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

[orogenicman]

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content

No they don't.

I support Net neutrality but that is not what the FCC just did - CNET

Did you even read the article you quoted?

{Internet evangelists frequently promote the virtues of innovation without permission. We now move to a world that turns that on its head. Networks may be less exciting than new software apps, but they too require innovation, evolution and revolution. That process now is subject to constant bureaucratic review, political considerations, and collateral attack by competitors.}

ROFL

You Soros monkeys are a hoot.

Actually, what is now, for the first time, under review are the 'innovative' ways ISPs screw us while charging outrageous prices for shitty service.

 

[BlindBoo]

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content

No they don't.

I support Net neutrality but that is not what the FCC just did - CNET

Again, you Soros drones can lie all you like, but the 1934 law provides authority over content.

Still and cartoons aside, I'll go with this guy over you and your sophomoric humor.
]
Michael K. Powell, who served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2005 and as a member of the FCC for eight years, in 2011 began a tenure as president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. Powell also served as chief of staff of the antitrust division in the Department of Justice and was an armed-cavalry officer in the US Army.

 

[bendog]

Majority are against it.

I suspect the majority doesn't have a clue as to what the issue is even about.

True, but I suspect a majority don't want to pay premium prices so providers don't intentionally slow down access unless users pay the providers premiums.

Exactly. And without these regs, that is exactly what would happen. That's why the ISPs fought against them.

FCC got something like 4 MILLION comments from individual citizens asking for neutrality. And the gop is crying ... apparently because these folks must not understand what's good for them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Without net neutrality, your ISP could decide that, for example, Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube, were 'premium' channels, so to speak,

and block them, then charge you a monthly fee to add them to your service.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Erm, have you ever been censored while using your phone?

Has content ever been censored as you watched TV?

All the time.

 

[Stephanie]

Contact your useless Congresscritters people. Give them hell

SNIP:

oday’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left.

Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet.

The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.


“Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content,” says Phil Kerpen, an anti-net-neutrality activist from the group American Commitment.


The courts have previously ruled the FCC’s efforts to impose “net neutrality” out of bounds, so the battle isn’t over. But for now, the FCC has granted itself enormous power to micromanage the largely unrestrained Internet.

Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration teamed up with Internet pioneers to promote a hands-off approach to the new industry and keep it free from discriminatory taxation.

Many still prefer that policy. Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab and the charity One Laptop Per Child, says that net neutrality “doesn’t make sense” because “the truth is, not all bits [of data] are created equal.”

Will Marshall, head of the Progressive Policy Institute (which was once a favorite think tank of Clinton Democrats), issued a statement that net neutrality “endorses a backward-looking policy that would apply the brakes to the most dynamic sector of America’s economy.”

But such voices have been drowned out by left-wing activists who want to manage the Internet to achieve their political objectives. The most influential of these congregate around the deceptively named Free Press, a liberal lobby co-founded in 2002 by Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor. His goals have always been clear.

“At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”


When I interviewed him in 2010, he admitted he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.” In essence, what McChesney and his followers want is an Unfree Press — a media world that promotes their values. “To cast things in neo-Marxist terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production,” says Adam Therier of the blog TechLiberation.

all of it here:
Read more at: National Review

 

[Manonthestreet]

4 million is not a majority. I have yet to see any commentary on what was in the 300 pages debated or implemented.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I suspect the majority doesn't have a clue as to what the issue is even about.

If they did, they'd be more against it.

Wired sells the Soros drones the fiction that net neutrality means that downloading porn and playing Modern Warfare won't take a back seat to some doctor doing a web connect to consult on an open heart surgery. Or some Ambulance connecting to the hospital to transmit patient vitals. Because let's face it, leftists are WAY TOO fucking selfish to grasp the idea that some activities SHOULD take priority. But that isn't the whole of this anyway. This will drastically slow the development of backbone expansion and innovation in switching equipment. Think back 10 years when speeds were T1 level. We have seen increases of about 100 fold. So the FCC action is unlikely to cause current speeds to decline, but those who follow Moore's Law would expect similar increases in the next 10 years. Placing the Internet under the control of the government, and undoubtedly favored monopolies, we simply will see no INCREASE. in 2025, the speed of an internet connection will remain the same as in 2015.

 

[bendog]

Right. Individual citizens will lose out with net neutrality, and Hulu and Uverse will go bankrupt

 

[BlindBoo]

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content

No they don't.

I support Net neutrality but that is not what the FCC just did - CNET

Did you even read the article you quoted?

{Internet evangelists frequently promote the virtues of innovation without permission. We now move to a world that turns that on its head. Networks may be less exciting than new software apps, but they too require innovation, evolution and revolution. That process now is subject to constant bureaucratic review, political considerations, and collateral attack by competitors.}

ROFL

You Soros monkeys are a hoot.

Actually it's a reasoned argument against excessive regulations without resorting to lying about censorship.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Yes, but television isn't the internet, nor is it a phone.

