Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
FCC Approves 'Net Neutrality' Regulations

If you like what Obamacare has done to health care, you are going to love what the Federal Communications Commission is about to do to the internet.

The FCC voted by a slim 3-2 margin Thursday to pass new "net neutrality" regulations that give the federal government unprecedented control over how the internet is managed.

Just as Obamacare was supposed to make health care cheaper for all Americans, net neutrality is supposed to guarantee "free and open access to the internet," according to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Wheeler's new regulations essentially turn internet service providers into public utilities the same way Obamacare turned health insurance companies into heavily regulated wards of the state. And just as Obamacare has expanded paper health coverage to millions of Americans, while making it much harder for most people to actually see a doctor, net neutrality will also bring uncertainty and stagnation to the internet in the name of providing equal access to all.

Technology entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban recently explained his opposition to net neutrality regulations to The Washington Post:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ... Things have worked well. There is no better platform in the world to start a new business than the Internet in the United States. ... I want there to be fast lanes because there will be applications that need fast lanes. We are just now entering a period where we are seeing new ways to create and use high bitrate applications.

People like to use movies and TV shows as a reference to issues that could occur on the Internet. [But] the real issue is that there will be many applications that we can't foresee today. [And] we need those applications to not just have priority, but guaranteed quality of service.

I want certain medical apps that need the Internet to be able to get the bandwidth they need. There will be apps that doctors will carry on 5G networks that allow them to get live video from accident scenes and provide guidance. There will be machine vision apps that usage huge amounts of bandwidth. I want them to have fast lanes.
You can read the Mercatus Centers' 5 Myths About Net Neutrality here and The Heritage Foundation's 8 Myths About Net Neutrality here.

Also like Obamacare, the FCC is expected to be sued almost immediately, causing uncertainty in the industry for years. Already in 2014, a federal court struck down a 2010 FCC regulation on this same issue.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-regulations-n1962931
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
They found one little tiny niche that the government wasn't taxing and decided to grab onto it while King Obama was still there. Don't believe their lie that this is to protect the little guy. This is to gain control, and you can bank on it, there is a 100% chance they will eventually tax you every month for the privilege of having internet access.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
Internet service is already taxed. Yes, cable packaging, which no one seems to like, is a popular example. I guess consumer demand doesn't actually sway companies. Cuban is right, it ain't broke, so why does he agree with changing it? These rules work to keep it how it is. I'm interested to see what it all says. And he's also wrong about other applications:

"Wheeler's proposal reclassifies ISPs, including wireless data providers, as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations that ensure all consumers get fair access to their services. ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, though they can set aside fast lanes for some exceptions, including public services, like remote heart monitoring."


Maybe for once you guys can refrain from defaulting to people making stupid Obamacare comparisons and scorched earth government takeover BS and wait for the actual rules to come out, read them, and make your own opinions based on things other than scare tactics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Internet service is already taxed. Yes, cable packaging, which no one seems to like, is a popular example. I guess consumer demand doesn't actually sway companies. Cuban is right, it ain't broke, so why does he agree with changing it? These rules work to keep it how it is. I'm interested to see what it all says. And he's also wrong about other applications:

"Wheeler's proposal reclassifies ISPs, including wireless data providers, as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations that ensure all consumers get fair access to their services. ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, though they can set aside fast lanes for some exceptions, including public services, like remote heart monitoring."


