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

[OBIII]

Attention All,

President Obama has sent a 352 page bill to the FCC directing the commissioners to vote on it and pass it. The contents of the bill are not to be disclosed to the Public. The commission consists of 3 democrats and 2 republicans. One of the Republicans, Ajit Pai, has come forth publicly against the passage of the bill. Yesterday he spoke on the Sean Hannity show, and today Glen Beck is talking about his statements and position. Currently the Internet is classified as an Information service. The bill would change it to a Telecommunications service, subjecting it to all forms of Government regulation, fees, and taxes. This bill must NOT be allowed to see the light of day.

This is a link to express your negative view of the bill. Currently, there are only a little over 20k signatures. With over 39k members, who each know at least one person, we should be able to send a resounding message to the Government, Stay Out of Our Internet!

http://action.politicalmedia.com/17314/constitutionally-say-no-to-fcc-internet-takeover/?ifr=820

Here is a link to the article written by Ajit Pai with good info on the contents of the bill:

http://www.hannity.com/articles/news-476261/fcc-commissioner-ajit-pai-on-net-13257795

We members depend on the Internet in able to do things like access this forum. I'm quite sure that the powers that be would be much happier without websites such as this one.

Do your part to help in stamping out yet another obamination.

Thank You.

OB

[William Yanda]

Request for clarification. The item mentioned is a regulation not a bill, right? FCC regulates, bills are passed by the two houses of Congress. I agree that we do not need big government to intrude more in our lives. We are getting along ok if not fine with the internet as an Information service rather than Telecommunications service.

[btroj]

Why shouldn't the govt regulate it? Al Gore invented it.....

[Echo]

Message sent to my address book, and comment sent to above address.

[labradigger1]

Why shouldn't the govt regulate it? Al Gore invented it.....

Al gore also invented manbearpig

[btroj]

Al gore also invented manbearpig

Yes he did. Half man, half bear, half pig

[dtknowles]

Why shouldn't the govt regulate it? Al Gore invented it.....

"We are getting along ok if not fine with the internet as an Information service rather than Telecommunications service." agreed but they are both a form of govt regulation.


Lots of companies and the government are trying to mess up the good thing. Only the government could stop them but the government will screw it up worse so we get the shaft either way.

Tim

[xman777]

Yes he did. Half man, half bear, half pig

Seems like too many halves? :kidding:

[square butte]

Listened to Beck speak about it on the radio this morning. It's a VERY BAD deal. Information regulation. We could loose this place quite easily.

[xman777]

Maybe a good time to back up your favorites?

[RogerDat]

I work in IT and this whole subject has been turned on its ear by the radio and tv pundits. Before the FCC lost the fairly recent court case due to the judge deciding that internet was not telecommunications WE HAD NET NEUTRALITY. Have for the first 20 years of public access. Not new regulations, just modification that makes the ones we had apply. All those regulations and laws were originally in place during the phone era to prevent a provider from giving "special" treatment to people calling "their" customers. In simplest terms it stated that any phone call from any calling device to another device had to be given equal priority and quality. Even if the device being called was not one of your customers.

A call from an AT&T customer to a Bell Telephone customer had to be treated the same by AT&T as a call between two AT&T customers. The phone company service was a neutral. If lines were busy say on Mothers day the company could not make one companies customers wait to connect in preference of connecting another companies customers. First available connection was given to the first customer that tried to connect. Again the phone company had to remain neutral.

When public internet access started it was dial up and went over the phone lines so phone neutrality laws were applied. Internet service provider (ISP) companies purchased the number of phone lines they needed for their customers and paid for a connection to the internet "backbone". My home phone company could not give my fax, voice or internet connection call any better or worse quality based on what phone number, what ISP, or what web site I was accessing.

