The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

[Lucille]

Goodbye internet, hello Obamanet.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter


In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is provided. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission’s two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward with the rules. The agency’s two GOP-appointed commissioners opposed them.

Under the new rules, broadband providers, long classified by the agency as Title I information services, will now be regulated as Title II telecommunications services—essentially making them public utilities, like the phone system. The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks.
[...]
Today’s vote will mean that Wheeler’s proposal, which has been kept secret up until now, will finally be released to the public. And it likely means that the FCC will push forward with clarifying and implementing the as-of-yet-unknown-details of Wheeler’s proposal.

In part that's because much remains uncertain about exactly how the proposal will be implemented. Wheeler's plan promises to use the FCC's forebearance authority to hold off on some of the more onerous parts of Title II regulation, like rate regulation, but this amounts to little more than an unenforceable promise not to regulate ISPs quite as strictly as Title II allows. There will also be fights over which taxes and fees may apply to Internet service under the new regulatory regime. Proponents of the Title II switch say that Internet service won't be subject to new fees under the proposal, but in today's meeting, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican appointee who opposes the Wheeler plan, warned that new taxes and fees on Internet service were sure to come.

It is also virtually certain to result in another court battle—one that the FCC may well lose, as Berin Szoka of Tech Freedom, which opposes Wheeler’s plan, has argued. At minimum, the proposal will be challenged and, over time, probably redefined.

In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and fear-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration’s long-running political priorities—a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process.

As FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican appointee who opposes the Wheeler plan, told ReasonTV, the move is a “solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.” It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own.

[Suzanimal]

Welcome to government internet...
http://i.imgur.com/fWNWmjW.gif

[Lucille]

^ Plus, it will be expensive as hell. I hope everyone likes paying their fair share for my bandwidth hog in the other room!

Worse...

Cometh the Censor
Birth of What Will Prove a Short Siege
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Internet.shtml

[jllundqu]

sad day :(

[AuH20]

Can this be reversed?

[Lucille]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-26/fcc-votes-favor-obamas-net-neutrality-has-slippery-slope-web-censorship-begun


"An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life," according to President Obama and it appears his perspective on the heavy hand of government regulation inserting itself into the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the US economy, is how best to achieve "openness." Having pressured FCC's Tom Wheeler, the vote just came down: U.S. FCC APPROVES NET NEUTRALITY INTERNET RULES IN 3-2 VOTE. While potentially good for a consumer's pocketbook, the handing over of "fair-use" decision to the government, as we previously noted, could be the first step on a slippery slope to increased censorship.

FCC Votes...

*FCC ADOPTS NET-NEUTRALITY RULE BACKED BY OBAMA
*INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS MUST TREAT WEB TRAFFIC EQUALLY
*COMCAST, AT&T, VERIZON AMONG COMPANIES REGULATED UNDER RULES
*NETFLIX, TWITTER HAD SOUGHT FCC REGULATIONS
[...]
U.S. regulators invoked broad powers to ensure that Web traffic for all users is treated equally, adopting net-neutrality rules that Bloomberg reports, supporters say will preserve a wide-open Internet and that opponents vow to fight in court.
[...]
But as Mike Krieger so eloquently noted previously, this could permit discrimination of web content...

Could? Make that "absolutely will."

[phill4paul]

The government fears only what it cannot control. Therefore, regulation.

[AuH20]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-26/fcc-votes-favor-obamas-net-neutrality-has-slippery-slope-web-censorship-begun



Could? Make that "absolutely will."

None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. Follow the non-profit think tanks. And we all know where the trail of the think tanks lead....

[donnay]

Bastards! They hate us for our freedom!

[Suzanimal]

None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. Follow the non-profit think tanks. And we all know where the trail of the think tanks lead....

...


Tom Wheeler tweaks net neutrality plan after Google push



FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has made some last-minute revisions to his net neutrality plan after Google and public interest groups pressed for the changes, according to sources at the commission.

Google, Free Press and New America’s Open Technology Institute last week asked the commission to revise language they said could unintentionally allow Internet service providers to charge websites for sending content to consumers. Such a scenario could open the door to an avalanche of new fees for Web companies and threaten their business models.

....

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan-google-115502.html#ixzz3SsAEhARa

Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House


Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/so...rticle/2560702

[AuH20]

Wired is ecstatic. Sheesh.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-votes-yes-net-neutrality/

[ZENemy]

Can this be reversed?

lol

[Root]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

Pretty much sums up how I feel about the fcc. All this is going to accomplish is make a bunch of lawyers rich(er).

[The Gold Standard]

Can this be reversed?

As much as anything can be reversed. You would need a few million patriots to do it.

[AuH20]

lol

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608014365672015792&pid=15.1&P=0

[Dr.3D]

How does some federal agency ever get to vote on anything?

[Cabal]

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-votes-yes-net-neutrality/

It's only the beginning, too.


With the vote, the FCC is changing the way it views both wireless and fixed-line broadband service providers, reclassifying them as “Title II” common carriers under the nation’s telecommunications laws. The Title II designation, which already covers voice services, gives the FCC the ability to set rates, open up access to competitors, and generally more closely regulate the broadband industry. It’s a reversal of course for the FCC, which until now did not even enforce net neutrality rules on wireless broadband services, and very lightly regulated fixed providers. But it’s also a return to the regulatory regime that governed consumer internet services 20 years ago, when hundreds of dial-up internet service providers competed on Title II-regulated phone networks.

Ironically, today’s vote was first set in motion by a series of lawsuits dating back several years, which challenged the FCC’s ability to enforce it’s own net neutrality regulations. Last year the latest legal challenge ended when a D.C. court ruled in Verizon’s favor, saying that the way that the FCC had classified internet services didn’t give it the right to enforce net neutrality.

A year ago, Chairman Wheeler said that the FCC could find a new way to enforce net neutrality without the Title II designation. But in November, the man who appointed Wheeler, President Barack Obama, called for Title II. In retrospect, that made today’s vote inevitable, although Wheeler said today that he was looking at the Title II option months before Obama’s statement

You see? They're just setting the stage so they can full-bore fuck ass. This is all a deliberately planned and orchestrated legal strategy to shit all over the internet, and since the State has a monopoly on law, guess who is going to win.

[heavenlyboy34]

Time to hit the button: http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/vader.jpghttps://drawception.com/pub/panels/2012/5-2/rn3WBAG751-6.png

[heavenlyboy34]

How does some federal agency ever get to vote on anything?

It's constitutional, bro. :(

[AuH20]

So the millennial boobs essentially sold the internet away for faster file sharing service and rural accessibility?

http://www.geocaching.failedthoughtapparatus.com/arghhh.png

[Dr.3D]

It's constitutional, bro. :(
I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.

[Valli6]

They. Are. KILLING US!

[Cabal]

I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.

The Constitution is worded and designed in such a way that it doesn't have to explicitly mention the FCC.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.

Nor is there an air force or permanent standing army or Dept of Education, but you wouldn't deny those to be constitutional-would you, Citizen?

[heavenlyboy34]

So the millennial boobs essentially sold the internet away for faster file sharing service and rural accessibility?

http://www.geocaching.failedthoughtapparatus.com/arghhh.png

I'm sure some did. But I'm technically a millenial (I think? I've heard it defined a few ways), and I didn't do that.

[Dr.3D]

The Constitution is worded and designed in such a way that it doesn't have to explicitly mention the FCC.


Nor is there an air force or permanent standing army or Dept of Education, but you wouldn't deny those to be constitutional-would you, Citizen?
Such is the way government grows out of control.

[tod evans]

Everything government gets involved in it fucks up.....

Now we just have to watch and see how/when and why they fuck up yet another thing they should have stayed out of....

[heavenlyboy34]

Everything government gets involved in it fucks up.....

Now we just have to watch and see how/when and why they fuck up yet another thing they should have stayed out of....

It's for the Greater Good(TM), Citizen. Can't you see that?

[Cabal]

Such is the way government grows out of control.

That's an odd thing to say.

The State, by its nature, is purposed towards seizing as much control as possible. So the idea that the State has 'grown out of control' doesn't really make much sense, as it's doing exactly what it was meant to do; it implies that the State is ultimately controllable by the wills of those who would say it has grown out of control. This isn't and has never really been the case. It's a false premise.

[Dr.3D]

That's an odd thing to say.

The State, by its nature, is purposed towards seizing as much control as possible. So the idea that the State has 'grown out of control' doesn't really make much sense, as it's doing exactly what it was meant to do; it implies that the State is ultimately controllable by the wills of those who would say it has grown out of control. This isn't and has never really been the case. It's a false premise.
Submit citizen!

[The Gold Standard]

How long before several of us start disappearing?

[AuH20]

That's an odd thing to say.

The State, by its nature, is purposed towards seizing as much control as possible. So the idea that the State has 'grown out of control' doesn't really make much sense, as it's doing exactly what it was meant to do; it implies that the State is ultimately controllable by the wills of those who would say it has grown out of control. This isn't and has never really been the case. It's a false premise.

The Constitution was an acorn and now we're living under the ominous reaches of one menacing oak tree. Granted, I would take going back to the Constitution if you examine the other real world alternatives.

[CaptUSA]

As someone who works for a utility, I don't think this will be as bad as you think. It will be worse.

It'll probably operate alright and the providers will have guaranteed profits. But it will never improve. Innovation will happen at a snail's pace. It will put the brakes on new start-ups, as they will have to compete with special interests that are gaming the system because they are guaranteed those profits. When you have a problem, you will have to take it up with some oversight board instead of going to a competitor - after all, their competitors will all operate under the same rules.

[AuH20]

As someone who works for a utility, I don't think this will be as bad as you think. It will be worse.

It'll probably operate alright and the providers will have guaranteed profits. But it will never improve. Innovation will happen at a snail's pace. It will put the brakes on new start-ups, as they will have to compete with special interests that are gaming the system because they are guaranteed those profits. When you have a problem, you will have to take it up with some oversight board instead of going to a competitor - after all, their competitors will all operate under the same rules.

So basically like the SEC? :)

[Cabal]

The Constitution was an acorn and now we're living under the ominous reaches of one menacing oak tree. Granted, I would take going back to the Constitution if you examine the other real world alternatives.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-but-whether-the-constitution-really-be-one-thing-or-another-this-much-is-certain-that-it-has-lysander-spooner-175921.jpg

[AuH20]

From Michael Kreiger's Twitter:

https://twitter.com/LibertyBlitz/status/571028853466013696

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-yzt1EVEAA80lK.jpg

Reminds me of Lazlo's quick analysis in Real Genius.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoT-h0S1gkE

[Sam I am]

The government fears only what it cannot control. Therefore, regulation.

I'd like to remind everyone that this is a regulation that a very very large segment of the population was very actively pushing.

It's hard to consider this to be some big government takeover conspiracy when so many people were pressuring the government to do it.

[Working Poor]

I am confused about this issue I trust most of the opinions of the people here but someone else says this is great they are a liberal all hooked up to the system but they are a pretty good geek though,

[AuH20]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is a regulation that a very very large segment of the population was very actively pushing.

It's hard to consider this to be some big government takeover conspiracy when so many people were pressuring the government to do it.

Is it a failure of our educational system?

Is it a byproduct of the fast food mentality (i.e. I want it now and damn the consequences!) especially ingrained into the younger generations?

HOW COULD ANYONE BE SO GODDAMN SHORTSIGHTED AND NOT SEE WHERE THIS WAS GOING!!!! THE ELITES HAVE MAPPED HUMAN DESIRES & COMPULSIONS TO SUCH A SCIENCE THAT THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO SELL FASCISM AND TYRANNY.

[Lucille]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is a regulation that a very very large segment of the population was very actively pushing.

...

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-democracy-is-the-theory-that-the-common-people-know-what-they-want-and-deserve-to-get-it-good-and-h-l-mencken-125667.jpg

Too bad we all get what they deserve.

[Cabal]

I am confused about this issue I trust most of the opinions of the people here but someone else says this is great they are a liberal all hooked up to the system but they are a pretty good geek though,

It opens more doors to intervention and regulation that were previously closed. It doesn't necessarily mean anything on it's own, it's just a step in a grander scheme. However, with these doors now open, bad things will inevitably follow, and the State will have access to more avenues of intervention and regulation than it did before, where the internet is concerned.

It's somewhat analogous to the Patriot Act, for instance. It gives the State more potential room to influence and operate in the internet industry, allowing them to bypass legal hurdles that had previously hindered them from doing certain things.

