The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

[Mach]

Gary North says.... no biggie.

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

Sure thing, Gary.

[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/g...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.

[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?

Are you serious? Putting this on an age group? Let's talk about the people your age who sold the entire country out for $#@!s 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 $#@!s 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

[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.

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-commi...s-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 $#@!ing 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 $#@!ing 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.