THIS IS the CRITICAL POINT! What web site I was accessing could not be used to determine the quality of service. Phone company and by extension my internet provider HAD to treat all traffic equally. They were free to charge ME more for a greater level (speed or amount) of service but HOW I USED THE SERVICE was entirely my business. They still had to remain neutral. This in turn allowed entrepreneurs to create web sites and web services where they only had to pay for their connection to the internet knowing that the customers access to their small start up was the same as the customers access to big company web sites. This directly led to lots of innovation since there was a level playing field for anyone that provided a web site.

I'll make it simple with net neutrality my internet provider can't treat castboolits web site any better than it does the national democratic party web site. Or any worse for that matter. Picture of an RCBS dies set for sale or a picture of Hillary Clinton both get exactly the same quality of treatment because the internet provider has to remain neutral. In countries without net neutrality the internet service providers can block your access to web sites of competitors, perfectly legal. Or block content or sites they don't approve of. Imagine giving someone a link to gunbot.net and having that link simply not work for them because Comcast does not "like" gunbot. Can't happen with neutrality, perfectly legal without it.

Now what the big players such as AT&T or Comcast would like to do is to start charging the internet content providers more money for better treatment. They in effect would like to put special toll lanes between you and that provider, remember they don't actually want to provide more lanes (investment) to allow for innovation. They just want to charge you for your regular access and then without regulation charge the other end for getting the data to you faster by slowing down other traffic. In order to provide that faster service requires sorting traffic and that sorting has overhead that slows all traffic down. Except of course the traffic that is getting enough preference to exceed the slow down from sorting.

If Amazon wants the "extra" speed it will have to pay all the big internet providers to get it. Further if someone comes up with a new service for people to buy and sell products unless that innovative new service can pay for the same speed level as Amazon the new service content won't get delivered to the potential customers as fast. Waiting for product pictures to download will hurt the innovative start up. Put another way the large ISP's want all delivery trucks to be required to pay them for the speed limit they can drive to your house, instead of having one speed limit for the road. Oh and they don't actually build the main road either just the last mile to your house but since they can slow down that last mile a lot the trucks will pay or wait.

It was AT&T that brought the suit to strike down the regulations, they wanted to provide AT&T internet only customers faster delivery of their own AT&T movie rental offerings without being required to provide equal speed to Net Flicks or Hulu both of which where in competition with each other on a level playing field, AT&T wanted the media service they had decided to provide to have preferential speed especially over their mobile phone network. FCC said no you have to remain neutral, AT&T sued, judge who may well think the internet is a series of tubes, agreed that a movie was not telecommunications even if delivered over public radio spectrum to a mobile phone. The judge actually said the regulations needed to be re-written to address current technology directly. Guess what those are the regulations everyone keeps bleating about being government intrusion.

I have watched a lot of garbage claims made about this whole net neutrality issue. Most of it sounds like paid lobbying for the big cable and phone companies. I would ask you how much misinformation gets wide acceptance about casting boolits? Mostly it gets wide spread by being repeated by folks that don't know what they are talking about. On casting and reloading I would certainly defer to the information from someone that had been doing it for years over what some talking head on TV says about casting lead boolits. Well in my case I have been doing web applications, programming, server administration and database administration and design for 20 years I know butt loads more about the subject than many people, and a dang site more than some radio, TV, or news contributor.

I pay for an internet connection to the cable or phone company then they should just give me whatever web page or data I ask for at the speed I paid for and get out of the way. Equal speed of service and not being able to "filter" what I can view or where I can go are both provided by prior net neutrality regulations and I think it would be dang smart for us to hold onto that. If you would like your internet provider to decide that gun sites are "bad" and block your access by all means you should be against net neutrality. Actually was on a hospital wi-fi connection and it did just that with this site. They are not a provider so it was legal, wait now it is legal for any provider since there is no regulation to prevent it.

[MaryB]

Can you say censorship?

[dragon813gt]

Pick your poison. You have the ISPs w/ their paid fast lanes and priority content. Or you have the government involved. The ISPs are the one that screwed this all up. They are the ones that took this to court. They are the ones forcing the governments hand.