[AuH20]

It opens more doors to intervention and regulation that were previously closed. It doesn't necessarily mean anything on it's own, it's just a step in a grander scheme. However, with these doors now open, bad things will inevitably follow, and the State will have access to more avenues of intervention and regulation than it did before, where the internet is concerned.

It's somewhat analogous to the Patriot Act, for instance. It gives the State more potential room to influence and operate in the internet industry.

http://getreal.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341fd10e53ef01bb0799d044970d-pi

[Sam I am]

Is it a failure of our educational system?

Is it a byproduct of the fast food mentality (i.e. I want it now and damn the consequences!) especially ingrained into the younger generations?

HOW COULD ANYONE BE SO GODDAMN SHORTSIGHTED AND NOT SEE WHERE THIS WAS GOING!!!! THE ELITES HAVE MAPPED HUMAN DESIRES & COMPULSIONS TO SUCH A SCIENCE THAT THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO SELL FASCISM AND TYRANNY.

From where I'm standing, it appears to be an example of rampant paranoia and fear mongering

[Natural Citizen]

I am confused about this issue I trust most of the opinions of the people here but someone else says this is great they are a liberal all hooked up to the system but they are a pretty good geek though,

The article in the op doesn't do a very good job at explaining what it actually does. Here..try this one... FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet advocates (http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/)

I don't like the idea of government involvement but the actual change itself was needed. And that is something that we won't read so much about as we will all of the political doublespeak.

[AuH20]

From where I'm standing, it appears to be an example of rampant paranoia and fear mongering

Do you think that the FCC should invoke Title II status over some minor pricing and throttling issues? Does that make any sense at face value? Even Mark Cuban is perplexed when the alleged solutions aren't in scale to the actual problem. It's like dropping a JDAM ordinance on a termite hill. It's completely unnecessary.

[Sam I am]

Do you think that the FCC should be invoke Title II status over some minor pricing and throttling issues? Does that make any sense at face value? Even Mark Cuban is perplexed when the alleged solutions aren't in scale to the actual problem. It's like dropping a JDAM ordinance on a termite hill. It's completely unnecessary.

No I don't think that the FCC needs to regulate the internet at all.

I'm just point out that I can't see a meaningful difference between you, and the people who pushed to get this measure enacted.

[Lucille]

The article in the op doesn't do a very good job at explaining what it actually does. Here..try this one... FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet advocates useful idiots (http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/)
FTFY

[AuH20]

This particular pro net neutrality article is actually quoting Art Laffer (Reagan's supply side econ advisor) and begging for internet taxes.

https://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/fcc-approves-title-ii-corps-lose-internet-economy-profits-advantage/


The fight over net neutrality boils down to the securitization of the internet economy that is only now in its infancy and poised to become the next lucrative bubble.

In 2013, economist Art Lafler concluded a study wherein he found that should the House of Representative legislate an internet sales tax, there would be a boost to economic growth.

Lafler states that internet taxation will cause business growth and revenue for state governments. According to estimations, Lafler claims that “the nation’s gross domestic product could increase by $563.2 billion over 10 years if the Marketplace Fairness Act is enacted and states use the revenue to cut more burdensome taxes, such as income taxes.”

In May of 2014, the Senate passed a bill that would “force Internet retailers to collect sales taxes for state and local governments” called S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (MFA), allows for “states to force online retailers with more than $1 million in annual out-of-state sales to collect sales taxes from all customers and remit those taxes back to state and local governments.

Lafler admits: “I am assuming these states use their funds correctly, and if they do and if every state did, it would add to national growth dramatically. This is just economic efficiency, pure and simple. If you use a better tax structure, you’re going to be able to get better growth, employment, output, production, and tax revenues than if you use a poorer tax structure. And the better tax structure here would include all sales, not just those sales that are in brick-and-mortar operations within a state.”


Tired of being abused by ruthless Internet Service Providers? Well, don't fear since it's Big Government's turn to join in on the orgy.

[AuH20]

Cuban is getting slammed on Twitter by the enlightened ones.

http://recode.net/2015/02/21/mark-cuban-inflames-the-internet-again-this-time-over-net-neutrality/

To paraphrase...

Cuban, you're rich and DUMB! You're absurdly rich...

https://recodetech.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/screen-shot-2015-02-21-at-11-02-43-am.png?w=972

[Lucille]

Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/


A triumph of “free expression and democratic principles”? How stupid do they think we are?

It’s been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a “Wild West” into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to.

All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab.

This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It’s had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to A_mazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck.

The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco, free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on.

Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to locked down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.

What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That’s a good comparison...

[helmuth_hubener]

FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet advocates (http://rt.com/usa/235823-fcc-votes-net-neutrality/)

...the actual change itself was needed.

No. Net neutrality sounds good, mainly because it has the word "neutrality" in it, and who could be against neutrality? It's so... neutral! Sounds only fair, right?

The people promoting it believe (or at least present the story of -- some of them must know it's false) in a mythic history of the internet wherein the Internet never cared what type of information it was carrying, it just moved it. Streaming video, e-mail, whatever, it just treated everything the same.

Now first of all, this mythic history is not actually true. The internet has never been completely oblivious ("neutral") to what sort of information it is carrying. There are companies, like Akamai, whose business is to get websites better, faster service, in exchange for money.

Secondly, it is not at all clear why a such a situation should be considered a good thing. Why in the world would you want a streaming video conference call to be treated in the exact same way by the network as an electronic mail? Believe me, that is not a technical advantage. That's not a desirable state that we all should be thanking the FCC for codifying. Do we want "grocery neutrality" also, so that our strawberries and lettuce and other fresh produce can be shipped at the same speeds and priority as our canned beans?

One of the opennesses of the internet, a freedom, a wonderful thing about it, is that you can get what you pay for. You can choose how much you want to pay, and then you can get better or poorer or different service depending on how much you pay and from whom you want to buy. You can pay $20/month, or you can pay $100/month, or you can even pay nothing, and you will get widely varying service at those different rates. You get better, faster service in exchange for money.

Why is that bad? It's not. So it is a bit of a difficult issue to parse, Working Poor, but that's mainly because of the label -- Neutrality! -- and the way it's been framed. In reality it's an anti-freedom, anti-technology movement, this "net neutrality".

[AuH20]

No. Net neutrality sounds good, mainly because it has the word "neutrality" in it, and who could be against neutrality? It's so... neutral! Sounds only fair, right?

The people promoting it believe (or at least present the story of -- some of them must know it's false) in a mythic history of the internet wherein the Internet never cared what type of information it was carrying, it just moved it. Streaming video, e-mail, whatever, it just treated everything the same.

Now first of all, this mythic history is not actually true. The internet has never been completely oblivious ("neutral") to what sort of information it is carrying. There are companies, like Akamai, whose business is to get websites better, faster service, in exchange for money.

Secondly, it is not at all clear why a such a situation should be considered a good thing. Why in the world would you want a streaming video conference call to be treated in the exact same way by the network as an electronic mail? Believe me, that is not a technical advantage. That's not a desirable state that we all should be thanking the FCC for codifying. Do we want "grocery neutrality" also, so that our strawberries and lettuce and other fresh produce can be shipped at the same speeds and priority as our canned beans?

One of the opennesses of the internet, a freedom, a wonderful thing about it, is that you can get what you pay for. You can choose how much you want to pay, and then you can get better or poorer or different service depending on how much you pay and from whom you want to buy. You can pay $20/month, or you can pay $100/month, or you can even pay nothing, and you will get widely varying service at those different rates. You get better, faster service in exchange for money.

Why is that bad? It's not. So it is a bit of a difficult issue to parse, Working Poor, but that's mainly because of the label -- Neutrality! -- and the way it's been framed. In reality it's an anti-freedom, anti-technology movement, this "net neutrality".

Affordable Care Act. Net Neutrality. I'm starting to see a trend here. I wonder what they have in mind to replace the unsettling term 'Martial Law' with? The Family Time Initiative?

[AuH20]

Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/

Brought to you by your friends at the Tavistock Institute.

[AuH20]

No. Net neutrality sounds good, mainly because it has the word "neutrality" in it, and who could be against neutrality? It's so... neutral! Sounds only fair, right?

The people promoting it believe (or at least present the story of -- some of them must know it's false) in a mythic history of the internet wherein the Internet never cared what type of information it was carrying, it just moved it. Streaming video, e-mail, whatever, it just treated everything the same.

Now first of all, this mythic history is not actually true. The internet has never been completely oblivious ("neutral") to what sort of information it is carrying. There are companies, like Akamai, whose business is to get websites better, faster service, in exchange for money.

Secondly, it is not at all clear why a such a situation should be considered a good thing. Why in the world would you want a streaming video conference call to be treated in the exact same way by the network as an electronic mail? Believe me, that is not a technical advantage. That's not a desirable state that we all should be thanking the FCC for codifying. Do we want "grocery neutrality" also, so that our strawberries and lettuce and other fresh produce can be shipped at the same speeds and priority as our canned beans?

One of the opennesses of the internet, a freedom, a wonderful thing about it, is that you can get what you pay for. You can choose how much you want to pay, and then you can get better or poorer or different service depending on how much you pay and from whom you want to buy. You can pay $20/month, or you can pay $100/month, or you can even pay nothing, and you will get widely varying service at those different rates. You get better, faster service in exchange for money.

Why is that bad? It's not. So it is a bit of a difficult issue to parse, Working Poor, but that's mainly because of the label -- Neutrality! -- and the way it's been framed. In reality it's an anti-freedom, anti-technology movement, this "net neutrality".

I want to live in a world where my data packets are not discriminated against!

[Origanalist]

FTFY

Out of rep

[devil21]

I'm already seeing net strangeness and changes today since this was released. Two sites I visit daily, which are always reliable, have content problems and another is making me agree to some new terms of service to access it.

[Natural Citizen]

Aside - FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/)


Nineteen states have such laws, often passed at the behest of private Internet service providers that didn't want to face competition. Communities in two of the states asked the FCC to take action.

“You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it,” Wheeler said today. “You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices."

States have given municipalities the authority to offer broadband but made it difficult with tons of bureaucratic requirements, he said. "The bottom line is some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition," he said. Local residents and businesses are the ones suffering the consequences, he argued, pointing to members of the two communities in the audience.

[AuH20]

Aside - FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/)

Why can't they do that with health insurance? Nevertheless, who's to say that the FCC won't implement rules (or perhaps they have?) on a national level that only the larger ISPs can realistically adhere to?

[DamianTV]

I think the most important questions here are A: Why is it 322 pages long? and B: Why is every single thing about it kept secret? I mean literally SECRET! NO ONE knows what the hell is actually hidden in those whopping 322 pages, not the Congress, not your Representatives, not even the President himself is "allowed" to know the contents of the package? Might just as well start labelling everything Birthday Cake and load the contents of the Cake up with mini nukes. But on that SECRECY, there is one guy in politics that may have taken our side:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c

We no longer know now the laws we will be charged with breaking, yet,ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is more Doublethink. Youre not even allowed to know what the Law is until you are Convicted of it. And even then, you probably still will not even know what the Secret Law was that you broke. This is VERY dangerous. This is Nuclear Fire Dangerous.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think the most important questions here are A: Why is it 322 pages long? and B: Why is every single thing about it kept secret? I mean literally SECRET! NO ONE knows what the hell is actually hidden in those whopping 322 pages, not the Congress, not your Representatives, not even the President himself is "allowed" to know the contents of the package? Might just as well start labelling everything Birthday Cake and load the contents of the Cake up with mini nukes. But on that SECRECY, there is one guy in politics that may have taken our side:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c

We no longer know now the laws we will be charged with breaking, yet,ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is more Doublethink. Youre not even allowed to know what the Law is until you are Convicted of it. And even then, you probably still will not even know what the Secret Law was that you broke. This is VERY dangerous. This is Nuclear Fire Dangerous.
The Chekha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police)would be totally jealous.

[devil21]

I think the most important questions here are A: Why is it 322 pages long?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo

[AuH20]

Call me crazy but even if the Republicans had conjured up a bill to break up regional ISP monopolies I bet that the democrats would have not have agreed, since they wanted the Title II powers all along.

[AuH20]

It's interesting that most of the commentary from the tech world is focused on protecting us from those 'insidious corporations', when many of the net neutrality advocates are completely oblivious to the fact that powerful multinational corporations have embedded themselves into our government through the CFR and other lobbying groups. The smarter ones have essentially become the federal government. So the solution to protect the consumer from corporate malfeasance is to appoint a board of industry approved bureaucrats that are ultimately beholden to the corporate agenda? REALLY? Wouldn't competition be a better arbiter for those willing to partake in unscrupulous business practices?

