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

[Pogo]

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?

Like you did in post 306?

 

[mamooth]

Using conservative logic here, the first amendment endorses censorship because it says the government can prohibit censorship. That's why everyone is looking at the conservatives as if they're bonkers.

Conservatives, none of your hysterical pronouncements of doom are going to come to pass. We know that because none of them have ever come to pass before. Your perfect record of failure makes things predictable. If you say something will happen, it won't happen. So, how much time of nothing happening will have to pass before you admit you were played for rubes yet another time? If your answer is "An infinite amount of time, being I am incapable of admitting error", please state that.

 

[occupied]

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?

When you get away from town your choices in broadband usually drops to one or two or even none. America still does not have total broadband coverage.

 

[occupied]

Using conservative logic here, the first amendment endorses censorship because it says the government can prohibit censorship. That's why everyone is looking at the conservatives as if they're bonkers.

Conservatives, none of your hysterical pronouncements of doom are going to come to pass. We know that because none of them have ever come to pass before. Your perfect record of failure makes things predictable. If you say something will happen, it won't happen. So, how much time of nothing happening will have to pass before you admit you were played for rubes yet another time? If your answer is "An infinite amount of time, being I am incapable of admitting error", please state that.

6 months from now they will not even remember their apocalyptic predictions just like they have with the Ebola scare last year.

 

[mamooth]

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

And I have one ISP to choose from, AT&T.

And I'm in a large city.

Technically, I could get satellite broadband service, but at 5 times the cost, so that's not a realistic option.

Comcast refuses to run a cable line to my house. It's a tricky task, but the power company and phone company had no trouble running their lines. Comcast could do it, but it would cost them more, so they're claiming it's physically impossible.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And you live in a city of 800,000+ people? Bullshit! There is more to it or you are just fulla shit!

 

[occupied]

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

And I have one ISP to choose from, AT&T.

And I'm in a large city.

Technically, I could get satellite broadband service, but at 5 times the cost, so that's not a realistic option.

Comcast refuses to run a cable line to my house. It's a tricky task, but the power company and phone company had no trouble running their lines. Comcast could do it, but it would cost them more, so they're claiming it's physically impossible.

I had that happen to me, was told it couldn't be done for two years until they just did it one day, about a month before I moved.

 

[HenryBHough]

I have two ISPs from which to choose.

One uses twisted-pair copper, DSL, around 56 Kbs speed typical.

The other uses fiber, minimum service is 10 Mbs with stepped options up to 250 Mbs.

For minimum service both charge the same but the DSL outfit allows unused "gigs" to roll over. The other service does not.

The cost-of-entry, given right-of-way issues and the sheer cost of stringing/burying fiber suggests the DSL provider at least would have pole rights (it's a telco) so wouldn't have to buy any new rights but the cost of overhead fiber and the horrific maintenance issues make it highly unlikely that it will ever be done. Unless somebody like Comcast buys the entire telco which is NOT likely.

If there is such a thing as a defacto monopoly then this has to be it!

 

[idb]

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.

Well my little infant, anarchy is not likely to break out in your lifetime. What's that nonsense you believe in again, a property-based something by that nut of an econ101 teacher?

It may take 100 years or even 1000, but that doesn't mean it's not a goal we should work towards. It took 1500 years to climb out of Feudal slavery to the relative freedom we enjoy today.

What?!
I thought the US is in the grip of a tyrant?

 

[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.

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

China Blocks VPNs - Business Insider

I think they're on top of it. If 99% of people are terrified to defy the government, the remaining 1% can be dealt with. That's the kind of control you Leftists want over Americans.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And you live in a city of 800,000+ people? Bullshit! There is more to it or you are just fulla shit!

They're like 5 year olds thinking the grown ups can't see through the lies they tell.

 

[HenryBHough]

This discussion of "physically impossible" brings to mind an incident from about 15 years ago.

Had to get an uncompressed video signal between two buildings on opposite sides of a main road in a major (not American) city. The telephone monopoly wanted over (the equivalent of) $1,000/month and would run CABLE from building A, a couple of miles to their facility, then back another mile to Building B. Not only outrageously expensive, also involved amplifiers and equalization to try to make up for the two miles of coax.

