'Net Neutrality'
- Thread starter pbm
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
The problem with the current bill is, it's secret. We don't know what's in there. Are they going to start charging licenses to produce content online? Will they start determining what types of content can and can't be put online? No one knows.
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
The problem with the current bill is, it's secret. We don't know what's in there. Are they going to start charging licenses to produce content online? Will they start determining what types of content can and can't be put online? No one knows.
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
Same here.
What's even more interesting is that the government pretty much caused the ISP monopoly in a lot of areas because they got involved when the infrastructure was being built and certain companies got the dibs on using the infrastructure over the others.
They caused the problem to begin with and they will certainly not fix it.
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
Same here.
What's even more interesting is that the government pretty much caused the ISP monopoly in a lot of areas because they got involved when the infrastructure was being built and certain companies got the dibs on using the infrastructure over the others.
They caused the problem to begin with and they will certainly not fix it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
Same here.
What's even more interesting is that the government pretty much caused the ISP monopoly in a lot of areas because they got involved when the infrastructure was being built and certain companies got the dibs on using the infrastructure over the others.
They caused the problem to begin with and they will certainly not fix it.
The power company "got dibs" on supplying power and are, correctly, regulated like a utility. The wise leaders 100 years ago decided a monopoly was ok if carefully regulated, and we have a PUC that does just that. Otherwise there'd be so much wire strung from competing companies it'd block out the sun.
Cable TV/ Internet has a long way to go before being hamstrung with onerous regulation like power and landline phones.
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
Same here.
What's even more interesting is that the government pretty much caused the ISP monopoly in a lot of areas because they got involved when the infrastructure was being built and certain companies got the dibs on using the infrastructure over the others.
They caused the problem to begin with and they will certainly not fix it.
The power company "got dibs" on supplying power and are, correctly, regulated like a utility. The wise leaders 100 years ago decided a monopoly was ok if carefully regulated, and we have a PUC that does just that. Otherwise there'd be so much wire strung from competing companies it'd block out the sun.
Cable TV/ Internet has a long way to go before being hamstrung with onerous regulation like power and landline phones.
Rulemaking before the FCC heretofore has been in the form of a petition for a rulemaking, with a period of time for public comment to be made and placed in the administrative record, before any decision is made.
It doesn't take 300+ pages of regulation to accomplish the stated goal of net neutrality, which is likely disinformation or outright misinformation. This could be done in a dozen pages or so, including any definitions that may be necessary.
It also certainly doesn't have to be done in secret. Of course, anyone with a lick of sense knows it is secret only from the plebes - the special interests will be all on board and will have largely written this behemoth.
When Obamacare came along, it wasn't the evil insurance companies that got screwed, it was the little guy. How anyone can think this is anything other than an enormous power grab at the expense of freedom and the little guy is quite beyond me.
So the internet will be regulated like power companies and landline phones. How very reassuring. The power grid is inadequate for modern needs and unable to meet capacity in many places. It is subject to hack attacks and other disruptions, natural and adversarial. It can't even handle a handful of electric cars for crying out loud. There has been no technology improvement in land line phones in decades - why should anyone invest money in doing so - the internet offered more opportunity and return on investment than an overregulated model based on twisted pairs.
Oh, well. I still have my ham radios.
edit: with respect to the power grid, look at how incredibly difficult modern "regulation" has made it to bring new sources of power online, or even keep disfavored sources of power online. Regulation of the internet will protect some of what is there now, that which finds favor with the regulators, and block or obstruct everything else. New capacity will be non existent - why would the established companies want the competition, and the regulators will make sure they don't have it - all while being guaranteed a profit, as all regulated utilities are.
It doesn't take 300+ pages of regulation to accomplish the stated goal of net neutrality, which is likely disinformation or outright misinformation. This could be done in a dozen pages or so, including any definitions that may be necessary.
It also certainly doesn't have to be done in secret. Of course, anyone with a lick of sense knows it is secret only from the plebes - the special interests will be all on board and will have largely written this behemoth.
When Obamacare came along, it wasn't the evil insurance companies that got screwed, it was the little guy. How anyone can think this is anything other than an enormous power grab at the expense of freedom and the little guy is quite beyond me.