[devil21]

Individual "Internet ID" won't be far behind (if it's not already part of the 322), nor will large scale tax collections on internet businesses. You didn't think they'd give up on the internet sales tax issue so easily did ya? This is indeed the camel's nose getting under the tent.

[staerker]

Who voted? To the unrepresented, taxation should be the least of their concerns.

[AuH20]

The Good Dr. weighs in on this travesty.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/


Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

[rg17]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo

Weird coincidence?

[donnay]

I think the most important questions here are A: Why is it 322 pages long? and B: Why is every single thing about it kept secret? I mean literally SECRET! NO ONE knows what the hell is actually hidden in those whopping 322 pages, not the Congress, not your Representatives, not even the President himself is "allowed" to know the contents of the package? Might just as well start labelling everything Birthday Cake and load the contents of the Cake up with mini nukes. But on that SECRECY, there is one guy in politics that may have taken our side:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c

We no longer know now the laws we will be charged with breaking, yet,ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is more Doublethink. Youre not even allowed to know what the Law is until you are Convicted of it. And even then, you probably still will not even know what the Secret Law was that you broke. This is VERY dangerous. This is Nuclear Fire Dangerous.


Skull and Bones - 322 - Secret Society (http://www.whale.to/b/skull.html). Coincidence?

[fisharmor]

I am confused about this issue

Two words that never gets pointed out in these discussions: ARAB SPRING.
All the revolutions going on in the world in the last 5 years (it is quite a few, when you add them up) were largely organized on the internet.
The events at the Bundy Ranch wouldn't have been possible if they weren't organized on the internet.
Nobody should even pretend like that didn't factor heavily into the decision to push for regulation of the internet.

[AuH20]

I think we need to relax. Wheeler personally assures us that this isn't a powergrab and he'll be vigilant in making sure there won't be any bureaucratic overreaches.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/28211145/fcc-adopts-historic-internet-rules#.VO_QPOGn1JA


Meanwhile, Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman who ditched his original dialed-back plan for this one, assured this isn't a government power grab.

"This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech," he said. "They both stand for the same concept: openness, expression and an absence of gatekeepers."


ROFL

[Lucille]

It's interesting that most of the commentary from the tech world is focused on protecting us from those 'insidious corporations', when many of the net neutrality advocates are completely oblivious to the fact that powerful multinational corporations have embedded themselves into our government through the CFR and other lobbying groups. The smarter ones have essentially become the federal government. So the solution to protect the consumer from corporate malfeasance is to appoint a board of industry approved bureaucrats that are ultimately beholden to the corporate agenda? REALLY? Wouldn't competition be a better arbiter for those willing to partake in unscrupulous business practices?

Tyrants, dupes, tools, and dumbasses! Whatareyagonnado.


This is utter madness. Since when has "free" ever meant "tightly controlled by the government"? Regulation like this always locks in current competitors and business models. Hate Comcast? You just guaranteed them their infinite existence and profitability. (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/02/my-response-to-triumphalism-over-turning-the-internet-into-a-utility.html) They will be the Ma Bell of your generation.


The Good Dr. weighs in on this travesty.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/

RON PAUL!!!!!!!

[tod evans]

PEACE AND PROSPERITY


Internet, RIP?
written by ron paul
thursday february 26, 2015

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/



Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

[donnay]

Skull and Bones - 322 - Secret Society (http://www.whale.to/b/skull.html). Coincidence?


Correction: It is 332-pages.

[KCIndy]

FTFY



Out of rep


Covered.

[DamianTV]

I just saw that too, one said 322, another said 332, not sure which one is correct... I doubt it matters. The secret contents that I still havent seen yet are a sure way to kill the Internet. The Internet has become the Free Press of the 21st century, and it is no wonder why they wish to crush Free Speech in a way that doesnt look like is crushing Free Speech. Regardless of what people think of Alex Jones or Howard Stern, if you agree or not, you should agree they still have the Right to say it. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press were not designed to protect the "Popular" thing to say, but the Unpopular thing. Now we have a Govt and MSM that both demand that only the "Popular" thing is what they define as "Popular". When Infowars.com is taken offline, you can be damn well assured it wont be made public that Alex says the Unpopular thing, but a "Violation of FCC Internet Regulations" that are so secretive, our Representatives are "not given permission" to know what is even in the Laws they just passed.

How the FUCK is that a Free and Open society?

Everyone had best brush up on their technical skills, learn to circumvent Govt Censorship of websites, use VPNs and Proxies to reroute your intenrnet traffic, protect your privacy on a technical level and finding places in the Dark Web you can still communicate without fear of Censorship, or getting shipped off to Chicago's Black Bag site for dissidents like ourselves.

[devil21]

Correction: It is 332-pages.

I keep seeing both numbers. How to know? We can't see it. Ajit Pai said 332 but now says 317. :shrug: Isn't that the fuckery of it all though? No one can even friggin agree on how many PAGES it is.

[TheTexan]

http://static.newamerica.org/attachments/229-the-cost-of-connectivity-2014/OTI_The_Cost_of_Connectivity_2014.pdf

The US already has more expensive and slower internet than most other countries, due in large part to the amount of government involvement in this industry in this country.

The solution here should be obvious to everybody... more government can fix this.

[KCIndy]

Affordable Care Act. Net Neutrality. I'm starting to see a trend here. I wonder what they have in mind to replace the unsettling term 'Martial Law' with? The Family Time Initiative?


Hey, it has been 1984 for a long, long time now. Don't forget the "Patriot" Act (the granddaddy of all deceptive titles) The DREAM Act, etc. This is - and has been - PURELY ORWELLIAN and it isn't by coincidence.

Let me repeat that. IT. IS. NOT. A. COINCIDENCE.

The vast majority of the general public has been sufficiently indoctrinated through years of government schools and statist media that they will accept even the most bald-faced lies and blatantly misleading titles as the truth. It's true because they saw it on TV. It's true because their favorite entertainer just sent a tweet about it. It's true because the name of the bill sounds so damn good.

It's true because Big Brother said so.


WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Are we there yet? Are we?

[donnay]

I just saw that too, one said 322, another said 332, not sure which one is correct... I doubt it matters. The secret contents that I still havent seen yet are a sure way to kill the Internet. The Internet has become the Free Press of the 21st century, and it is no wonder why they wish to crush Free Speech in a way that doesnt look like is crushing Free Speech. Regardless of what people think of Alex Jones or Howard Stern, if you agree or not, you should agree they still have the Right to say it. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press were not designed to protect the "Popular" thing to say, but the Unpopular thing. Now we have a Govt and MSM that both demand that only the "Popular" thing is what they define as "Popular". When Infowars.com is taken offline, you can be damn well assured it wont be made public that Alex says the Unpopular thing, but a "Violation of FCC Internet Regulations" that are so secretive, our Representatives are "not given permission" to know what is even in the Laws they just passed.

How the FUCK is that a Free and Open society?

Everyone had best brush up on their technical skills, learn to circumvent Govt Censorship of websites, use VPNs and Proxies to reroute your intenrnet traffic, protect your privacy on a technical level and finding places in the Dark Web you can still communicate without fear of Censorship, or getting shipped off to Chicago's Black Bag site for dissidents like ourselves.


Yeah earlier I saw 322 and now it has changed to 332.

These bastards love screwing with us. :mad:

[Dr.3D]

Correction: It is 332-pages.

The case of the ever expanding legislation.

Watch out folks, it's gone out of control.

[anaconda]

Can this be reversed?

No legislation required? No court challenges? Since when did the FCC become der Fuhrer?

[Origanalist]

No legislation required? No court challenges? Since when did the FCC become der Fuhrer?

We are ruled by unelected bureaucrats.

[anaconda]

We are ruled by unelected bureaucrats.

I thought there was a legislative effort a couple of years ago to implement net neutrality and the voters smacked the congress down hard in repudiation. What happened to all of that? What was the legislation for if the FCC simply does whatever it wants?

[puppetmaster]

when will we get satellite Internet with bandwidth , and from some company not licensed in the US.....then they can say fugU to US regulations.
.

[Philhelm]

I don't see any place in the constitution mentioning the FCC.

It's necessary and proper.

[Lucille]

PEACE AND PROSPERITY


Internet, RIP?
written by ron paul
thursday february 26, 2015

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/



Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

It made Drudge!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/go-drudge/


Thanks for continuing to highlight Ron Paul, and for featuring now his statement on the regime’s attack on the internet. And congratulations to Ron and Daniel McAdams for the success of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Not only is RPI doing a lot of good, it bugs all the war schemers. Pretty neat.

[Madison320]

I don't understand what's wrong with charging more for using more bandwidth. Am I missing something? There's going to be some bad unintended consequences. For one thing, instead of charging low rates for low usage and high rates for high usage, they'll probably need to charge high rates for everyone.

[AuH20]

I don't understand what's wrong with charging more for using more bandwidth. Am I missing something? There's going to be some bad unintended consequences. For one thing, instead of charging low rates for low usage and high rates for high usage, they'll probably need to charge high rates for everyone.

Nothing wrong with charging more but there was a lack of competition in many regions due to state legislation. They could have simply tried to break up the regional monopolies as opposed to surrendering the ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET to the FCC.

[PRB]

Everything government gets involved in it fucks up.....

Now we just have to watch and see how/when and why they fuck up yet another thing they should have stayed out of....

I completely agree, and sadly we have people on this forum who think internet access is a right, and want the government to stop providers from doing business.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469071-Pay-for-privacy

So there, looks like somebody got what they wanted, government regulating the internet (fucking it up).

[Madison320]

Nothing wrong with charging more but there was a lack of competition in many regions due to state legislation. They could have simply tried to break up the regional monopolies as opposed to surrendering the ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET to the FCC.

That what I was thinking also. My guess is that many ISPs act like monopolies because of existing regulations. Instead of fixing the problem and scaling back the regulation the govt solution is more regulation.

[AuH20]

That what I was thinking also. My guess is that many ISPs act like monopolies because of existing regulations. Instead of fixing the problem and scaling back the regulation the govt solution is more regulation.

It's funny how the dems weren't citing interstate commerce to correct this problem. They simply let the problem metastasize to their advantage.

[PRB]

That what I was thinking also. My guess is that many ISPs act like monopolies because of existing regulations. Instead of fixing the problem and scaling back the regulation the govt solution is more regulation.

Nothing wrong with monopolies as long as nobody is forced to buy and use it.

[AuH20]

How will USF (Universal Service Fund) rate apply now that the internet is a FCC controlled utility? The current fee for telecommunications services is 16.8% (see doc below as well as the recent history of rate increases).

http://www.fcc.gov/document/omd-announces-first-quarter-2015-usf-contribution-factor-168\

http://transition.fcc.gov/files/images/blogs/Chart-USF-Contribution-Factor-Over-Time.jpg

Will this be determined at a later date? Theoretically, this 16.8% could be levied from your monthly internet bill.

[Lucille]

I don't think this has been posted in this thread yet:

Mark Cuban: Welcom to the "Department of the Internet"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469707-Mark-Cuban-Welcom-to-the-quot-Department-of-the-Internet-quot


Dallas Mavericks owner and investor Mark Cuban predicted that proposed FCC Internet regulations will end up impacting TV and “your TV as you know it is over” on Thursday’s “Squawk Alley” on CNBC.

Cuban began by predicting “the courts will rule the Internet for the next however many years.” He then explained, “let’s just take it all the way through its logical conclusion. All bits are bits, all bits are equal. If all bits are equal, then let’s look at what a stream bit is an example. So when Henry and I do an interview, and it’s streamed lived on the Internet, there’s a camera, it goes through an encoder, it sends it out via server or some manner to the Internet, you click on Business Insider and you watch the stream, right? Now, let’s look at CNBC on Comcast. There’s cameras right in front of you, they go through a switcher, they go through an encoder, it’s put through a server, it goes to Comcast, and it’s streamed in a managed service environment to television. It’s the exact same thing. And if it’s the exact same thing technologically and all bits are equal, then why shouldn’t CNBC and all TV networks that are delivered on cable, and Telco, and fiber like Verizon, why shouldn’t they be part of the open Internet as well? And if they are and all bits are equal, now, let’s take it one step further. It’s the purview of the FCC now. The FCC, right? So, the FCC now has to apply their same standards to content, don’t they, that they do to television content because that’s where it is and there’s going to be certain citizens who think ‘well now, since all content is delivered over the Internet because all bits are bits, and it’s a fair, and open, and equal Internet — decency standards.’ And remember the FCC is the same agency that fought Nipplegate for eight years over a wardrobe malfunction.”

He added, “your TV as you know it is over.”