Your ISP can throttle down access to this site. They can do the same to any firearm site. They can do the same to any conservative news site. They can do it to any site they so wish. But of course they will take the site's money if they want faster service.

My concern is that the government will screw it all up. But don't blame the government. Blame the ISPs. A company like Comcast is far to big to exist to begin w/. When they control the distribution and content it's propaganda sent directly to you. And of course their content is faster than the rest.

[AkMike]

Censorship of the internet? Why not?

Russia has already done it and the USA cannot fall behind a 3rd world country! (said faceiously)

[smokeywolf]

Fees, fines and taxes. The politicians are telling us we're not safe out there. They're happy to provide regulations to keep it fair and to keep us safe; for a price. When politicians see someone else doing it (and not cutting them in), they call it a protection racket.

[kencha]

Like the "Patriot Act", "Affordable Care Act", etc, etc, ad nauseum, I'm sure the government's plan for Net Neutrality only has the best interests of its citizens at heart.

RogerDat, I appreciate your insight, but disagree with your apparent writing off of any other viewpoint because you're in the business and they're not.

My greatest concerns are regarding the "lawful" wording. Net neutrality is always described as open access to "lawful" content and services by the gov't. Who will decide what is lawful? How will it be decided? What methods will they be using to monitor content for lawfulness?

Can someone like the illustrious Mr Holder or others of his ilk decide unilaterally that information regarding firearms or the discussion of disdain for the current powers that be, or whatever, is often associated with illegal activity or poses a potential threat to the state, so the sharing of such information is no longer "lawful" (think Operation Chokepoint)?

[RPRNY]

Al gore also invented manbearpig

Two words: awe-some. He also saved the world from manbearpig. What a giver.

[Cmm_3940]

I have 15 years of professional experience as a network design and operations engineer at one of the major ISP players, a tier I backbone provider. They are also in the local landline, long distance, and cell phone businesses. Name currently starts with a 'V'.

Everything that RogerDat took the time to post is correct.

Thank the judge who ignorantly ruled in favor of ATT for kicking a hornet's nest. You need to understand that telecom has always been regulated by the FCC in this country, and the Internet is telecom. The two are inseparably one and the same. Let no one tell you differently. The old regulations are out of date regarding new technology, but are well-worn and comfortable. Everyone in the industry had long ago figured out how to do business within the rules with a minimum of friction. The regulations even worked fairly well on the behalf of the internet consumer. By legally separating Internet from telecom, a feeding frenzy has been instigated, and there is blood in the water. The sharks have names like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner. As consumers, they are most definitely NOT on our side.

No one is suggesting that the govt will get this right; they probably won't. Whatever political appointee is put in charge of this won't understand how this stuff works any better than the judge did. Whatever happens, it probably won't be as good as the way it was before.

[RogerDat]

By its very nature if the ISP is to remain neutral then it makes it if anything more clear what the government is interfering with. With neutrality If you can't get to a firearm related site the blocking would have to be due to a finding that the content was not "lawful". Providing a chance to push back, object, take the issue to court. Unlike say China where it is unlawful to post or mention "tiananmen square" or any mention of a blocked site.

Lawful is dependent on the lawmakers we elect and the constitutional protections in place and upheld. Not going to be a free lunch but as long as we have free speech blocking content is going to be a hard sell in the courts.

I do not write off the opposing point of view because it disagrees with mine. I write off false information used to support a view. If that leaves the viewpoint without facts to support it then I would certainly write off the viewpoint that relied on those facts. This is not to dismiss those who may hold that view, only that I see no reason to tolerate those that knowingly (or willfully) spread false information, especially those that disseminate information for a living to an audience. Those people when they misinform their audience do a great disservice to reasoned or reasonable debate.