Funny then that some think regulating it under a law written for those mediums is a wise idea...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right. Individual citizens will lose out with net neutrality, and Hulu and Uverse will go bankrupt

If Verizon is given a national monopoly as ISP, then UVerse will certainly be gone. If AT&T gets the monopoly, it will thrive. It depends on who the FCC designates as the sole provider of internet backbone services in the nation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Erm, have you ever been censored while using your phone?

Has content ever been censored as you watched TV?

"Free to air" radio and television broadcasts are subject to FCC regulation for indecency. This does not apply to paid radio, cable TV, or the internet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually it's a reasoned argument against excessive regulations without resorting to lying about censorship.

You failed to read the article. The objections to the FCC action included the fact that by placing the Internet under the 1934 law, the FCC has the power to regulate content - exactly as I stated.

You not only failed to refute my argument, you supported it.

 

[SwimExpert]

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content

No they don't.

I support Net neutrality but that is not what the FCC just did - CNET

Did you even read the article you quoted?

{Internet evangelists frequently promote the virtues of innovation without permission. We now move to a world that turns that on its head. Networks may be less exciting than new software apps, but they too require innovation, evolution and revolution. That process now is subject to constant bureaucratic review, political considerations, and collateral attack by competitors.}

ROFL

You Soros monkeys are a hoot.

Actually, what is now, for the first time, under review are the 'innovative' ways ISPs screw us while charging outrageous prices for shitty service.

Ugh, shut up. Even in the 1% of instances where you are right on an issue (supporting net neutrality) you still do it for all the wrong reasons. If you don't like the service you are receiving, then cancel it. Nobody is forcing you to buy internet or cable services.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

"Free to air" radio and television broadcasts are subject to FCC regulation for indecency. This does not apply to paid radio, cable TV, or the internet.

You don't know that. The FCC now has the authority to do anything they please. With the Internet classified a public medium, they have just as much ability to regulate for decency standards as they do on broadcast TV.

 

[bendog]

[

"Free to air" radio and television broadcasts are subject to FCC regulation for indecency. This does not apply to paid radio, cable TV, or the internet.

You don't know that. The FCC now has the authority to do anything they please. With the Internet classified a public medium, they have just as much ability to regulate for decency standards as they do on broadcast TV.

I dunno. I tend to trust television WATCHERS more than internet providers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I dunno. I tend to trust television WATCHERS more than internet providers.

Trust them to do what?

 

[orogenicman]

I suspect the majority doesn't have a clue as to what the issue is even about.

If they did, they'd be more against it.

Wired sells the Soros drones the fiction that net neutrality means that downloading porn and playing Modern Warfare won't take a back seat to some doctor doing a web connect to consult on an open heart surgery. Or some Ambulance connecting to the hospital to transmit patient vitals. Because let's face it, leftists are WAY TOO fucking selfish to grasp the idea that some activities SHOULD take priority. But that isn't the whole of this anyway. This will drastically slow the development of backbone expansion and innovation in switching equipment. Think back 10 years when speeds were T1 level. We have seen increases of about 100 fold. So the FCC action is unlikely to cause current speeds to decline, but those who follow Moore's Law would expect similar increases in the next 10 years. Placing the Internet under the control of the government, and undoubtedly favored monopolies, we simply will see no INCREASE. in 2025, the speed of an internet connection will remain the same as in 2015.

I have yet to hear a surgeon complain that he couldn't perform a surgical procedure due to an internet connection issue (if it was a connection issue, that is an issue the ISP needs to resolve, yes?). I have also yet to hear of a single case of an ambulance that couldn't connect to a hospital (they have radios and phones for that anyway). What has slowed development and expansion is ISPs charging outrageous prices for shitty service (and non-existent customer service) and then pocketing the difference. It isn't like the technology for faster service isn't already on the market. Most certainly it is. And it doesn't take throttling a service and charging higher prices to obtain faster bandwidths. Lord knows it is already too expensive. You know, these ISPs seem to think we don't know how the friggin internet came about. They seem to believe that we don't realize that they never had to throttle anyone's services before in order to innovate. So why the hell would we believe that that is necessary now?

 

[SwimExpert]

"Free to air" radio and television broadcasts are subject to FCC regulation for indecency. This does not apply to paid radio, cable TV, or the internet.

You don't know that. The FCC now has the authority to do anything they please. With the Internet classified a public medium, they have just as much ability to regulate for decency standards as they do on broadcast TV.

Yes, I do know that, because I'm not a sensationalizing lunatic who knows little and dishonestly portrays what little you do happen to know.

The FCC regulates free-to-air broadcasts for indecency. This is something Congress has granted it has the power to do for free-to-air services. This regulatory power does not exist for paid services, like cable, satellite radio, or internet. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying "Cable is television and they can regulate broadcast television, so they can regulate cable." Or to give an example more relevant to your own life, it's the equivalent of a four year old asking "But mommy if boys marry girls why can't I marry you?"