Cuban further said that due to court and regulatory battles that will ensue if the proposed regulations are adopted, innovation online will be halted, declaring “if you love the Internet the way you know it today, this is what you’re going to have for a long time. But, if you’re like me, and you think the best is yet to come, then you don’t the FCC involved because of all the uncertainty.”

Cuban also commented on the transparency regarding of the FCC’s regulation process, sarcastically remarking “lots of transparency, right? Yeah, Lots of transparency.” And “that’s the FCC, that’s the Department of Internet that we’re going to get, no transparency.”

They mess with the Boomers' teevee at their peril!

[AuH20]

1. New broadband taxes.

One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here’s the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a “Universal
Service Fee,” or something like it. These fees—what most Americans would call taxes—are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC.

Consumers haven’t had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service. But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes. Indeed, it repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes—not prohibiting them.

This is fig-leaf forbearance. Indeed, the FCC has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and “has requested a recommended decision by April 7, 2015,” right before Tax Day. It’s no surprise that many view this referral as a question of how, not whether to tax broadband, and states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money.


https://thoughtuncommon.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/deliverance.jpg

[Lucille]

DH had me cancel NetFlix yesterday. I don't do fedbook but he's finally done with that "appalling spy machine." /Assange

Net Neutrality Vote In The FCC: You Lose America
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229877


You get what you deserve America.

You will get it. Long, hard, and dry.

Reed Hastings' Netflix has largely driven the hysteria about Net Neutrality through one of the most-common means of misleading the public that the government itself is known to use all the time: Create a crisis, then screw you in "solving" it.

Netflix relies on very low-latency, high-speed data delivery over long periods of time to deliver its content to you. This is an entirely different business model than what has powered the Internet thus far. It is not an impossible business model, but it is a far more-expensive one to provide than the model used to date.

When you surf a web page the load is taken when the page loads, then there is little or no load while you read it. You click something, the process repeats.

But both video delivery "on-demand" and unsolicited advertising delivery, particularly video ads, don't work under that model. The build requirements for that sort of operating model are far more expensive because instead of building for average load plus a margin you now must build for peak bitrate and be able to deliver that with predictable and small degrees of latency -- a peak bitrate which may well be 2, 3, 5 or even 10x higher than average!

Note that unsolicited video ads are effectively spam -- those that play on load, rather than on click, are particularly annoying in that they interrupt whatever you're actually trying to do -- and this is even worse when these ads involve soundtracks that autoplay along with them.

Netflix could have built out the infrastructure to deliver all those bits in a low-latency, high-speed form on their own. But that would have been extremely expensive, and in turn that would have made their $8/month "all you can eat" model impossible. So they didn't -- they shoved it off on other people.

They're not the only ones. Facebook plays video content on-load, rather than on-demand, as well -- particularly if it's in the viewport. And again, that takes Facebook's data requirement for "good" delivery upward. Someone has to pay for that and the entire point of this campaign is to make sure it's you, and not Facebook, that pays.

Note again that Facebook charges advertisers for these ads, and now you will get saddled with the cost of delivering them, whether you want them or not.

It is manifestly unjust, and indeed outrageous, to allow this sort of cost-shifting to go on. It may be legal but it should be considered fraud. This is the false narrative being sold to you to support "Net Neutrality", and it's going to ram you right up the chute in the form of higher costs for your Internet connections whether you want to use Netflix and Facebook or not.

When, not if, you get rammed by this in your wallet I don't want to hear the complaints. You are entitled in this country to be stupid and buy into the false narratives used by people who simply want to spam you and shift their costs onto you, but if you do and not only allow but pressure the government to "act" to confirm and cement these sorts of outrageous practices you had better not complain about the outcome later on because you begged for and in fact demanded the reaming you're going to get.

[AuH20]

DH had me cancel NetFlix yesterday. I don't do fedbook but he's finally done with that "appalling spy machine." /Assange

Net Neutrality Vote In The FCC: You Lose America
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229877

Karl Denninger is no regular boob. He operated and owned a smaller ISP in Chicago. So he knows what he is talking about.

[AuH20]

Pai says the actual bill is repulsive.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/27/republicans-strike-back-fcc-member-star-wars-net-neutrality


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.

[idiom]

How long before several of us start disappearing?

You missed the news on the black sites huh.

[Lucille]

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.

And entrench and enrich the bigs, just like Obamacare.

Obamanet.

[Lucille]

Dear Foolish and Gullible Americans, Net Neutrality is Not Your Friend
http://themattwalshblog.com/2015/02/27/dear-foolish-and-gullible-americans-net-neutrality-is-not-your-friend/#RtObHJbRKh1oZO2f.99


I really need you guys to read this. I know you might hear “net neutrality” and immediately think “sounds boring and irrelevant to my life,” but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

I admit I’m biased. I make my living on the internet. The FCC tells us that they need to impose 332 pages worth of regulations in order to make the internet “open and free,” but I’m sitting here as someone who can attest that the Internet WAS ALREADY open and free. How else could I go from posting Facebook statuses to being a full time blogger with opinions that are considered repulsive and offensive to many people? This is the free and open internet. I’ve made my living with it.

Now the government wants to come in to “protect” us. From what? Who in God’s name actually thinks that a massive federal bureaucracy will IMPROVE the internet and make us more free. When has a massive federal bureaucracy ever improved ANYTHING or made ANYTHING more free?

So, look, I take it personally. I admit. I see so many utter fools applauding a government takeover of the internet, I see them accept on face value everything they’re told without even getting a chance to read the regulations, I see them flocking to the protective embrace of the government because they’re scared of the big, bad, evil corporations, and I just can’t possibly contain my disgust. Enough of this stupidity already. It’s killing us. It’s destroying this country. Yes, I take that personally. I take it very personally.

Read this. Understand the issue. Understand what just happened. Share this or share something else that let’s people know what’s going on:

Click here to read (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-foolish-and-gullible-americans-net-neutrality-is-not-your-friend/).

h/t http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2015/02/27/friday-links-32/

[Cabal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

A good overview and history of the net neutrality issue and the subject of communication regulation in general, prior to this latest FCC ruling but very much related to it.

[AuH20]

Alex Jones just said that Mark Cuban was going to distribute an Alex Jones production a year ago and the White House supposedly threatened him.

Here it is:

http://youtu.be/o633B2YPse8?t=3m26s

[HVACTech]

I am not sure what I think about this, I am on a satellite dish, and, I ran over my data amount (again) towards the end of the month..

boom. I am back up to full speed..

so, I guess this means everyone gets unlimited data? :confused:

I would have missed the dancing spiders if my speed was still restricted.. :o

[Origanalist]

DH had me cancel NetFlix yesterday. I don't do fedbook but he's finally done with that "appalling spy machine." /Assange

Net Neutrality Vote In The FCC: You Lose America
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229877

So if I cancel Netflix we don't get Obamanet?

[PRB]

I am not sure what I think about this, I am on a satellite dish, and, I ran over my data amount (again) towards the end of the month..

boom. I am back up to full speed..

so, I guess this means everyone gets unlimited data? :confused:

I would have missed the dancing spiders if my speed was still restricted.. :o

http://funcorner.eu/wp-content/uploads/facebook-and-you1.jpg

[puppetmaster]

I don't think this has been posted in this thread yet:

Mark Cuban: Welcom to the "Department of the Internet"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469707-Mark-Cuban-Welcom-to-the-quot-Department-of-the-Internet-quot


They mess with the Boomers' teevee at their peril! Cuban should start a satellite company beaming the internets across the continent and run by an overseas company out of the fucking arm of the FCC.

[juleswin]

Nothing wrong with monopolies as long as nobody is forced to buy and use it.

and its not created by govt interference like regulation, subsidy, license etc etc

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I am not sure what I think about this, I am on a satellite dish, and, I ran over my data amount (again) towards the end of the month..

boom. I am back up to full speed..

so, I guess this means everyone gets unlimited data? :confused:

I would have missed the dancing spiders if my speed was still restricted.. :o


Would they have implemented this new regulation that quickly?

I guess what you might be saying is that people will get this immediate windfall, but pay in long run? I've seen that happen with other things. A variation was when Bush junior had that program where he just sent everybody a check and called it a tax rebate or some other euphemism.

[HVACTech]

Would they have implemented this new regulation that quickly?

I guess what you might be saying is that people will get this immediate windfall, but pay in long run? I've seen that happen with other things. A variation was when Bush junior had that program where he just sent everybody a check and called it a tax rebate or some other euphemism.

heck, I don't know.. it would have reset tonight anyhow. mebbe it is just my provider, I do not know. that is why I was asking about it.
if , indeed. EVERYONE gets unlimited data now.... that would be a big deal.
all of the plans would have to change.
that will not be a small issue if true.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

heck, I don't know.. it would have reset tonight anyhow. mebbe it is just my provider, I do not know. that is why I was asking about it.
if , indeed. EVERYONE gets unlimited data now.... that would be a big deal.
all of the plans would have to change.
that will not be a small issue if true.


I still don't understand this shit, but could it be that these companies are sucking up to their customers? Maybe they are anticipating something bad for their type of company, and are trying some PR?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules/24053057/



The five-member commission voted 3 to 2 to approve the proposal, as expected. Joining Wheeler in voting for his plan were Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly, the two Republicans on the commission, voted against it.

"We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind," Rosenworcel said.


Okay, this is what I figured. A bunch of "poor" people and their slave masters whining because they don't have good entertainment. The big cheese just bought more of their votes. The rest just sold their freedom for material possession.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is a regulation that a very very large segment of the population was very actively pushing.

How are you in a position to "remind" everyone about this? I doubt if "a very very large segment of the population" was even aware of this, let alone understand it.




It's hard to consider this to be some big government takeover conspiracy when so many people were pressuring the government to do it.


The person that you quoted in your reply did not hint at anything conspiratorial. You just made that up. If fact, I don't hear anybody talking that way except you.




From where I'm standing, it appears to be an example of rampant paranoia and fear mongering

And where exactly do you stand? It seems that a very very large segment of your posts are posts like these. You remind me of a few other dubious characters on this board. The ones who have no interest in liberty but pretend that they do.

[kpitcher]

Nothing wrong with charging more but there was a lack of competition in many regions due to state legislation. They could have simply tried to break up the regional monopolies as opposed to surrendering the ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET to the FCC.

They did back in 1996 with the telco reform act which was passed by Congress. Then under Bush, Powel's son was put in charge of the FCC. He used to be a lawyer for a phone company. The FCC changed things so there was no longer forced competition on the government mandated monopolies of the baby bells. Where was the outrage then?

If you follow the money in opensecrets all the big complaints about the FCC are coming from people taking money from Comcast, AT+T, etc.

One bright side of the FCC ruling are this opens the way for Google Fiber and other ISPs to put things on utility poles. Google said this in a letter to the FCC and that can't have been well received by the monopoly ISPs.

Also Verizon sued the FCC a few years ago for the FCC fining them for slowing down bittorrent. The courts sided with Verizon saying the Internet was not a classified as a utility so the FCC couldn't do a thing about it. http://torrentfreak.com/verizon-sues-fcc-to-overturn-net-neutrality-rules/

[PRB]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules/24053057/




Okay, this is what I figured. A bunch of "poor" people and their slave masters whining because they don't have good entertainment. The big cheese just bought more of their votes. The rest just sold their freedom for material possession.

How is that different than "poor" people and their slave masters complaining that ISPs sell their information ask for "pay for privacy"?

Osan here attempts to make a case for internet access being a right, somehow I'm the bad guy because I oppose government regulation on free market and support provider's rights to gouge prices on a commodity.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469071-Pay-for-privacy

[PRB]

How are you in a position to "remind" everyone about this? I doubt if "a very very large segment of the population" was even aware of this, let alone understand it.


No, the young population is fully aware of this, though what they want may not be freedom. Consumers look at a few things and those things only: PRICE, CHOICE, SERVICE. They'll ask for it, pay for it, beg for it, vote for bullies to steal for it. That's what it's about, entitlement minded consumers asking the government to protect their interests forgetting that corporations and providers are owned and operated by people who also have rights.

They don't need to "understand" it if they know what they want : cheap access, privacy, fast speeds, a saturated entertainment machine. They don't care what it takes or what it costs other people (or even themselves). If you don't believe me, look around and see how many people believe they have a right to have a smartphone and that they can't live without it, or their quality of life depends on it.

[PRB]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is a regulation that a very very large segment of the population was very actively pushing.

It's hard to consider this to be some big government takeover conspiracy when so many people were pressuring the government to do it.