For what it is worth I am equally opposed to those that brought up the Zimmerman case as a fact or argument against stand your ground laws. Since Zimmerman did not raise that defense, or cite it, all the talking heads using it as a fact struck me as using a false fact or statement, tailored to appeal to those with a preconceived opinion and support that opinion. Irrespective of facts. When interviewers or news anchors fail to challenge the speaker to connect stand your ground to the Zimmerman case they willfully participated in that misinformation. The news, information, and infotainment industry is more about being acceptable to its audience than it is about facts anymore. One side (or the other) can make the most outrageous claims or statements and as long as the "other" side gets some mention it is considered unbiased. Even if one side is spouting utter nonsense.

Many have a preconceived opposition to government interference (with good cause in many cases) so pitching this current issue in that context while not really honest does suit the taste of many viewers of some programs. Not to mention the media company they work for. Might be garbage information but it is seasoned to taste and well presented.

[historicfirearms]

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?

[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.

[RogerDat]

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 322 page document is mostly the FCC answering the issues and concerns raised by the over 4 million people that contacted them during the open comment period. For those of you who were not one of those people, you are more than a little late to the party. The "details" are pretty basic, designate broadband internet as being a common carrier service covered by regulations on communications, forebear rate setting and some other things that don't apply. Might run a few pages of regulations, mostly report and answers that explain why specific rules are applied and others are not. You can read it now since it passed. The "all the details" you reference is not much, Title 2 of the telcom act of 1998 minus some exclusions, and with some exceptions for managing network traffic.

Throttling service if you as a consumer choose to use internet sites that don't have a special deal with your internet provider is not innovative, I paid for a 3.0 connection I expect to get a 3.0 connection if I go to Amazon, Hulu, or Netflix. Not just iTunes because they made an "arrangement" with you. The providers want to sell access to you like they are running a brothel, and you are unpaid staff. Heck worse than that they charge you for the privilege of being sold.

Easy enough for the slow kids to understand. You have to treat traffic from all sites the same, you can manage how much bandwidth streaming or other traffic uses in total but ALL streaming or other traffic shares that bandwidth equally, all web sites the same, all uploads, all email. All treated the same because..... You the broadband provider are a NUETRAL party to the communication.

Now do you see how they came up with the really descriptive name of net neutrality?

[MaryB]

uh huh and I have ocean front property in MN for sale... I want to see the entire document. I want to see what they hid in it. If it was so benign why didn't they publish it? Why are the STILL hiding it? You may trust the Obama regime but I am a wee bit gun shy and want the details.

"You have to pass it to see what is in it"
"You get to keep your doctor" (no I didn't, he didn't like the rates they offered and wasn't going to work for nothing so he quit the clinic)
"I am not out to ban guns" (yeah right...)

and 1,000 more examples of lies from this regime.

[RPRNY]

So wait. To be in favor of net neutrality is to be an Obama stooge? Or is it only that while in favor of net neutrality, we need to wait for posturing tossers like Thune to eventually pass a law just so that it can be Republican net neutrality ?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/sen-john-thune-will-lean-on-fcc-over-net-neutrality-rule-20150226

Or is it that we should oppose net neutrality so that Comcast and the like can make even more money while censoring what I can and can't see on the Internet?

I hate this Regime as much as the next guy but don't expect me to love the posturing assclowns of the Republican Party who, having gained control of both Houses have:

1) Been unable to broker a deal on Keystone
2) Done nothing to overturn or amend the EPA regs on 111(b) or (d) of the Clean Air Act
3) Have made not one significant amendment to the ACA
4) Are unable/unwilling to pass a CRA on Obama's Executive Orders on Immigration and will not defund enforcement of the Orders

but will posture, whine and moan about the FCC rule on net neutrality when at any time over the last two years they could have passed bipartisan legislation to do the same thing but, unsurprisingly, did bugger all.

[quilbilly]

This is NOT a bill. It is a regulation by faceless, non- elected authoritarian bureaucrats illegally imposed on the peasants. No one has any idea what this regulation will mean and how far it will be extended but if you are a large contributor to the Party, you will not have to worry about the regulation. Just like Obamacare. Only counterrevolutionaries and anyone else the Party doesn't like will be denied a license to exist. This is true everywhere else in the 3rd World.