The solution was to take a toilet off the floor in each building and snake a fiber cable down to the main sewer and pay off a city employee to go down into the sewer and push the snake back up into the other building. Then a simple modification to the wax seal under the toilet and there was video across the street as if by magic. No monthly fee!

Fiber so small any routine inspection of the sewer would never notice it.

Remarkable thing about fiber: It cares not what shit you run through it or what shit you run it through.

 

[SwimExpert]

The government is now going to have oversight on content.

False.

 

[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.

China Blocks VPNs - Business Insider

I think they're on top of it. If 99% of people are terrified to defy the government, the remaining 1% can be dealt with. That's the kind of control you Leftists want over Americans.

Bullshit, The right has always been on the wrong side of censorship/privacy/eavesdropping. Scare you fuckers with visions of terrorism and you will rush to drop to your knees and beg the government to protect you at any cost, even your freedom. Christ what a bunch of hypocrites, just because we have a democratic president you are concerned but when the surveillance apparatus was being built you people greeted the left's concerns with shit like: "If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about". Where were you then? That's right, closing ranks around George Fucking Bush.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What "speed" are you referring to? Does that mean every consumer had the same download speed, or does it mean every vendor had the same upload speed? In either case it's bullshit. My cable provider offers a variety of plans with different bandwidths (speeds). So download speed depends on what you're willing to pay. It also offers businesses plans with a variety of upload speeds - anywhere from what a typical consumer might get to T1 lines. So the claim that all businesses had the same upload speed is also bullshit. Businesses like Netflix and Hulu pay a big price for the enormous amounts of bandwidth they consume. Start ups don't need so much bandwidth and pay a much lower rate. The amount you pay is based on the bandwidth you want.

Your understanding of the internet is mostly fantasy.

 

[bripat9643]

Using conservative logic here, the first amendment endorses censorship because it says the government can prohibit censorship. That's why everyone is looking at the conservatives as if they're bonkers.

Conservatives, none of your hysterical pronouncements of doom are going to come to pass. We know that because none of them have ever come to pass before. Your perfect record of failure makes things predictable. If you say something will happen, it won't happen. So, how much time of nothing happening will have to pass before you admit you were played for rubes yet another time? If your answer is "An infinite amount of time, being I am incapable of admitting error", please state that.

Only government can enforce censorship, so why do we need government to prevent censorship? Your liberlogic is pure idiocy.

Whenever libturds are telling us we can trust them, that's the time to start worrying.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well my little infant, anarchy is not likely to break out in your lifetime. What's that nonsense you believe in again, a property-based something by that nut of an econ101 teacher?

It may take 100 years or even 1000, but that doesn't mean it's not a goal we should work towards. It took 1500 years to climb out of Feudal slavery to the relative freedom we enjoy today.

What?!
I thought the US is in the grip of a tyrant?

It is. So?

 

[boedicca]

The government can't even build a proper website for ObamaCare...but now they are going to regulate every activity on the internet.

What could possible go wrong?

 

[occupied]

The government can't even build a proper website for ObamaCare...but now they are going to regulate every activity on the internet.

What could possible go wrong?

You are laboring under a misconception, the government is regulating the ISPs way of fairly offering internet access and speed, not everything on the internet. People who are still this uninformed never wanted to be properly informed in the first place. Get with the wiser republicans who are waking up to the fact that they chose the wrong side on this issue.

 

[bripat9643]

The government can't even build a proper website for ObamaCare...but now they are going to regulate every activity on the internet.

What could possible go wrong?

You are laboring under a misconception, the government is regulating the ISPs way of fairly offering internet access and speed, not everything on the internet. People who are still this uninformed never wanted to be properly informed in the first place. Get with the wiser republicans who are waking up to the fact that they chose the wrong side on this issue.

It isn't regulating content YET, but it certain just gave itself the authority to do so. Who believes they won't take advantage of that authority?