You are correct, it's not a sneaky conspiracy by a small group of top down tyrants against consumers and peasants, it's the result of consumers and liberals feeling entitled to net neutrality, so they harrassed the government to bully their providers. This is no different than Democrats wanting Obamacare or other free shit. Selfish consumers and Democrats want government, and they want lower prices, so they ask government to give them lower prices.

[pcosmar]

I am not sure what I think about this, I am on a satellite dish, and, I ran over my data amount (again) towards the end of the month..

boom. I am back up to full speed..

so, I guess this means everyone gets unlimited data? :confused:

I would have missed the dancing spiders if my speed was still restricted.. :o

mine comes over the copper wires of the phone lines that have been here since Ma Bell.

It has no restrictions,, other that the speed we pay for. They have several packages and we have the cheapest.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/4178104556.png

The ISP has more and faster options,,for a price.
Hell,,DSL was fine,, at half the speed. but they are phasing it out.

[Suzanimal]

Verizon issues statement in Morse code to protest net neutrality ruling


What does a big corporation do when it believes the government is imposing antiquated regulations? Issue a harsh statement. In morse code.

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved tough net neutrality regulations to oversee online traffic.

The new rules prohibit Internet service providers from discriminating against legal content flowing through their wired or wireless networks, such as by charging websites for faster delivery of video and other data to consumers. Verizon and rival AT&T have called the rules unnecessary and say they risk damaging the Internet economy.

On Verizon's policy blog Thursday, the company posted a statement it titled "FCC's 'Throwback Thursday' move imposes 1930s rules on the Internet."

Here's the full statement in all its old-timey glory:

- --- -.. .- -.-- .----. ... -.. . -.-. .. ... .. --- -. -... -.-- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. - --- . -. -.-. ..- -- -... . .-. -... .-. --- .- -.. -... .- -. -.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - ... . .-. ...- .. -.-. . ... .-- .. - .... -... .- -.. .-.. -.-- .- -. - .. --.- ..- .- - . -.. .-. . --. ..- .-.. .- - .. --- -. ... .. ... .- .-. .- -.. .. -.-. .- .-.. ... - . .--. - .... .- - .--. .-. . ... .- --. . ... .- - .. -- . --- ..-. ..- -. -.-. . .-. - .- .. -. - -.-- ..-. --- .-. -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... --..-- .. -. -. --- ...- .- - --- .-. ... .- -. -.. .. -. ...- . ... - --- .-. ... .-.-.- --- ...- . .-. - .... . .--. .- ... - - .-- --- -.. . -.-. .- -.. . ... .- -... .. .--. .- .-. - .. ... .- -. --..-- .-.. .. --. .... - -....- - --- ..- -.-. .... .--. --- .-.. .. -.-. -.-- .- .--. .--. .-. --- .- -.-. .... ..- -. .-.. . .- ... .... . -.. ..- -. .--. .-. . -.-. . -.. . -. - . -.. .. -. ...- . ... - -- . -. - .- -. -.. . -. .- -... .-.. . -.. - .... . -... .-. --- .- -.. -... .- -. -.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - .- --. . -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... -. --- .-- . -. .--- --- -.-- .-.-.- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. - --- -.. .- -.-- -.-. .... --- ... . - --- -.-. .... .- -. --. . - .... . .-- .- -.-- - .... . -.-. --- -- -- . .-. -.-. .. .- .-.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - .... .- ... --- .--. . .-. .- - . -.. ... .. -. -.-. . .. - ... -.-. .-. . .- - .. --- -. .-.-.- -.-. .... .- -. --. .. -. --. .- .--. .-.. .- - ..-. --- .-. -- - .... .- - .... .- ... -... . . -. ... --- ... ..- -.-. -.-. . ... ... ..-. ..- .-.. ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. -... . -.. --- -. . --..-- .. ..-. .- - .- .-.. .-.. --..-- --- -. .-.. -.-- .- ..-. - . .-. -.-. .- .-. . ..-. ..- .-.. .--. --- .-.. .. -.-. -.-- .- -. .- .-.. -.-- ... .. ... --..-- ..-. ..- .-.. .-.. - .-. .- -. ... .--. .- .-. . -. -.-. -.-- --..-- .- -. -.. -... -.-- - .... . .-.. . --. .. ... .-.. .- - ..- .-. . --..-- .-- .... .. -.-. .... .. ... -.-. --- -. ... - .. - ..- - .. --- -. .- .-.. .-.. -.-- -.-. .... .- .-. --. . -.. .-- .. - .... -.. . - . .-. -- .. -. .. -. --. .--. --- .-.. .. -.-. -.-- .-.-.- .- ... .- .-. . ... ..- .-.. - --..-- .. - .. ... .-.. .. -.- . .-.. -.-- - .... .- - .... .. ... - --- .-. -.-- .-- .. .-.. .-.. .--- ..- -.. --. . - --- -.. .- -.-- .----. ... .- -.-. - .. --- -. ... .- ... -- .. ... --. ..- .. -.. . -.. .-.-.- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. .----. ... -- --- ...- . .. ... . ... .--. . -.-. .. .- .-.. .-.. -.-- .-. . --. .-. . - - .- -... .-.. . -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . .. - .. ... .-- .... --- .-.. .-.. -.-- ..- -. -. . -.-. . ... ... .- .-. -.-- .-.-.- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. .... .- -.. - .- .-. --. . - . -.. - --- --- .-.. ... .- ...- .- .. .-.. .- -... .-.. . - --- .--. .-. . ... . .-. ...- . .- -. --- .--. . -. .. -. - . .-. -. . - --..-- -... ..- - .. -. ... - . .- -.. -.-. .... --- ... . - --- ..- ... . - .... .. ... --- .-. -.. . .-. .- ... .- -. . -..- -.-. ..- ... . - --- .- -.. --- .--. - ...-- ----- ----- -....- .--. .-.. ..- ... .--. .- --. . ... --- ..-. -... .-. --- .- -.. .- -. -.. --- .--. . -. -....- . -. -.. . -.. .-. . --. ..- .-.. .- - --- .-. -.-- .- .-. -.-. .- -. .- - .... .- - .-- .. .-.. .-.. .... .- ...- . ..- -. .. -. - . -. -.. . -.. -. . --. .- - .. ...- . -.-. --- -. ... . --.- ..- . -. -.-. . ... ..-. --- .-. -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... .- -. -.. ...- .- .-. .. --- ..- ... .--. .- .-. - ... --- ..-. - .... . .. -. - . .-. -. . - . -.-. --- ... -.-- ... - . -- ..-. --- .-. -.-- . .- .-. ... - --- -.-. --- -- . .-.-.- .-- .... .- - .... .- ... -... . . -. .- -. -.. .-- .. .-.. .-.. .-. . -- .- .. -. -.-. --- -. ... - .- -. - -... . ..-. --- .-. . --..-- -.. ..- .-. .. -. --. .- -. -.. .- ..-. - . .-. - .... . . -..- .. ... - . -. -.-. . --- ..-. .- -. -.-- .-. . --. ..- .-.. .- - .. --- -. ... .. ... ...- . .-. .. --.. --- -. .----. ... -.-. --- -- -- .. - -- . -. - - --- .- -. --- .--. . -. .. -. - . .-. -. . - - .... .- - .--. .-. --- ...- .. -.. . ... -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... .-- .. - .... -.-. --- -- .--. . - .. - .. ...- . -... .-. --- .- -.. -... .- -. -.. -.-. .... --- .. -.-. . ... .- -. -.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - .- -.-. -.-. . ... ... .-- .... . -. --..-- .-- .... . .-. . --..-- .- -. -.. .... --- .-- - .... . -.-- .-- .- -. - .-.-.-


Verizon also translated for the non-Morse-code-reading public:

“Today’s decision by the FCC to encumber broadband Internet services with badly antiquated regulations is a radical step that presages a time of uncertainty for consumers, innovators and investors. Over the past two decades a bipartisan, light- touch policy approach unleashed unprecedented investment and enabled the broadband Internet age consumers now enjoy.

“The FCC today chose to change the way the commercial Internet has operated since its creation. Changing a platform that has been so successful should be done, if at all, only after careful policy analysis, full transparency, and by the legislature, which is constitutionally charged with determining policy. As a result, it is likely that history will judge today’s actions as misguided.

“The FCC’s move is especially regrettable because it is wholly unnecessary. The FCC had targeted tools available to preserve an open Internet, but instead chose to use this order as an excuse to adopt 300- plus pages of broad and open- ended regulatory arcana that will have unintended negative consequences for consumers and various parts of the Internet ecosystem for years to come.

“What has been and will remain constant before, during and after the existence of any regulations is Verizon’s commitment to an open Internet that provides consumers with competitive broadband choices and Internet access when, where, and how they want.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/funnybusiness/chi-verizon-morse-code-net-neutrality-20150226-story.html#page=2

[nayjevin]

If I understand correctly, FCC now has regulatory power over any kind of Internet delivered in any way that might be invented in the future.

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-play-role-kim-dotcoms-uncensorable-internet/


How would you like a new Internet that can't be controlled, censored or destroyed by Governments or Corporations? I'm working on it #MegaNet (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MegaNet?src=hash) — Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 16, 2015 (https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/567429236953083905)

[Mach]

Gary North says.... no biggie.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/gary-north/stop-worrying/


Yes, things could be a little freer at the margin. This is always true. But in the overall sweep of Internet transformation, the FCC is a flea on an elephant’s back. Nothing fundamental is going to change.

Stop worrying. The FCC is a digital paper tiger. It can make things less efficient. It can increase marginal costs. But all talk about “the end of Internet freedom” is left over from the era of television’s three-network oligopoly. That was back when the FCC had teeth. It is Walter Cronkite-era rhetoric. It is gone with the wind.

[Cabal]

Gary North says.... no biggie.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/gary-north/stop-worrying/

Sure thing, Gary. :rolleyes:

http://imoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3-Die-Hard-quotes.gif

[Czolgosz]

completely predictable. keep voting.

[heavenlyboy34]

completely predictable. keep voting.

And vote harder!

[BV2]

Am I the only one that feels this is as odious as the patriot act of affordable care? Sometimes I feel like I am watching a chess game, but only one side knows the clock is running.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You are correct,...


So user Sam I Am is in your little group too? Learn something new every day. Thanks, PRB!

[anaconda]

Gary North says.... no biggie.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/gary-north/stop-worrying/

Gary North also said that Y2K could end western civilization as we know it.

[Mach]

Gary North also said that Y2K could end western civilization as we know it.

I hear yuh... he did make a good point that the Internet is worldwide overall and there are lots of hacks that can be used before the FCC can even call a meeting on the "problem."



But yes, they seem to want to lasso the industry and give regulatory hand outs to their friends.

[anaconda]

I hear yuh... he did make a good point that the Internet is worldwide overall and there are lots of hacks that can be used before the FCC can even call a meeting on the "problem."



But yes, they seem to want to lasso the industry and give regulatory hand outs to their friends.

Why hasn't Rand simply dropped a bill into the hopper that exempts the internet from the FCC?

[parocks]

Any of you actually know what you're talking about?

This was a FCC vote about the internet.

The First One EVER?!?!?

NO!

The FCC has been setting rules for the internet as long as there's been an internet. Well, at least 10+ years. There have been FCC rules and regulations.

They just tweaked the rules a little bit.

Unless you can explain how this version of the FCC rules is worse than the old version of the FCC rules, you're just bleating in an uninformed manner.

This may very well be fked up. But there ain't no one here who can explain why.

OH NO, the FCC is treating the internet using Title II instead of Title I. DOOM!

But no one here can explain the difference between Title II and Title I. Just waaaaaahhhh! For no reason at all. The FCC used to have rules against your cable internet provider blocking access to websites you like. I don't want my cable internet provider blocking or slowing anything down. But then there was court case that said - Oh, if the FCC wants to prohibit cable internet providers from slowing down, throttling, bandwidth between consumers and websites the cable co doesn't like - the FCC is going to have to treat the internet like a Title II, not a Title I. And they just voted to treat it like Title II.

Unless something I don't know about is happening. Anybody know what that might be? I didn't think so.

[Mach]

Why hasn't Rand simply dropped a bill into the hopper that exempts the internet from the FCC?



Dropping bills that make any waves won't be one of his... eh-hem... priorities.

I remember pro/con Rand Paul "arguments" around here years ago, there were the pro-politician do what you gotta doers and the no fake politician wayers, be straight like his dadders. I have to say, I've jumped around here and there, I like some of his stuff, but some things (FP) I hope he's just stroking, for now.

[Mach]

Any of you actually know what you're talking about?

This was a FCC vote about the internet.

The First One EVER?!?!?

NO!