[jmort]

Attention obama flacks, the Net Neutrality will be published soon, so you can understand what you are supporting.

Republicans strike back: FCC member invokes Star Wars in net neutrality fight

Republicans invoked Star Wars’s evil galactic emperor in their attacks on new broadband regulations on Friday, warning that the public and Silicon Valley were in for an unpleasant surprise.
Quoting Emperor Palpatine, Republican Ajit Pai, a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), said: “Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand.”

http://i.guim.co.uk/media/w-220/h--/q-95/1d43d0d2a584265e5c610eea890bf943a2fac34b/0_273_3044_1828/1000.jpg
Net neutrality activists score landmark victory in fight to govern the internet




Read more



Meme wars between the two sides of the debate continued through the day, as internet advocates Fight for the Future, Demand Progress and Free Press flew an airplane towing a 2,000 square foot banner over the towering corporate headquarters of the cable giant Comcast, in Philadelphia.
The victory banner depicted the feline internet star Grumpy Cat (http://demandprogress20.imgur.com/all/) and the legend: “Comcast: Don’t Mess With the Internet. #SorryNotSorry.”
Referring to Pai’s comments Evan Greer, campaigns director at Fight for the Future, said: “What they didn’t know is that when they struck down the last rules we would come back more powerful than they could possibly imagine.”
Pai and fellow Republican FCC commissioner Mike O’Rielly, who have been consistent critics of the FCC’s new rules, said once they are published people will realise that they will stifle innovation and lead to taxes and increased rates for the public.
“When you see this document, it’s worse than you imagine,” said O’Rielly at a conference in Washington organised by the think tank TechFreedom.
The FCC on Thursday voted through strict new rules to regulate broadband and protect net neutrality – the principle that all information and services should have equal access to the internet.


Advertisement


The historic vote was cheered by internet activists, President Barack Obama and many in the tech community.However, few people have seen the actual orders. On Friday the FCC was finalising its documentation for publication – it it is not expected to release the orders until next week at the very earliest.
Pai said the new rules would mean “permission-less innovation is a thing of the past”. The new rules will ban broadband providers from creating fast lanes for some or slowing the traffic of others for commercial reasons. They will also give the FCC the power to police conduct by broadband providers on a case-by-case basis.
Internet (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/internet) service providers will not be allowed to “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” consumers’ access to content and services.
O’Rielly said this would mean that any company looking to start a new service would have to seek permission ahead of time. He said anybody looking for new business opportunities in the document would be best off becoming a “telecoms lawyer”.

[jmort]

No, the final rules have not been released, you are wrong comrade, but keep up the work for your fearless leader. The obama drones are necessary for victory.

Comrades for Net Neutrality

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...lity-john-fund (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund)

by JOHN FUND February 26, 2015 1:00 PM The powers behind the FCC’s muscling of the Internet Today’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 *****ponte, 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. Certainly McChesney seems blind to the dangers of media control on the left. In 2007, he co-authored a remarkable survey of the media under Hugo Chávez’s already clearly thuggish regime in Venezuela: “Aggressive, unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.” Despite his astonishingly radical goals, McChesney’s Free Press group was able to leverage foundation cash and academic “research” into an influential force behind net neutrality. Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s first FCC chairman, hired Free Press’s Jen Howard as his press secretary. The FCC’s chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, has co-authored a Free Press report demanding regulation of political talk radio. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan cited research from Free Press and other left-wing groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times. The battle for control of the Internet isn’t over. Over two-thirds of the House and Senate are on record as opposing FCC regulation of the Internet, and a new president could change the policy overnight in 2017 even if the courts don’t block it. But for now, the “media reform” movement led by McChesney and his allies can claim bragging rights for their Saul Alinsky–style outflanking maneuver on Internet regulation. They financed the research behind the idea, installed their political allies in power, got the government to consider them experts on the issues they cared deeply about, and finally ran roughshod over both Congress and an initially reluctant FCC chairman. Conservatives should study how the Left won on this issue even as they acknowledge and fight the illegitimacy of many of the results.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...lity-john-fund (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund)

[Four-Sixty]

Is it possible we could get a "pirate" Internet? I bet there are a lot if creative hackers who won't tolerate this at all. I think anyone behind this just but off more than they can chew.

