|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!



Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,267
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 47 minutes
|
Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules
#13990073 - 02/19/11 01:38 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The ruiners of all things good and the party of less government wants more government/corporate control over the internet. Discuss.
Quote:
Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules Thu Feb 17, 4:06 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Republican members of the US Senate and House of Representatives are seeking to quash rules approved by US telecom regulators designed to ensure an open Internet.
The five-member Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a vote split on party lines, agreed in December to the rules aimed at safeguarding "network neutrality," the principle that lawful Web traffic should be treated equally.
Supporters have argued that the rules are needed to ensure an open Internet but opponents have decried them as unnecessary government intervention.
Republicans in the Senate and House formally introduced a matching "resolution of disapproval" on Wednesday seeking to reverse the rules.
House majority leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, said the resolution is intended to "debunk the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."
"From the Internet's inception we have taken a hands-off approach," added Representative Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon.
"The Internet did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until we turned it over to free enterprise," Walden said. "Changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy."
US carrier Verizon Communications filed a legal challenge to the FCC's rules last month, calling them an "assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself."
The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and the cable and telephone companies that are the US Internet service providers.
The FCC drafted the rules after suffering a legal setback in April when a court ruled that it had not been granted the authority by Congress to regulate the network management practices of Internet service providers.
link
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
Edited by Learyfan (02/19/11 01:49 PM)
|
setb
10th level beer nerd

Registered: 01/30/11
Posts: 2,580
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: Learyfan] 2
#13990206 - 02/19/11 02:08 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I fail to see how striking down so called "net neutrality" increases government control of the net. This net neutrality is an Orwellian named first step to government regulation of the net; so you should be happy .
Of course you aren't going to be happy because it doesn't really matter what "net neutrality" is; you just have a bias against anything republicans do. Which is clearly evendent by your contribution to this discussion:
Quote:
The ruiners (sic) of all things good and the party of less government wants more government/corporate control over the internet. Discuss.
Emphasis is mine.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: setb] 1
#13990908 - 02/19/11 04:38 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
setb said: Of course you aren't going to be happy because it doesn't really matter what "net neutrality" is; you just have a bias against anything republicans do. Which is clearly evendent by your contribution to this discussion:
Nice. For having been here such a short time, you nailed that one.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Vaped


Registered: 02/20/11
Posts: 12
Last seen: 13 years, 9 days
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#13997125 - 02/20/11 06:24 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Net neutrality simply means there are absolutely no restrictions of your internet service, regardless if they are set by ISPs or the government.
The very existence of a "net neutrality bill" is extremely ironic.
I've read the bill in my spare time, and the FCC is over-stepping a lot of their boundaries. The biggest change is that tiered-usage models are no longer legal (this applies to mobile communication devices as well). Currently AT&T and Verizon both have tiered-usage models. Verizon already is launching a lawsuit against the federal government. Personally, I believe the FCC has no place to be telling companies how to structure their pricing models.
In addition, if this bill passes, they will also be allowed to create an internet "Blacklist". Can't get any further from net neutrality than that.
Personally, I hate the repubs. But I'm glad to see them pushing this issue.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: Vaped] 1
#13997228 - 02/20/11 06:42 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vaped said:
I've read the bill in my spare time, and the FCC is over-stepping a lot of their boundaries. The biggest change is that tiered-usage models are no longer legal (this applies to mobile communication devices as well). Currently AT&T and Verizon both have tiered-usage models. Verizon already is launching a lawsuit against the federal government. Personally, I believe the FCC has no place to be telling companies how to structure their pricing models.