The FCC has been setting rules for the internet as long as there's been an internet. Well, at least 10+ years. There have been FCC rules and regulations.

They just tweaked the rules a little bit.

Unless you can explain how this version of the FCC rules is worse than the old version of the FCC rules, you're just bleating in an uninformed manner.

This may very well be fked up. But there ain't no one here who can explain why.

OH NO, the FCC is treating the internet using Title II instead of Title I. DOOM!

But no one here can explain the difference between Title II and Title I. Just waaaaaahhhh! For no reason at all. The FCC used to have rules against your cable internet provider blocking access to websites you like. I don't want my cable internet provider blocking or slowing anything down. But then there was court case that said - Oh, if the FCC wants to prohibit cable internet providers from slowing down, throttling, bandwidth between consumers and websites the cable co doesn't like - the FCC is going to have to treat the internet like a Title II, not a Title I. And they just voted to treat it like Title II.

Unless something I don't know about is happening. Anybody know what that might be? I didn't think so.

Not knowing what it might be gives me even more of a reason to be very concerned.... a 332 page report they don't want you to see is, 332 reasons right there alone.

It didn't take all that to change Titles, sir.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWbd_Yk7knk

[Madison320]

Any of you actually know what you're talking about?

This was a FCC vote about the internet.

The First One EVER?!?!?

NO!

The FCC has been setting rules for the internet as long as there's been an internet. Well, at least 10+ years. There have been FCC rules and regulations.

They just tweaked the rules a little bit.




Of course they've been making rules ever since the internet was created. But not all rules are created equal. Supposedly this new rule does not allow ISPs to price discriminate. That seems like a pretty major rule change, but we'll see.

[twomp]

So the millennial boobs essentially sold the internet away for faster file sharing service and rural accessibility?

http://www.geocaching.failedthoughtapparatus.com/arghhh.png

Are you serious? Putting this on an age group? Let's talk about the people your age who sold the entire country out for shits and giggles?

[AuH20]

Are you serious? Putting this on an age group? Let's talk about the people your age who sold the entire country out for shits and giggles?

I'm gen x. The boomers are over there.

[twomp]

I'm gen x. The boomers are over there.

Oh that's much better. So we have Bush, clinton and obama to thank you for?

[helmuth_hubener]

Any of you actually know what you're talking about?

Yes.

[Cdn_for_liberty]

Tumblr CEO on net neutrality


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJT7njSYQ14

[parocks]

Not knowing what it might be gives me even more of a reason to be very concerned.... a 332 page report they don't want you to see is, 332 reasons right there alone.

It didn't take all that to change Titles, sir.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWbd_Yk7knk

Just try to come up with specifics as to what the actual problem is.

There are too many pages, therefore it's bad is the argument you're making?

FCC regs about the internet are long. What they aren't are new.

Please do not pretend that the FCC hasn't been regulating the internet for over a decade. They have been.

It's a complicated public policy matter. No regulation of the internet is not an option, and has never been an option.

What the argument is about are the specifics of the regulations.

I'm not saying that I'm aware of the specifics, but no one else is, and on balance, I generally agree with net neutrality. I don't want my ISP to be able to block my access to ronpaulforums.com.

[parocks]

Of course they've been making rules ever since the internet was created. But not all rules are created equal. Supposedly this new rule does not allow ISPs to price discriminate. That seems like a pretty major rule change, but we'll see.

Well, if you're talking about specifics - then specifics can be debated. Most of the people here are taking the position that the FCC hasn't been regulating the internet, and DOOM!. And it makes us all look like a bunch of idiots.

From a policy standpoint - it doesn't bother me if Comcast is restricted. Time Warner and Comcast should not be allowed to merge. We have a Sherman Anti-Trust Act from back before the Fed Gov was bought by monopoly banks (1913), and we should use it.

[parocks]

//

[AuH20]

doesn't sound good but we wait...

http://watchdog.org/203631/fcc-commissioners-regulations/

[BV2]

I've yet to run into a single person that knows what happened. This is the same FCC that fines radio stations for swearing? For fucking Netflix? Goddamnit it all to hell.

[PRB]

I've yet to run into a single person that knows what happened. This is the same FCC that fines radio stations for swearing? For fucking Netflix? Goddamnit it all to hell.

Doesn't matter : FCC is government and all government is bad. Who cares if it's the same people operating under the same name.

[PRB]

I don't want my ISP to be able to block my access to ronpaulforums.com.

You don't recognize that "your" ISP owes you nothing, has no obligation to provide you with anything other than what's agreed on, and the government has no business forcing them to allow you to do or don't anything.

ISPs are companies selling a service, they should be free to sell or not sell anything they like, you have no inherent right to access ronpaulforums.com, nor does ronpaulforums.com have any inherent right to reach everybody (if it were the case, advertising would never cost anybody any money).

You "agreeing" with net neutrality is your subtle way of saying you don't recognize that internet service is PRIVATE PROPERTY and there is NO RIGHT to have it. Sorry if you've never read the bill of rights, there's no mention of "thou shalt have internet access free and without hinder"

[acptulsa]

You don't recognize that "your" ISP owes you nothing, has no obligation to provide you with anything other than what's agreed on, and the government has no business forcing them to allow you to do or don't anything.

ISPs are companies selling a service, they should be free to sell or not sell anything they like, you have no inherent right to access ronpaulforums.com, nor does ronpaulforums.com have any inherent right to reach everybody (if it were the case, advertising would never cost anybody any money).

You "agreeing" with net neutrality is your subtle way of saying you don't recognize that internet service is PRIVATE PROPERTY and there is NO RIGHT to have it. Sorry if you've never read the bill of rights, there's no mention of "thou shalt have internet access free and without hinder"

The free market will sell you what you want. There will be someone to provide the service you want to buy, even if all the bigger players want to keep everyone off of here. Only the government can prevent you from accessing RPFs, and they can only do it through regulation.

How can anyone possibly be too dense to see this obvious fact?

[PRB]

The free market will sell you what you want. There will be someone to provide the service you want to buy, even if all the bigger players want to keep everyone off of here. Only the government can prevent you from accessing RPFs, and they can only do it through regulation.

How can anyone possibly be too dense to see this obvious fact?

Wrong, I can prevent my child from accessing RPFs, my local cafe can stop me from accessing RPFs if I'm on their property, sure, ULTIMATELY nobody can stop me, and FCC can't help that anyway. ISPs currently have the power and right to stop me from accessing any site they like, they're forced by the government to be hands off. Another aspect is CDA 230, an immunity that protects them from liability in event that people post objectionable content (such as preventing ISPs from being sued if somebody was posting politically or morally objectionable speech).

What part of what I said do you disagree or find factually wrong?

[acptulsa]

Wrong, I can prevent my child from accessing RPFs, my local cafe can stop me from accessing RPFs if I'm on their property, sure, ULTIMATELY nobody can stop me, and FCC can't help that anyway. ISPs currently have the power and right to stop me from accessing any site they like, they're forced by the government to be hands off. Another aspect is CDA 230, an immunity that protects them from liability in event that people post objectionable content (such as preventing ISPs from being sued if somebody was posting politically or morally objectionable speech).

What part of what I said do you disagree or find factually wrong?

Well, at least you were adult enough and honest enough to admit I was right.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

PRB. LOL.

[PRB]

Well, at least you were adult enough and honest enough to admit I was right.

What part did I say you're right? The fact I had to add the word 'ultimately'?

And what part am I wrong? I'm asking you again.

[parocks]

You don't recognize that "your" ISP owes you nothing, has no obligation to provide you with anything other than what's agreed on, and the government has no business forcing them to allow you to do or don't anything.

ISPs are companies selling a service, they should be free to sell or not sell anything they like, you have no inherent right to access ronpaulforums.com, nor does ronpaulforums.com have any inherent right to reach everybody (if it were the case, advertising would never cost anybody any money).

You "agreeing" with net neutrality is your subtle way of saying you don't recognize that internet service is PRIVATE PROPERTY and there is NO RIGHT to have it. Sorry if you've never read the bill of rights, there's no mention of "thou shalt have internet access free and without hinder"

I still don't want to have ronpaulforums.com blocked. Even if you have an argument. Cable lines run over PRIVATE PROPERTY, right? What if a person doesn't want that?

What if want to compete with Time Warner or Comcast? Can I string my own cable? NO.

Because cable companies have monopolies, there are rules. And because there are rules, because there aren't 10 different sets of cable, and there have to be rules, I have an interest in having the rules be to my liking.

If I want to string cable, I can't. If I want to use a part of the airwaves to transmit data, I can't. These resources are scarce, and the government rations them, because they have to. Because the government has to ration these scarce resources, there are rules, because there has to be rules, I want them to be good ones.

No more mergers, more competion. Use the Sherman Anti Trust act.

[PRB]

I still don't want to have ronpaulforums.com blocked.


I don't care what you WANT. You can say you don't want to pay for electricity and internet too, too bad, you have no RIGHT to it.



Even if you have an argument. Cable lines run over PRIVATE PROPERTY, right? What if a person doesn't want that?


What if WHO doesn't want WHAT?



What if want to compete with Time Warner or Comcast? Can I string my own cable? NO.


Yes, you may. There is no law preventing you from becoming a competitor.



Because cable companies have monopolies, there are rules. And because there are rules, because there aren't 10 different sets of cable, and there have to be rules, I have an interest in having the rules be to my liking.


You automatically assume that lack of competition is the result of govenrment force, rather than simply lack of demand or lack of desired parties to join the market.

You have an interest in government as long as it acts as YOUR bully?



If I want to string cable, I can't. If I want to use a part of the airwaves to transmit data, I can't. These resources are scarce, and the government rations them, because they have to. Because the government has to ration these scarce resources, there are rules, because there has to be rules, I want them to be good ones.

No more mergers, more competion. Use the Sherman Anti Trust act.

You can string cable, airwaves and bandwidth are another issue. You admit resources are scarce, that may in fact be an important reason why there isn't more competition.

Sherman anti-trust act is a govenrment violence against free market and capitalism. There is no right, natural, constitutional or otherwise, that protects a consumer from price gouging or being screwed by merchants. Merchants are people just like consumers, they have a right to collude with their friends to profit, because property means share only if you want to.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

PRB loves his big government.

[PRB]

PRB loves his big government.

Can you explain to the new readers why you say such a thing?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Can you explain to the new readers why you say such a thing?

LOL. Feigning innocence like a school girl. Man, you ARE the game player.

I invite anybody to read your posts to know the true you and your real reason for being here.

[PRB]

LOL. Feigning innocence like a school girl. Man, you ARE the game player.

I invite anybody to read your posts to know the true you and your real reason for being here.

don't you think they'd be calling me a liar and pointing out the proof you claim you see if they agreed with you?

No, they can't, I can't, because they don't exist. This is your game, saying something you know isn't true, being asked to prove it, and fail to.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

don't you think they'd be calling me a liar and pointing out the proof you claim you see if they agreed with you?



People have been calling you out for the past year.

[PRB]

People have been calling you out for the past year.

Cite an example please. Where did anybody post any evidence of me lying?

[Mr Tansill]

You don't recognize that "your" ISP owes you nothing, has no obligation to provide you with anything other than what's agreed on, and the government has no business forcing them to allow you to do or don't anything.

ISPs are companies selling a service, they should be free to sell or not sell anything they like, you have no inherent right to access ronpaulforums.com, nor does ronpaulforums.com have any inherent right to reach everybody (if it were the case, advertising would never cost anybody any money).

You "agreeing" with net neutrality is your subtle way of saying you don't recognize that internet service is PRIVATE PROPERTY and there is NO RIGHT to have it. Sorry if you've never read the bill of rights, there's no mention of "thou shalt have internet access free and without hinder"

That is true - they only own me the service they agreed to deliver for the price I paid them - which in nearly every established case is based on a data speed (i.e. 5MB/s, 10MB/s, etc.). As soon as ISPs block or throttle content, they are violating their contractual agreement. One way to look at this regulation is just an en masse enforcement of ISPs' contractual agreements with their customers.

I agree that they should be free to sell or not sell anything they like, and it's a good thing that they ARE!! No changes needed in this case!! As soon as that entity (ISP) must utilize public land and infrastructure to implement their business, however, they are immediately subject to the laws and principles established by this country. In this case, I'm referring to upholding their end of contractual bargains, as well as non-discrimination based on the content of data flowing through the lines - since none of the companies agreements currently indicate that certain content will be degraded or prohibited based on what it is. Again, no problem.

I don't think anyone is arguing that internet access is a right or that it should be free.

