensive at every level and that's not just in terms of fees and taxes.

Another prediction WITH NO DATE.

When is my internet connection going to become more exoensive? Got a time frame?

The day this goes into effect.

(One of the things calling it a :utility" means is that it is now able to be taxed!)

 

[occupied]

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.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage of bandwidth?

This whole thing started when Verizon claimed in a lawsuit that Netflix was gobbling up all their capacity and wanted to charge them a premium to be on the Verizon network, it was total bullshit but enough people believed it for the case to proceed and win, prompting the government to take steps to keep things the way they are.

Why would Verizon need to file a lawsuit simply to charge Netflix a higher price? They've always had the right to charge customers whatever price they like.

They did not have the right to play favorites, they had to offer the same speed to everyone, big or small, at the same rate. You see the problem here? Netflix, youtube, Hulu, and the other big players can afford to pay the higher rate while a new start-up would not and therefore be at an extreme disadvantage especially since they would make the slow lane so slow that no one could possibly stream their content at that speed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you think killing Net Neutrality will increase competition among ISP's?

Seriously?

I know that there are over 50 ISP's in my area now - and the under Title II, the FCC will designate a single monopoly as they did with AT&T for telephones. So allowing the internet to be ruled by the FCC under the 1934 act will crush all competition.

There is no competition now. You're kidding yourself if you think you have any sort of "choice".

Actually, I have (at least) three ISP's to choose from...then again, why let FACTS stand in your way?

 

[occupied]

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

I'm sure China will be interested to know that.

China built it's national network from the ground up to be government controlled and they still have a difficult time of it.