[MaryB]

There "is" a deep internet not accessible via standard browsers but with a Tor browser you can get to it. It is also the haven of hackers, people spreading viruses etc etc so dangerous.

[Oreo]

What we need is decentralized internet, the way it was originally intended. None of this government owned internet backbone bull $#!+. It's perfectly doable with existing technology within reach of the average middle class American. Basically, instead of every house being an end-point with only one connection to the net via an ISP, every house needs to have at least two or more network connections. They don't even have to be to an ISP, a couple neighbors homes would suffice. A truly decentralized web could never be monitored and controlled wholesale the way the internet has become.

[MaryB]

Ham radio operators are establishing their own networks using boosted wifi stuff(couple channels are in a ham radio frequency band). So it is possible to have separate networks even off grid. Mainly used in emergencies but people are setting some up permanently and letting the local ham community log into them.

[Cmm_3940]

If you aren't able to win an argument with facts, by all means keep repeating a bunch of lies and ad hominem attacks until people get sick of listening to you and go away. The talking points currently being vomited by popular media talking heads opposing net neutrality have been repeatedly debunked when countered with actual facts. The FACTS have repeatedly been ignored, and the vomitus continues to spew forth. People are apparently more comfortable believing what they are told by the popular media.

Obama drones, indeed. It's bad enough you are not willing to do your own homework, but you choose to insult and belittle the people who offer to help you with it. People with decades of experience in a field where you have none.

It's obvious now that you aren't interested in an honest discussion of the topic at hand. Enjoy your vitriol if that is what pleases you, but I'm done listening to it.

[dtknowles]

There "is" a deep internet not accessible via standard browsers but with a Tor browser you can get to it. It is also the haven of hackers, people spreading viruses etc etc so dangerous.

I think you two are talking past each other but both your points are valid. Censorship is actually impossible but they can make you a criminal but you are breaking the law every day so what are they going to do to you for using anonymous web routers and browsers. Doing it to sell drugs and kiddy porn they will take you down with a vengeance but because you want to talk about upholding the constitution or the use of lead to cast bullets, the vengeance will not be there. There is no label they could put on you that even sheeple will would not see thru. Some of them might not like us but they don't think we belong in jail.

Tim

[MaryB]

I never said illegal, just dangerous...

[MaryB]

Fact: FCC published in the federal register a NOTICE of proposed rulemaking for comments mid last year.
Fact: FCC is supposed to have published the proposed rules in the federal register for comment but never did so
Fact: FCC violated procedure and rammed this down our throats by keeping documents secret. Now why would they keep it hush hush secret when that 322 page plan(not 5 page plan and 317 pages of comments) has been available for several weeks? Why would they not follow proper LEGAL steps and publish it for comments? They are hiding something pure and simple.

Now you can trust Obama but I would not trust him to step foot in my house.



If you aren't able to win an argument with facts, by all means keep repeating a bunch of lies and ad hominem attacks until people get sick of listening to you and go away. The talking points currently being vomited by popular media talking heads opposing net neutrality have been repeatedly debunked when countered with actual facts. The FACTS have repeatedly been ignored, and the vomitus continues to spew forth. People are apparently more comfortable believing what they are told by the popular media.

Obama drones, indeed. It's bad enough you are not willing to do your own homework, but you choose to insult and belittle the people who offer to help you with it. People with decades of experience in a field where you have none.

It's obvious now that you aren't interested in an honest discussion of the topic at hand. Enjoy your vitriol if that is what pleases you, but I'm done listening to it.