It never ceases to amaze me how libs champion government intervention as greater freedom.
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: Vaped]
#13998327 - 02/20/11 09:39 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Leary Fan,
Please back up your conclusions, specifically, this claim: "the party of less government wants more government/corporate control over the internet. "
Please explain how you've arrived at this conclusion. I am and have been against "net neutrality" for a while now, and while my stance seems somewhat unpopular, what I never understood is how people fanangle the discussion in such terms that "net neutrality" regulation is supposed to be a decrease in government censorship and regulation of the net.
I am pleased that it seems more people are questioning the "orweillian doublespeak" of this proposal- that's exactly what it is to the extent I've seen.
Remember: A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Quote:
Vaped said: Net neutrality simply means there are absolutely no restrictions of your internet service, regardless if they are set by ISPs or the government.
Source?
From a philosophical point of view, if I want to make a post on the internet, or give some information to my neighbors, there should be no say on the part of the government how and in what manner I do so. If I defraud or misrepresent services to the harm of others I can allready be sanctioned under common law. Inevitably when these "consumer protection" type regulations are rolled out, they actually diminish the powers available at common law and often reserve them for the government to enforce at its will.
Edited by johnm214 (02/20/11 11:12 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: johnm214]
#13998806 - 02/20/11 11:11 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
By the way, the present regulations that passed and were subjected to this defunding vote, seemed to create a pretty decent system- one I'd support if it were a private product or ISP's mission statement rather than government fiat that ignored constitutional rights of free expression and property. I was presently surprised they didn't have more nonsense in there about "illegal content"- but maybe that given the contreversial nature of the proposal, they didn't want to stir up the net neutrality proponents with overt refrences to censorship- as it is they meerly stated that the regulation would not supercede such measures.
I just don't see why we need or would benefit from the government deciding what information networks transmit or in what manner they do so. Basically, I have little faith that once this power becomes well-accepted that we won't see Australia-style definitions of "illegal content" being banned (i.e. content which is perfectly legal itself, unlike child pornography or pirated copyrighted works, but which describes actions which could be illegal somewhere, sometime, in some circumstances, such as the Shroomery's site or a US Patent on a methamphetamine synthesis method- the censors always seem to be ignorant that such content exists in government and academic works, lol.. always funny when they end up making the patent office a criminal entity, I believe Michigan did essentially this some years back with a "meth hysteria" bill) definitions won't start to come out of the woodwork. And hey, now that the data transferees don't have any first amendment rights to transmit the data, per the commission's calculus, what's the problem with deciding what the "good network traffic" is and banning the rest?
Hopefully the Commission's logic doesn't take hold in other circles and mean we can now be jailed for pamphleteering if we don't make our own pamplet designs, or having a bumper sticker critical of the government on our car that lacks any of the owner's editorial content. I guess its good that Google got out of China, the place where totalitarian web restrictions usually come from (though Australia seems quite eager to give them a run for the money in the censorship department), before this whole thing... Seems they could have faced some problems for the way they discriminated against the criminals in the chinese government and their version of the internet.
|
Vaped


Registered: 02/20/11
Posts: 12
Last seen: 13 years, 9 days
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: johnm214]
#14000768 - 02/21/11 11:33 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: Source?
I don't really have an "official" source, so let's break it down.
From Dictionary.com
Quote:
Definition of NEUTRALITY
: the quality or state of being neutral; especially : refusal to take part in a war between other powers
The state of being neutral. Not taking a side.
To me, that means everyone has access to the same information.
Let's make it very basic: Let's say person X purchases Internet access, and then person Y purchases Internet access. The two individuals should be able to connect to each other, with no restrictions. That's the entire basis of the Internet.
If they take that away, what do we have left? It would be nothing more than a watered down version of what we have now. Pretty much exactly like TV.
You're ultimately responsible for yourself on the Internet. That's what makes it great. Until people understand the concept of responsibility, and governing yourself, we sadly will continue to see bills like this.
Edited by Vaped (02/21/11 11:38 AM)
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 38 minutes
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: Vaped]
#14000841 - 02/21/11 11:47 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
this is what I think
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Vaped


Registered: 02/20/11
Posts: 12
Last seen: 13 years, 9 days
|
Re: Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules [Re: imachavel]
#14000862 - 02/21/11 11:50 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: this is what I think

If you enjoy coming to websites like this one, you should give a damn.
The Internet is the last free thing out there. All over the world, Internet access is already extremely limited and regulated.
I see the Internet as being one of the greatest inventions of all time, if not the greatest. To be able to share information almost instantly with someone on the other side of the world; nothing else even comes close to that. To me, this should be one of the things we protect the most.
The Internet has already shown how awesome it is. Without it, I'd never be able to cultivate mushrooms :P
These next ten years could have some extremely defining moments for humanity. We can either sit back and do nothing, or fight for what we believe in.
Edited by Vaped (02/21/11 11:56 AM)
|
|