Maybe for once you guys can refrain from defaulting to people making stupid Obamacare comparisons and scorched earth government takeover BS and wait for the actual rules to come out, read them, and make your own opinions based on things other than scare tactics.
This has been debated for the past few years. There won't be any surprises. There never has been a problem with big guys vs. little guys when it comes to bandwidth. This is a power grab using a hypothetical problem as it's rationale. Here is the way I look at it. Ever since the internet started, we have been warned that bandwidth would run out. Internet brownouts were predicted 15 years ago. The new application of audio and video streaming was going to eat up all the bandwidth and there would be complete logjam with no one being able to do anything. Guess what? Engineers and technology kept increasing bandwith to stay ahead of demand. This will continue, and in the mean time what we and businesses can do and how we do it will be dictated by leftists. Why on earth are you OK with Washington apparatchiks running every nook and cranny of your life? And why do you trust their motives more than the people running the internet? One may want profit, but the other wants power. I trust the capitalist more than I trust the politician. At least I get somehing in return for what I give the capitalist.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,448 Posts
There's another part of this little preceding that isn't being discussed here. Companies like Netflix was lobbying against this bill because they wanted to be able to regulate a larger share of the Internet while bumping regular users like everyone reading this to a slower back road. Had this gone through, you and I would not have been able to access the super-dooper highway unless we paid big corporation prices. That would have lead to slower Internet service for Joe Blow.

Who wanted that? :down:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Netflix was lobbying for the bills passage -and reduced speeds will be left for the government to decide... rather then the free market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
They found one little tiny niche that the government wasn't taxing and decided to grab onto it while King Obama was still there. Don't believe their lie that this is to protect the little guy. This is to gain control, and you can bank on it, there is a 100% chance they will eventually tax you every month for the privilege of having internet access.
All of that will go away including Obama care when the next republican is in the White House in 2016. :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Maybe for once you guys can refrain from defaulting to people making stupid Obamacare comparisons and scorched earth government takeover BS and wait for the actual rules to come out, read them, and make your own opinions based on things other than scare tactics.
But -that stuff is actually happening. Hoping it won't this time, should be the thing we refrain from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
There's another part of this little preceding that isn't being discussed here. Companies like Netflix was lobbying against this bill because they wanted to be able to regulate a larger share of the Internet while bumping regular users like everyone reading this to a slower back road. Had this gone through, you and I would not have been able to access the super-dooper highway unless we paid big corporation prices. That would have lead to slower Internet service for Joe Blow.

Who wanted that? :down:
Good question. Left alone the alternative might not be what some think it would end up being.
This was going to happen sooner than later with all of the players involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
It seems like the some of you don't understand things.

Without net neutrality the providers could charge services like Netflix and Ebay and Amazon and the like to get faster speed than every one else. That would hurt the rest of the internet sites who couldn't afford to pay providers, and would also slow them down because high payers were getting all the bandwidth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,448 Posts
It seems like the some of you don't understand things.

Without net neutrality the providers could charge services like Netflix and Ebay and Amazon and the like to get faster speed than every one else. That would hurt the rest of the internet sites who couldn't afford to pay providers, and would also slow them down because high payers were getting all the bandwidth.
:agree:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
It seems like the some of you don't understand things.

Without net neutrality the providers could charge services like Netflix and Ebay and Amazon and the like to get faster speed than every one else. That would hurt the rest of the internet sites who couldn't afford to pay providers, and would also slow them down because high payers were getting all the bandwidth.
Brother -this is government overreach at it's best. One capitalist company complains that another capitalist company might cut in to it's profits by charging more for faster service to it's customers. The capitalist company that made the complaint -can choose to take their business and their dollars to another capitalistic ISP. This is not so when government takes over the choice for everyone. -And, that is exactly what it has done.

Government overreach at it's worse -would be to throttle back access to political dissenting sites and possibly effect political outcome. An administration such as this one -that fights for this sort of expanded power over free speech and free thinking... is what should be feared and fought against at all cost. And -it does not matter if you are a socialist pig like you -or a capitalist gluten like me... no government should ever control our speech or thought.

That -is what this administration seeks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,448 Posts
I just don't see it Preach. Now it would help if you didn't find fault in everything that this administration does so I don't know if you have a valid point or if you would feel differently if a republican administration was seated. You gave cried wolf so many times that I find it hard to run whenever you do it. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just wondering how you would have felt if this was a Romney proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #19

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,448 Posts
Preach, you don't have to apologize for anything. 99% if the **** we talk about in these threads is pretty much forgotten by me when I wake up the next day. You know how I am. I dedicate mist of my time to chasing pussy. I ain't got time to be mad. :laughing:
 
1 - 20 of 96 Posts
Top