[historicfirearms]

I just can not believe that some people think that more government control of the internet is a good thing.

[dtknowles]

I just can not believe that some people think that more government control of the internet is a good thing.

Personally for me, I see it as a choice of let the ISP's do what they wanted or try and keep the internet the way it is now. I went with try and keep the internet the way it is now. If that is not what the new regulations do then I will be disappointed.

I probably could be happy with letting the ISP's do what they wanted as I am a user of the services that would have paid for the fast lane and I could afford any increased costs that came with change.

It will be very interesting to see what the FCC is trying to hide in the new rules.

I was expecting the new rules to be just a tweek of the current regulations to make sure that every site has equal access to the internet. If they have given themselves more powers to censor content or to charge more taxes then they have overreached and there will be a backlash and another permanent black mark on the current administration. If this is the case, Congress or the next President can fix it.

Tim

[shooter93]

I'm not a doomsday freak Tim but I don't believe the government just "tweaks" anything. A "tweak" is just the camel's nose. And would they discriminate against sites like this or the gun culture in general?.....maybe not right away but they passed a Sedition Act in 1917 that even talking against WW1 could land you in jail. They just don't instill much faith in me.

[dtknowles]

I'm not a doomsday freak Tim but I don't believe the government just "tweaks" anything. A "tweak" is just the camel's nose. And would they discriminate against sites like this or the gun culture in general?.....maybe not right away but they passed a Sedition Act in 1917 that even talking against WW1 could land you in jail. They just don't instill much faith in me.

I have no faith in the government not trying to grab more power but we were going to get new rules of one kind or another regarding the internet fast lanes or no.

As far a censorship of sites, we will not be the first attacked, even with the NSA spying and BATFE, we are small potatoes. Some people here fancy themselves rebels but unless they have a much more serious side not shown here, I don't thing they even register on the Federal Law Enforcement radar.

Tim

[7br]

There are multiple things I am concerned about with the regulations not being published before being voted on. One of them is how will the fcc look on encryption. Will they say that it is not permissible, ie, for the common good, you can't encrypt your email because it might hinder a kidnapping investigation. The other is decency standards. While I am not likely to say anything too outrageous, it worries me that it might open a whole slew of what is decent on the internet. I will guarantee that porn will still be out there because it is big business and big money. This site, I would not bet on it. We deal with things that might hurt you if you aren't careful, so the government might decide to pull the plug for the common good.

[7br]

It will be very interesting to see what the FCC is trying to hide in the new rules.

If this is the case, Congress or the next President can fix it.

Tim

Backlash or no backlash. I do not think the next administration would be inclined to drop anything that generates more revenue or could be used as a political tool ala the IRS. What do you think Tricky Dick Nixon or Dick Cheney would do if they could regulate the internet? Or maybe Hillary and/of Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson?

[MaryB]

I am not politically correct on twitter or facebook so I would be targeted for censorship.

[shooter93]

It's still the camel's nose Tim. It's not the first to be attacked that will count....it will be the last. When they came for the Jews I said nothing....etc. etc. etc.

[dtknowles]

You guys read the new regs, right? Now that you know, it not such a big deal anymore. They don't get to censor anything.

Tim

[dragon813gt]

You guys read the new regs, right? Now that you know, it not such a big deal anymore. They don't get to censor anything.

Tim

That doesn't fit the narrative. Funny how that works both ways :laugh:

[dtknowles]

That doesn't fit the narrative. Funny how that works both ways :laugh:

They fall for the bait every time. It is not that the government can be trusted it is just that the real secrets are really secret. This has been on the radar for months, nothing about it is really secret. Yes, it will not be settled until the courts rule. Do you understand that the battle between the big ISP;s and the Government is not really the battle. The government would love to give the Big ISP the sway but we would bite them in the butt. They have to pretend to fight for us and make the courts be the bad guys. Those of you who sided with the Big ISP why did you take that position?