So the internet will be regulated like power companies and landline phones. How very reassuring. The power grid is inadequate for modern needs and unable to meet capacity in many places. It is subject to hack attacks and other disruptions, natural and adversarial. It can't even handle a handful of electric cars for crying out loud. There has been no technology improvement in land line phones in decades - why should anyone invest money in doing so - the internet offered more opportunity and return on investment than an overregulated model based on twisted pairs.
Oh, well. I still have my ham radios.
edit: with respect to the power grid, look at how incredibly difficult modern "regulation" has made it to bring new sources of power online, or even keep disfavored sources of power online. Regulation of the internet will protect some of what is there now, that which finds favor with the regulators, and block or obstruct everything else. New capacity will be non existent - why would the established companies want the competition, and the regulators will make sure they don't have it - all while being guaranteed a profit, as all regulated utilities are.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
Call me crazy but opposing unknown legislation makes a lot more sense than supporting unknown legislation.
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
Call me crazy but opposing unknown legislation makes a lot more sense than supporting unknown legislation.
Last edited:
Regardless if somebody is liberal or conservative I would not want to give any governmental agency or administration too much power. You have to be careful what you wish for.
And once laws have been disregarded and freedoms stomped underfoot, it is hard to go back. Somebody else with different agendas might be in power next, and they can take advantage of the reduced freedoms and destroyed laws also-for their own purposes.
We are always better off with as much freedom as possible. I don't want to march like a robotic automation in columns saluting any dear leader. I would rather be free.
And once laws have been disregarded and freedoms stomped underfoot, it is hard to go back. Somebody else with different agendas might be in power next, and they can take advantage of the reduced freedoms and destroyed laws also-for their own purposes.
We are always better off with as much freedom as possible. I don't want to march like a robotic automation in columns saluting any dear leader. I would rather be free.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
Call me crazy but opposing unknown legislation makes a lot more sense than supporting unknown legislation.
Bingo.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
Call me crazy but opposing unknown legislation makes a lot more sense than supporting unknown legislation.
Bingo.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
The problem with the current bill is, it's secret. We don't know what's in there. Are they going to start charging licenses to produce content online? Will they start determining what types of content can and can't be put online? No one knows.
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
You should oppose it as it stands now because it's done in secret. You want the most sweeping legislation/policy changes to how the free and open internet is governed, enacted in secret? I don't!
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: pbm
The more I read the more I OPPOSE this legislation.
The problem with the current bill is, it's secret. We don't know what's in there. Are they going to start charging licenses to produce content online? Will they start determining what types of content can and can't be put online? No one knows.
I'm confused, since we can't read the bill, is opposing the legislation based on reading 3rd party opinion pieces?
Am I to oppose it based on being informed or being uninformed?
You should oppose it as it stands now because it's done in secret. You want the most sweeping legislation/policy changes to how the free and open internet is governed, enacted in secret? I don't!
As expected, for better or worse, it's a done deal.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet
FCC seems very proud of the rule (s), based on their press release(s) and statements. Oddly, I couldn't find a link to the text of the actual rule.
It's still secret.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet
FCC seems very proud of the rule (s), based on their press release(s) and statements. Oddly, I couldn't find a link to the text of the actual rule.
It's still secret.
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
This is not a bill to pass, the FCC doesn't release it's rules until all panel commissioners submit comment. There are two Republican commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly who refuse to submit any comments - thus we don't get to see what is in it.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
No bill is being passed.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
No bill is being passed.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
No bill is being passed.
No kidding.
Again, you missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
No bill is being passed.
No kidding.
Again, you missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
No bill is being passed.
No kidding.
Again, you missed the point.
I'm responding to your post. What does
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
mean?
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
This is not a bill to pass
You missed the point.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
No bill is being passed.
No kidding.
Again, you missed the point.
I'm responding to your post. What does
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
mean?
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
Exactly no one got to vote on this it was just passed by a panel of political hacks.
300 pages and no one even knows whats in it.
Stupid bastar.s will never learn, you would think from the ACA catastrophe they would learn to read these things before shoving it down peoples throat for their own good.
That 300 pages could have anything imaginable in it.
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"
Exactly no one got to vote on this it was just passed by a panel of political hacks.
300 pages and no one even knows whats in it.
Stupid bastar.s will never learn, you would think from the ACA catastrophe they would learn to read these things before shoving it down peoples throat for their own good.
That 300 pages could have anything imaginable in it.
- Status
Similar threads