[PRB]

That is true - they only own me the service they agreed to deliver for the price I paid them - which in nearly every established case is based on a data speed (i.e. 5MB/s, 10MB/s, etc.). As soon as ISPs block or throttle content, they are violating their contractual agreement.

are you sure their contract says they won't do that?

[PRB]

I don't think anyone is arguing that internet access is a right or that it should be free.

anybody who thinks they agree with net neutrality, or doesn't believe ISPs have a right to gouge customers, believes internet access is a right, otherwise why would it be a problem?

[helmuth_hubener]

So, the document has been released today.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/15/03/12/no.surprises.title.ii.a.light.touch.debate.terms.b andied.about.defined.finally/


Title II, net neutrality 'Open Internet' FCC order published in full
6
updated 10:58 am EDT, Thu March 12, 2015


No surprises; Title II a light touch, debate terms bandied about defined finally

The US Federal Communications Commission has published its new Open Internet order, also known as net neutrality, in full. The document spells out specifically which aspects of the 80-year-old Title II concept will be applied to Internet Service Providers, as well as specifics of the net neutrality order.

Electronista is reading the document in full now, but highlights of the order include the mandate that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management." Not specifically addressed are interconnect rules, such as the peering arrangements between Netflix and ISPs, other than the FCC will intercede as it deems necessary following examination.

Notably, the document defines reasonable network management specifically. If connection throttling has a legitimate technical reason, then ISPs are still free to do so. However, business reasons, such as forcing consumers off unlimited data plans are specifically not allowed.

Major Title II provisions that are going to be applied to ISPs include enhanced investigation of consumer complaints, protections for consumer privacy, fair access to poles and conduits (currently mostly blocked), protections for the disabled, and an enhancement to the Universal Service Fund for underserved area expansion. Notably, the order "will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees -- there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied, and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband."

Check back later for more updates on the order.

Here it is:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/258500401/Full-FCC-Title-II-net-neutrality-proposal

[Mr Tansill]

are you sure their contract says they won't do that?

Yes, a necessary implication of their offer to grant you a certain data speed without mention or reference to any restrictions or caveats means that it is a binding part of their agreement.

[Mr Tansill]

anybody who thinks they agree with net neutrality, or doesn't believe ISPs have a right to gouge customers, believes internet access is a right, otherwise why would it be a problem?

No one is saying that ISPs don't have the right to gouge customers. IMO they can charge whatever price they want for their internet service. In fact, the newly released FCC rules specifically address the question of price controls: they have indicated there won't be any!

The problem comes in when companies restrict access to content outside agreements with customers. More problems arise because of the use of the public infrastructure in delivering their service. The government regulates airwaves because there are limits on the frequencies that can be transmitted on. The government also regulates internet service because there are limits on how many telephone poles and internet cables which can be run through your neighborhood. Both restrictions are totally reasonable in my view.

[devil21]

400 page full regulations on FCC site. Anybody wanna wade through that?

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

[PRB]

Yes, a necessary implication of their offer to grant you a certain data speed without mention or reference to any restrictions or caveats means that it is a binding part of their agreement.

Except there's always a disclaimer, which says they do not guarantee it'll work 100% of the time, and they may be interuption due to maintenance or for safety...etc. They're not stupid enough to sign away their right to throttle and ration, they just never had the opportunity to know what's a good time to do it, until recently.

Until legal online video streaming was the norm, it's highly unlikely anybody would be constantly taking up bandwidth, but now it's increasingly common, and certain patterns can predict what people use, when and why.

[PRB]

Both restrictions are totally reasonable in my view.

Here we have it, a guy who says government restrictions are reasonable. Yes, keep calling me the bad guy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yes, keep calling me the bad guy.

Except that Mr. Tansill is not lying about it. I can live with a minarchist.

You however, favor extensive government restrictions AND aren't truthful about.

That's the difference.

[Mr Tansill]

Except there's always a disclaimer, which says they do not guarantee it'll work 100% of the time, and they may be interuption due to maintenance or for safety...etc. They're not stupid enough to sign away their right to throttle and ration, they just never had the opportunity to know what's a good time to do it, until recently.

Until legal online video streaming was the norm, it's highly unlikely anybody would be constantly taking up bandwidth, but now it's increasingly common, and certain patterns can predict what people use, when and why.

Of course there are exceptions based on equipment outage, maintenance, safety, etc. No one is arguing against such a thing. What the argument is about is the ability of an ISP to restrict content, redirect web searches to their partners' sites, etc.

And yeah, since people are constantly taking up bandwidth, maybe it's high time to start charging much greater prices for a 20 MB/s connection speed...problem is that the ISPs would have no reasonable way to do so without charging much less for a 1 MB/s connection speed, which a LOT of people could get by with for $5/month...that's not good for business...

[Mr Tansill]

Here we have it, a guy who says government restrictions are reasonable. Yes, keep calling me the bad guy.

Two things:

1. In an ideal world, there would be no government restrictions, there would be no crime, and we could all live happily ever after. Infinite resources, rainbows, unicorns, etc. That is the world I would like too...

2. We don't live in that world. There are finite resources, finite access to certain markets - in the case of the internet market, it's limited because there are limitations on the amount of government or state-owned telephone lines, access to public land, etc - this real, enforced, lack of access comes with certain restrictions on the companies granted the privilege of getting to conduct their business on those lines: namely ISPs. I cannot feel bad for a company that has been given a market and then complains about not being able to push out other businesses.

So yeah, lots of people characterize this as government intrusion into the corporate world (which I am against); I see that argument, but think it's halfhearted. In light of the above however (and in all situations like that), I view it as the people not surrendering their freedom to corporate entities who aren't accountable to anything or anyone.

[CaptUSA]

I view it as the people not surrendering their freedom to corporate entities who aren't accountable to anything or anyone.

Ah yes, the old "Corporations run government so we need more government to regulate the corporations" shtick.


Listen... We are running on the same electricity technology that we've had for more than 100 years. And even now when better technology has been developed, the only way to get anything changed is to create a NEW regulation. Any guesses why it is that way? Because there were once people making the same exact arguments you are making here. The result is no innovation, guaranteed profits, and little to no competition. Oh, and extremely rich politicians and bureaucrats.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Cite an example please.

An example is Richard Nixon. He never admitted anything either.

[PRB]

An example is Richard Nixon. He never admitted anything either.

That's not my question. My question is where is an example of somebody calling me out with evidence. You keep claiming "every post I make" or "it's already been shown" but the fact is it's not been, or else you'd just post it. You'd just give me an answer like you gave me an answer on your wife in Manila, that's a good answer.

You KNOW what an answer looks like, you just can't answer certain questions. This is one of them.

[PRB]

Of course there are exceptions based on equipment outage, maintenance, safety, etc. No one is arguing against such a thing. What the argument is about is the ability of an ISP to restrict content, redirect web searches to their partners' sites, etc.

And yeah, since people are constantly taking up bandwidth, maybe it's high time to start charging much greater prices for a 20 MB/s connection speed...problem is that the ISPs would have no reasonable way to do so without charging much less for a 1 MB/s connection speed, which a LOT of people could get by with for $5/month...that's not good for business...

that's the beauty, there's no law that forces them to "charge much less for 1MB", they can charge what they want, even if it's only $1 less than 20MBs. The fact there's 20x speed difference doesn't mean it has to be 20x cheaper. Because there's a big difference between 20MB and 1mb, but and even bigger difference between 1mb and none at all.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That's not my question. My question is where is an example of somebody calling me out with evidence. You keep claiming "every post I make" or "it's already been shown" but the fact is it's not been, or else you'd just post it.



This stuff is posted weekly for all to see. I've reposted it. I'm not going to repost this stuff every time you whine like a jailbird, yelling "I didn't do it!" The trial is over.

Hell, people can just look at this thread. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

[Mr Tansill]

that's the beauty, there's no law that forces them to "charge much less for 1MB", they can charge what they want, even if it's only $1 less than 20MBs. The fact there's 20x speed difference doesn't mean it has to be 20x cheaper. Because there's a big difference between 20MB and 1mb, but and even bigger difference between 1mb and none at all.

100% agree with you, and that is the way it is!

[PRB]

This stuff is posted weekly for all to see. I've reposted it. I'm not going to repost this stuff every time you whine like a jailbird, yelling "I didn't do it!" The trial is over.

Hell, people can just look at this thread. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

So when was the last time?

[AuH20]

Well, here she is, in all in her glory!

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So when was the last time?

I'll post it, and then you'll ask this exact same question one week from today.

[PRB]

I'll post it, and then you'll ask this exact same question one week from today.

I DO ask the same question, and I just might stop asking if you answered it instead of saying "I already did".

[PRB]

No one is saying that ISPs don't have the right to gouge customers. IMO they can charge whatever price they want for their internet service. In fact, the newly released FCC rules specifically address the question of price controls: they have indicated there won't be any!



So what then ARE the rules? that they can charge whatever they want BUT they can't restrict in forms of filter and throttle?

If so, isn't that a useless rule that can easily be loopholed?

I mean, couldn't they "reverse throttle" by saying the lowest price/speed gets everything unfiltered, but equally slow. If you want to use certain sites, you must either pay an outrageous high speed cost you'll never use, or pay extra for fast lanes on certain sites?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I DO ask the same question, and I just might stop asking if you answered it instead of saying "I already did".

I point to it, and the questions never end. If I point to a post, then you point to a sentence. If I would define the sentence, then you point to a word. If I define the word, then you would break down the syllables. I could discuss the syllables, but then you would question my knowledge of Latin and Greek etymology. I could talk about that, and you would repeat the process.

The evidence is in. A jury does not need to see the thief steal the purse to make a reasonable assumption about his guilt. Likewise, I don't need to see somebody hand you a check.

Save your internet scientist persona and molecular evidence pursuit.

[LibertyEagle]

The Constitution is worded and designed in such a way that it doesn't have to explicitly mention the FCC.

Bullshit. Heard of the enumerated powers?

[PRB]

I point to it, and the questions never end. If I point to a post, then you point to a sentence. If I would define the sentence, then you point to a word. If I define the word, then you would break down the syllables. I could discuss the syllables, but then you would question my knowledge of Latin and Greek etymology. I could talk about that, and you would repeat the process.


Please show me when this happened. No really, just SHOW ME WHEN IT HAPPENED. Stop making excuses, let ME make the excuses, wouldn't that make me look worse and you better? Why do you keep thinking saying "I did and I won't again because you'll play dumb and deny it" is an effective way to substitute answering?



]
The evidence is in. A jury does not need to see the thief steal the purse to make a reasonable assumption about his guilt. Likewise, I don't need to see somebody hand you a check.

Save your internet scientist persona and molecular evidence pursuit.

you rely on juries that will believe the accuser without evidence? you rely on a jury that'll believe an accuser who makes excuses not to present the evidence?

You claim I lied multiple times, you can't link ONE instance where I did. (your best example is me not talking about my guns)
You claim you presented evidence multiple times, you can answer that by either presenting evidence or point to the last time you did, but funny, EVERY TIME I ASK, YOU DODGE AND CLAIM YOU DID, THIS IS ALL YOU CAN DO.

[Mr Tansill]

So what then ARE the rules? that they can charge whatever they want BUT they can't restrict in forms of filter and throttle?

If so, isn't that a useless rule that can easily be loopholed?

I mean, couldn't they "reverse throttle" by saying the lowest price/speed gets everything unfiltered, but equally slow. If you want to use certain sites, you must either pay an outrageous high speed cost you'll never use, or pay extra for fast lanes on certain sites?

Yes, they can charge whatever they want - but they cannot restrict access to sites based on content.

I don't think so, but if you have a loophole in mind, go ahead and identify it.

I'm not sure what "reverse throttle" means. Yes, the lowest price gets everything unfiltered, all equally slowly. The higher price gets everything unfiltered, all equally quickly. I'm having a hard time seeing why you're confused about different sites still being part of fast lanes when that is what the regulation specifically prohibits. Do you know what NN means?

[heavenlyboy34]

Ah yes, the old "Corporations run government so we need more government to regulate the corporations" shtick.


Listen... We are running on the same electricity technology that we've had for more than 100 years. And even now when better technology has been developed, the only way to get anything changed is to create a NEW regulation. Any guesses why it is that way? Because there were once people making the same exact arguments you are making here. The result is no innovation, guaranteed profits, and little to no competition. Oh, and extremely rich politicians and bureaucrats.