Tim

[MaryB]

How can you read what hasn't been released yet? 322 pages, not the NPRM


You guys read the new regs, right? Now that you know, it not such a big deal anymore. They don't get to censor anything.

Tim

[jmort]

No matter the truth or facts, the Obama drones keep saying they read something that has never been released to the public and then go on to tell us how much they know about something they have never read.

[dtknowles]

No matter the truth or facts, the Obama drones keep saying they read something that has never been released to the public and then go on to tell us how much they know about something they have never read.

Here it is go ahead and check for the things you were worried about

http://mashable.com/2015/03/12/fcc-net-neutrality-rules-2/

Not many rule changes just a lot of justification and rebuttal.

Tim

[dtknowles]

How can you read what hasn't been released yet? 322 pages, not the NPRM

It is released now, they added a few pages to the count. What do you think.

Tim

[dtknowles]

So what does everyone think of the new regulations? The silence is deafening.

Tim

[garym1a2]

My issue is that they assumed the right to regulate it.

[Cmm_3940]

No they didn't.

[MaryB]

Still reading...

[jmort]

"The silence is deafening."

From the fools who said the obama rules were previously released to the public. We have a miracle, as the obama rules have now, just now, been released, for the first time. Amazing. Fortunately no member here ever made such a claim, right???

[jmort]

Here are all 400 pages of the FCC’s net neutrality rules
The Federal Communications Commission has finally published its full net neutrality rules (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf) on its Web site. And they're not for the faint of heart. Together with the dissents from the agency's Republican commissioners, the document adds up to 400 pages.
The release of the rules comes two weeks after the FCC voted to approve them in a historic, polarized vote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/26/the-fcc-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/) at the commission. Now begins the next chapter in the story. Expect Internet providers to comb through the publication, probing the rules for legal weaknesses they can take to court.
The FCC's net neutrality order seeks to prevent Internet providers from blocking Web traffic, slowing it down or setting up paid fast lanes. It reflects a year's worth of intense lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/24/how-silicon-valley-won-the-day-over-some-of-the-most-powerful-lobbyists-in-washington/) by carriers and Web companies — not to mention the public, whose 4 million written comments to the FCC helped convince the agency to adopt far more aggressive regulations.
"That public input has created a robust record, enabling the Commission to adopt new rules that are clear and sustainable," the FCC writes in the order.
Internet providers vowed to press for other alternatives.
"We are confident the issue will be resolved by bipartisan action by Congress or a future FCC, or by the courts," said AT&T in a statement Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/12/here-are-all-400-pages-of-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/

[dtknowles]

"The silence is deafening."

From the fools who said the obama rules were previously released to the public. We have a miracle, as the obama rules have now, just now, been released, for the first time. Amazing. Fortunately no member here ever made such a claim, right???

I was the one who claimed to have read the rules and MaryB corrected me as I had read the NPRM not the final rules. Mary said "How can you read what hasn't been released yet? 322 pages, not the NPRM" I did not contradict her assertion, she was right.

Tim

[dtknowles]

"The silence is deafening."

From the fools who said the obama rules were previously released to the public. We have a miracle, as the obama rules have now, just now, been released, for the first time. Amazing. Fortunately no member here ever made such a claim, right???

They were released Tuesday and I posted a link to them Thursday, they have been available for 4 days. I you were really concerned about this rule making I would have expected you to have been watching for the release and provided you comment already.

Tim

[jmort]

There is another thread with the same claims and I was really referring to that. Will resurrect that as others would not concede this simple point.

[dtknowles]

There is another thread with the same claims and I was really referring to that. Will resurrect that as others would not concede this simple point.

Once you go ahead and read the new rules you will find that the NPRM and the final rules are almost identical and this is because the majority of the public comments were in favor of the rule changes. I find interesting the AT&T statement in the Washington Post article you posted. While it is understandable that they want to push for abolition of the new rules in favor of ones that will allow them more profit and competitive advantage, I feel it is against the public interest and will oppose Republican candidates who support the AT&T position. .

Tim