Forumwide Alert! FCC to vote on secret bill to control the Internet!!

[MaryB]

Some f us don't have picks of multiple ISP's. There i sone in town with DSL and a wireless service that covers parts of town if you can see the antenna on the water tower.

[Cmm_3940]

Its a pretty simple poison to pick. You have a choice in ISP, if they slow down access to sites you like, drop them and get a new one. Its called capitalism.
If the government gets control of this, do you really think everything will be "fair"? Do you think this gun-related site will have the same access as the DNC site?

Actually, many people don't have a choice of ISP. I don't.

[RogerDat]

Its a pretty simple poison to pick. You have a choice in ISP, if they slow down access to sites you like, drop them and get a new one. Its called capitalism.
If the government gets control of this, do you really think everything will be "fair"? Do you think this gun-related site will have the same access as the DNC site?

This is the part that is totally off base!
Fact the government through the FCC has regulated the internet as a telecommunications service since it became available to the public. During that time they imposed NO restrictions on individual sites you can go to. From porn.com to prayer.com and everything in between it has been totally up to you. Proposed regulations preserve that choice as a matter of law.

Fact the countries that do not have net neutrality regulations are where the ISP's block or restrict access to content at will.

Fact in the US the vast majority of the country does not have access to more than 1 high speed provider. Satellite access is often touted as a "competitor" to the monopoly that the phone and cable companies have on the service. Satellite is very expensive AND has very limited upload speed, often at dial up speed, and high latency which prevents media playback or interactive applications such as chat.

So to sum it up, there is no evidence of the government interference in your access from regulations over the last 20 years. That is because the regulations past and proposed:
A - Are not regulating you the consumer, they are on the providers.
B - Prevent the providers from imposing access restrictions on you the consumer.

Unlike some countries we do not require cable and phone companies to sell access to the home through their lines. Consumers in those countries that do require that access can pick from multiple companies with just one cable and one phone line running to the house. In this country the government (often local) gave the individual cable and phone companies a monopoly on the right of way access. And never implemented the same laws for competitive access that they did for telephone voice service. Those companies where there is true open competition consumers pay much less for much faster service.

Do not fool yourself, we do not have an "open market" when it comes to internet providers, capitalism works properly in an open market, poorly in an artificial monopoly market.

[freebullet]

Reset

[Cmm_3940]

We are talking about over 100 years of history here. The government granted service providers monopolies in their service areas. Part of the deal for being granted those monopolies was that they comply with governent regulation via the FCC in order to make access to their networks fair for everyone. Although competition has been introduced in recent years, market penetration of new services has been inadequate and the old monopolies remain effective in most of the country. By saying 'government get out!' you are handing the service providers unregulated monopoly power. Unregulated monopolies are a BAD thing.

What the providers recently got the court to do was toss out the old rules keeping them in check. They argued that the old rules never envisioned todays technology (which is true), and no longer worked (which is not true), and therefore they shouldn't have to follow ANY rules. The judge agreed with the first part and said to come up with new rules. The situation is in legal limbo right now, and we need some sane NEW rules put in place PDQ.

[Hickory]

Can you say censorship?

Yes, we can.
Down the road this site will only exist under heavy tax, fees and control.

By saying 'government get out!' you are handing the service providers unregulated monopoly power. Unregulated monopolies are a BAD thing.

By letting the government control it, it then becomes a regulated monopoly out of your control.

[historicfirearms]

So why the new proposed rules if everything has been working ok so far? Look at the groups backing these new rules and you will see that this is about more government control.

As far as not having access to more than one internet provider, I find it hard to believe that most don't have a choice. I live in one of the most rural parts of the country and I can choose between two providers. I even have the choice not to have any provider. If a provider angers enough customers, they will likely go out of business and I guarantee another provider will step in to take their place. Its not like internet access is essential to life...

[Cmm_3940]

So why the new proposed rules if everything has been working ok so far?

Because AT&T convinced a judge to throw out the old rules and require new ones be made.

Look at the groups backing these new rules and you will see that this is about more government control.

look at the groups paying for this deceptive propoganda campaign and you will see this is about monopoly power and fleecing the public.

As far as not having access to more than one internet provider, I find it hard to believe that most don't have a choice. I live in one of the most rural parts of the country and I can choose between two providers.

Believe it. It's a fact.

I even have the choice not to have any provider. If a provider angers enough customers, they will likely go out of business and I guarantee another provider will step in to take their place. Its not like internet access is essential to life...

Lots of things aren't 'essential to life'. Do you own a car, or do you walk everywhere? What? You don't like to walk? You have options, you know. You could always buy a horse or ride a bike everywhere. This is irrelevant.

[Cmm_3940]

Yes, we can.
Down the road this site will only exist under heavy tax, fees and control.



By letting the government control it, it then becomes a regulated monopoly out of your control.

1) if you are worried about fees and control, imagine what the fees and control would be like if network access is auctioned off to whatever special interest is the highest bidder.

2) They already control it. They always have. What you propose is anarchy.

[historicfirearms]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

The white house is behind this. Need more be said? Oh, one more thing - my blood pressure is thankful for the "Ignore" list.