This^^ also, public roads/highways. Our Masters' brilliant infrastructure is in massive decay less than a century after it was built. https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=crumbling+us+infrastructure&oq=crumbling+US+i&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39j0i8i30l5.5670.5670.0.91151.2.2.0 .0.0.0.358.465.0j1j0j1.2.0.msedr...0...1c..62.hp.. 1.1.106.0.6YjM9OKZgNc

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258

Even though his health-care website is still in need of dire repair, President Obama was in the port of New Orleans earlier this month talking about repairing a much bigger problem: the nation's aging highways (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100869938), bridges and ports. Saying that 1 in 9 bridges are structurally deficient and more than 40 percent of major highways are congested, Obama repeated his call for major infrastructure investment, but it's unclear how or if that will happen. Announced during his State of the Union speech (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100454924)in February, Obama's Fix-It-First program calls for $40 billion in spending on a backlog of urgent repairs and upgrades. That would follow $31 billion that went into infrastructure as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx). But those sums are dwarfed by the $3.6 trillion in investment the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) says is needed by 2020.
In its 2013 Report Card (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/browser-options/upgrade) for America's Infrastructure, released in March, the ASCE gave the nation a grade of D, with aviation, roads and transit getting D's; and ports and rail a C and C, respectively. The overall grade was a slight improvement from D in 2009, but the group emphasized in a report that "America's critical infrastructure—principally, its roads, bridges, drinking water systems, mass transit systems, schools, and systems for delivering energy—may soon fail to meet society's needs."
With its job-creation allure, infrastructure spending can command bipartisan support, but that doesn't necessarily mean new funding is readily forthcoming. Dating to the interstate construction of the 1950s, the Highway Trust Fund finances highway and mass-transit investment with an 18.4-cent excise tax (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258#) on gas and other fuels, but that hasn't been raised in 20 years; due to inflation, the fund's purchasing power is only about 62 percent of what it was.
Picking up the tab
""States' efforts to compensate for inadequate federal financial transportation assistance (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258#) with other sources of capital have grown and multiplied." -Kenneth Orski, Transportation consultant "At this point, you have to buy (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258#) a tankful of gas for the federal tax (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258#) to add up to the equivalent of a latte at Starbucks. This is a major imposition on Americans," said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association, an NGO with an infrastructure-promotion arm called America 2050. "But people get it that unless we can increase the gas tax, there won't be a trust fund or investments in highways and public transport (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258#) in this country. And if it isn't the gas tax, then something else has to go up."
Calls for higher gas taxes (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101214258#) have been coming from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to former Transport Secretary Ray LaHood to a number of states that have raised or will raise local gas taxes. In April, however, a Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans would oppose a gas tax hike of up to 20 cents a gallon, even if the money were to go to improving roads and bridges and building more mass transit.
Resistance to raising the tax, along with lower revenues due to the fact that cars are becoming more fuel efficient and overall driving is decreasing, has left the fund in a state of chronic shortfall that requires emergency transfers from Congress—to the tune of $41 billion since 2008. The current bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/what-we-do/MAP-21/Map21.aspx)(MAP-21), is a two-year measure to September 2014. That deadline has generated headlines suggesting the fund will go broke by 2015. Will lawmakers come to the rescue again?
(Read more: Ditching the car: Dying suburbs revived by walking (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101096825))
"When MAP-21 expires, nothing will happen, because Congress will almost certainly pass an extension of the law. This is likely to be followed by numerous other extensions until a new multiyear law can be passed," said Joshua Schank, president of the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonprofit policy foundation.


Ads by AppEnableAd Options (http://luu.lightquartrate.com/sd/apps/adinfo-1.1-p/index.html?bj1BcHBFbmFibGUmaD1sdXUubGlnaHRxdWFydHJ hdGUuY29tJmM9Z3JlZW4mbz13c2FyJmQ9JnQ9JmE9OTYxNiZzP TEwMDgmdz13d3cuY25iYy5jb20mb291PWh0dHA6Ly9kY2oucmV iZWxzb2Z0aWp1YW5hLmNvbS9vcHRfb3V0LzMmYj1iZDImcmQ9J nJpPQ==)

Learn About Tableau (http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/about-tableau-products?ref=http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/BadBridgesStoryFINAL/DeficientBridgesintheU_S_)







Long-term debt http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2013/11/20/101214323-169938960.530x298.jpg?v=1384961511 James S. Russell | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The Tappan Zee bridge, which links Rockland and Westchester County in New York. The State of New York plans to replace the three-mile 1955 span because it is jammed with traffic and expensive to maintain

A raft of alternative funding proposals for infrastructure from various groups includes everything from more tolls, gasoline sales taxes or a fee on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which would ensure revenue regardless of fuel efficiency. VMT fees would be calculated through black boxes in cars that track distance, and the proposal has gotten traction in states such as Oregon, California, and Nevada but faces opposition from privacy advocates. While states and cities experiment with GPS and non-GPS VMT boxes, infrastructure still needs solid funding solutions.
"The only way we are going to improve our infrastructure grade is if we make better investment and operational decisions with the funds we have," said Schank. "While it is important to have more money because the needs are so great, there is also no doubt that we spend too much of our existing funds on shiny new projects in places with insufficient demand and not enough on maintaining and improving what we have in the places with some of the greatest need."
Even if patchwork funding continues amid congressional dithering, some states are taking more transportation infrastructure into their own hands by financing it with long-term debt. For instance, New York is replacing the overcapacity 1955 Tappan Zee Bridge spanning the Hudson River with a 100-year, $4 billion New NY Bridge (http://www.newnybridge.com/about/why-needed.html) structure that will be paid for with $2.4 billion in debt issued by the New York Thruway Authority, as well as a $1.6 billion federal loan. Construction is expected to be complete in 2018.
"States' efforts to compensate for inadequate federal financial transportation assistance with other sources of capital have grown and multiplied," said Kenneth Orski, a transportation consultant who served in the precursor to the Federal Transit Administration. "In the longer run, greater state fiscal autonomy and financial sophistication could modify the federal-state relationship in transportation in a permanent way. There would be less need for direct federal financial aid to state DOTs and more emphasis on credit assistance to support transportation investments of truly national scope and significance."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[Translation: I didn't do it, man!]

You already got caught. I posted the evidence. I'm not posting evidence every week because you demand it. It's over.

Evidence is not just an employer sending money through Paypal. It does not matter anyway because you just acknowledged (again) that you're on this forum to try to belittle people. I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism.

[PRB]

Yes, they can charge whatever they want - but they cannot restrict access to sites based on content.

I don't think so, but if you have a loophole in mind, go ahead and identify it.

I'm not sure what "reverse throttle" means. Yes, the lowest price gets everything unfiltered, all equally slowly. The higher price gets everything unfiltered, all equally quickly. I'm having a hard time seeing why you're confused about different sites still being part of fast lanes when that is what the regulation specifically prohibits. Do you know what NN means?

I didn't read that part, now I know the answer. No throttle means no throttle. Sorry about that.

The only possible way to restrict usage would be by actual data downloaded, and not speed. Meaning, if you download or stream a movie, you can do it as fast as you like, but you pay for each time you do, and when you do, you've used up more data than the guy who only reads blogs a million times.

[PRB]

You already got caught. I posted the evidence. I'm not posting evidence every week because you demand it. It's over.

Evidence is not just an employer sending money through Paypal. It does not matter anyway because you just acknowledged (again) that you're on this forum to try to belittle people. I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism.

You don't need to post it again, you can just point to the time that you did.

You know what's funny? You have no problem repeating the answer "I already did" where you can just as easily post the answer.

"Evidence is not just an employer sending money through Paypal." What does that have to do with me?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism.




You don't need to post it again, you can just point to the time that you did.





Just now. March 15, 2015. 12:25am.










.

[PRB]

Just now. March 15, 2015. 12:25am.

"I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism."

You mean this?

Is this what I've been ignoring and missing each time? you simply saying you pointed out evidence?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You mean this?

Is this what I've been ignoring...


You've been ignoring everything, not just this single item.

You asked for evidence and I posted it. People can view the evidence and judge for themselves if you're lying.

[Mr Tansill]

I didn't read that part, now I know the answer. No throttle means no throttle. Sorry about that.

The only possible way to restrict usage would be by actual data downloaded, and not speed. Meaning, if you download or stream a movie, you can do it as fast as you like, but you pay for each time you do, and when you do, you've used up more data than the guy who only reads blogs a million times.

Cool.

Having a constant speed, but charging for the amount of data, is I'm certain a workable business model - in fact, it's very similar to what a lot of the phone companies do.

[PRB]

Cool.

Having a constant speed, but charging for the amount of data, is I'm certain a workable business model - in fact, it's very similar to what a lot of the phone companies do.

it was basically how cellphone plans start, and how AOL discs used to be. Until the had a concept of how much people actually use.

There was a time when it was hard to see how much people use, now it's not too hard, so setting plans this way, if legal, might just be the next thing.

[PRB]

You've been ignoring everything, not just this single item.

You asked for evidence and I posted it. People can view the evidence and judge for themselves if you're lying.

So let me get this straight, your evidence is "You already got caught. I posted the evidence. I'm not posting evidence every week because you demand it. It's over. "???

Evidence is not just an employer sending money through Paypal.
What is this??

It does not matter anyway because you just acknowledged (again) that you're on this forum to try to belittle people. I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism.

I admitted I belittle people, with certain criteria, that's not evidence I am not a libertarian, or that I'm a liberal. But I appreciate that you're grasping at straws in desperation, any answer is better than none at all.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... that's not evidence I am not a libertarian, or that I'm a liberal.

No, of course, YOU don't consider that evidence of your misdeeds. You are the subject of the evidence.

You can no longer however, say I did not post evidence of lying. You will disagree with the veracity, but I say this evidence (and other evidence I've posted) shows you're a perp.

People can make up their own mind about your deviancy.

[PRB]

No, of course, YOU don't consider that evidence of your misdeeds. You are the subject of the evidence.

You can no longer however, say I did not post evidence of lying. You will disagree with the veracity, but I say this evidence (and other evidence I've posted) shows you're a perp.

People can make up their own mind about your deviancy.

Can you explain how this is evidence of lying?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Can you explain how this is evidence of lying?


LOL. I knew that was coming. You say to post evidence and now you move the goalposts. And I'm now supposed to make this evidence acceptable to the perp himself.



Evidence definition: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I presented the facts of your statements about trying to belittle people here. I combine that with the your posts. You then claim you're liberty minded.

I conclude you're a deviant. Many others have told me the same in the 18 months you've been here, based on this and mounds of other evidence.

Of course, you will disagree with this. Others can reach their own conclusion.

[PRB]

LOL. I knew that was coming. You say to post evidence and now you move the goalposts.


No, you can't just post anything and think it'll count as evidence. If you consider something evidence, don't you expect to explain why it is?



And I'm now supposed to make this evidence acceptable to the perp himself.


At least try to.



Evidence definition: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I presented the facts of your statements about trying to belittle people here. I combine that with the your posts. You then claim you're liberty minded.


If you take statements without context, you'll get the wrong conclusions. I'd be lying if I said I would never ever belittle anybody, so I admitted that I do in certain cases. You want to blow it up to mean I belittle people as my primary or only purpose, that's not how it works, that's not what I said.

What person have I belittled that would contradict me being liberty minded?



I conclude you're a deviant. Many others have told me the same in the 18 months you've been here, based on this and mounds of other evidence.

Of course, you will disagree with this. Others can reach their own conclusion.

They're free to tell everybody in public, instead of just to you, they're also free to post evidence themselves, instead of relying on Mr "I already did it"

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, you can't just post anything and think it'll count as evidence.


The subject of my contention is your posting. Your posts would have to be evidence.

[PRB]

The subject of my contention is your posting. Your posts would have to be evidence.

so if my subject of contention is "NorthCarolinaLiberty is a child molester and his posts are evidence" then any posts you have are evidence just because I say they are???

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

so if my subject of contention is "NorthCarolinaLiberty is a child molester and his posts are evidence" then any posts you have are evidence just because I say they are???

You asked me to post evidence of your lying. I say that I supported my claim of your lying with your posting history.

Of course, you will disagree. Others can draw their own conclusion.

[PRB]

That is not just a subject of contention or evidence. You added an accusation based on your evidence.

Yes it is. I can play this game too.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yes it is. I can play this game too.

You asked me to post evidence of your lying. I say that I supported my claim of your lying with your posting history.

Of course, you will disagree. Others can draw their own conclusion.

Show me your evidence that I am a child molester.

[PRB]

You asked me to post evidence of your lying. I say that I supported my claim of your lying with your posting history.

Of course, you will disagree. Others can draw their own conclusion.

Show me your evidence that I am a child molester.

Every post you make is evidence, why should I have to explain to you why it is?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Every post you make is evidence, why should I have to explain to you why it is?

Don't support your claim. No skin off my nose.