[shooter93]

Seems like semantics is confusing things here? You have always had net neutrality but it wasn't regulated essentially by the government restricting access to certain sites but rather assuring as much access as possible to everyone ? The new regulations would allow the FCC greater access to restricting content you're allowed to view under the quise of "net neutrality" ?

[Cmm_3940]

Yes, that pretty much covers it. The old rules were to assure as much access as possible to everyone, but calling it 'net neutrality' is a fairly recent thing within the last ten years or so. The proposed new rules for net neutrality are still sort of a scary grey area. The service providers would prefer there be no rules at all, since that would be the most profitable for them. The FUD involved with implementing new rules is helping them to push that agenda.

[smokeywolf]

Because AT&T convinced a judge to throw out the old rules and require new ones be made.



look at the groups paying for this deceptive propoganda campaign and you will see this is about monopoly power and fleecing the public.



Believe it. It's a fact.



Lots of things aren't 'essential to life'. Do you own a car, or do you walk everywhere? What? You don't like to walk? You have options, you know. You could always buy a horse or ride a bike everywhere. This is irrelevant.

If you look at who contributes large amounts of money to the two main political parties and their candidates & members, you will know who is controlling not just legislation, but America.

smokeywolf

[OBIII]

Thanks to all who have posted comments about my OP. Just one question. Is the bill public or secret? Is this just another Pelosi, "We have to pass it in order to see what is in it" time, or is it time to tell the Govt. that if they won't tell us what it is they want to do, that we are having no part of it. This is the nature of this beast. Right or wrong, the President is telling the FCC to pass the bill/regulation WITHOUT disclosing the contents. Sorry, that dog don't hunt with me.

OB

[Cmm_3940]

That's how this administration does things. Full disclosure? Nah, who needs it? Peons are not meant to question their glorious leaders.

The government created this situation that now requires them to take corrective action. I see no reason to have confidence in them actually getting it right. Doing nothing is also a non-starter for reasons discussed. I really don't see any good choices here. Sad to say, but the bureaucrats at the FCC probably have a better idea how to deal with this than anyone.

[RogerDat]

Thanks to all who have posted comments about my OP. Just one question. Is the bill public or secret? Is this just another Pelosi, "We have to pass it in order to see what is in it" time, or is it time to tell the Govt. that if they won't tell us what it is they want to do, that we are having no part of it. This is the nature of this beast. Right or wrong, the President is telling the FCC to pass the bill/regulation WITHOUT disclosing the contents. Sorry, that dog don't hunt with me.

OB

The proposed regulations were open to a long period of public comment. the FCC chairman published a letter to the editor on the what the proposed regulations were and the why of proposed regulations. Information is and has been available. Can only be passed off as "secret regulations" to those that have not been following the issue.

Some of us have been following this issue since the court cases began, much of the public is sort of late to the party. Just as hunters and pay more attention to proposed hunting or fishing regulations, or gun owners to gun regulations, the tech community has been paying attention to this one.

Here is a link that would help one get up to speed on the background and review the proposed regulations. http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet All highly public as have been the court cases that proceeded the proposed regulations, and the open comment period, and the FCC debates on the topic.

All that remains is the lobbying campaign trying to prevent the modernized regulations by those that stand to profit by blocking them. And it ain't us the consumer OR sites such as this one that will benefit by blocking those regulations. What is being protected by these regulations is our right to unfettered access.

[RPRNY]

To the OP, I need to point out that the title grates on the ear in exactly the same way that "NRA forces gun makers to only sell large clip magazines for cop killer bullets" does.

Without regard to the merits of the argument, the FCC is not a legislative body. It does not vote on bills. Nor does it control or purport to control the Internet. The FCC writes rules or regulations pursuant to legislation passed by Congress. The rules in question regulate commerce conducted by internet service providers.

With regards to merit, ensuring net neutrality does protect and promote free speech and I am therefore in the heretofore unheard of position of agreeing with the regime, on this one, narrowly.

[WILCO]

Hahahahhahahahaahha!! Obamacare for the internet. Enjoy both!

[fouronesix]

ensuring net neutrality does protect and promote free speech

Therein lies the koolaid. The phrase is clearly oxymoronic! Hiding in plain sight as they say.

[MaryB]

No the changes have NOT been available! Where is the 322 page document? Nowhere! They released bits and pieces to appease people but all the details are missing.

The proposed regulations were open to a long period of public comment. the FCC chairman published a letter to the editor on the what the proposed regulations were and the why of proposed regulations. Information is and has been available. Can only be passed off as "secret regulations" to those that have not been following the issue.

Some of us have been following this issue since the court cases began, much of the public is sort of late to the party. Just as hunters and pay more attention to proposed hunting or fishing regulations, or gun owners to gun regulations, the tech community has been paying attention to this one.

Here is a link that would help one get up to speed on the background and review the proposed regulations. http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet All highly public as have been the court cases that proceeded the proposed regulations, and the open comment period, and the FCC debates on the topic.

All that remains is the lobbying campaign trying to prevent the modernized regulations by those that stand to profit by blocking them. And it ain't us the consumer OR sites such as this one that will benefit by blocking those regulations. What is being protected by these regulations is our right to unfettered access.