Regulation of Internet

[jpeps]

A Victory for an Unfettered Internet

"Pursuing an expanded U.S. government role into the Internet's affairs foolishly plays into the hands of these pro-regulation regimes. At a minimum, new American rules provide them with political cover and the veneer of a rational argument to use for their own nefarious ends. Especially in light of current concerns about National Security Agency surveillance, it should be obvious that the problem of too much state interference with the Internet will not be cured by even more government meddling, either domestically or internationally. Now is a chance to turn back the tide of state encroachment."


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3402913926

[Flash]

Whoever wrote that is woefully behind the times. Some U.S. court (not the Supremes yet, AFAIK) just shot down Net Neutrality. We've been pwned; our ISPs and their corporate masters now own us, lock, stock and barrel! Without our knowledge or consent, they sell our personal information to anyone who will pay them for it. Forget about the government, the government is powerless in the face of these guys.

[jpeps]

Whoever wrote that is woefully behind the times. Some U.S. court (not the Supremes yet, AFAIK) just shot down Net Neutrality. We've been pwned; our ISPs and their corporate masters now own us, lock, stock and barrel! Without our knowledge or consent, they sell our personal information to anyone who will pay them for it. Forget about the government, the government is powerless in the face of these guys.

The author is a former commissioner for the FCC and probably has a fairly good idea about how the government could screw things up if given the opportunity. There are already plenty of antitrust regulations available without the need for more bureaucratic interference.

[Flash]

Net neutrality rules nixed by appeals court

Broadband companies will be able to charge tech giants more for fast connections needed to deliver services such as video after Verizon won a court showdown against the Federal Communications Commission.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. sent the rules back to the FCC. The FCC could rewrite the rules in a way that would pass a court test.

Net neutrality gets a kick in the teeth

[jpeps]

You don't want to give the FCC legislative power, which it doesn't have now.
Even if you did, it wouldn't stop carriers from charging more for fast broadband...in fact, new regulations would most likely result in higher rates...and that's a best case scenario. Leave it to the government to fix what ain't broken.

Brings to mind ObamaCare. So far, everyone's premiums have gone up, and many are being forced into HMO's. Our main hospital facility just announced it's cutting 358 jobs and shutting down it's skilled nursing facilities and infusion programs. Why? Well, now there's an influx of new patients with high deductibles that will never be paid. Many doctors are closing shop, because they can't handle all the new regulations along with cuts in fees. Thank you, government.

[Sky Aisling]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

[jpeps]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

How does turning over the internet to US government control affect you?
Feel protected now?

[Moose On The Loose]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

How does turning over the internet to US government control affect you?
Feel protected now?

Since the internet was a creation of the US government. I have always thought of it as controlled by the government. net neutrality was just the government forcing corporations to treat each other the same. Now corporations are free to favor themselves on the internet.

[gcmartin]

The Federal Communication Commission (A US Government Agency) did the right thing by NOT allowiing any ISP to interrogate your traffic for their own personal commerce reason. Thus, it stopped any individual Telco, Cable company, or rural ISP to "decide" whether your traffic was going to be allowed to pass thru the net. This ruling "leveled the playing field" and did NOT have any overt action on the part of internet service providers to make difficult other ISPs business flows.

This COURT ruling IS NOT A ruling against government, but a ruling against you the consumer.

The Internet started by the government. It was extended to academia, and late extended to the public as a vehicle for information flow. When the ISP got going, one ISP decided he was going to deny a user's traffic for one reason or another. Then another ISP did the same in retaliation, then another until the government stepped in with a position that NO ISP CAN STOP OR DERAIL user traffic for their own personal benefit.

Now, VERIZON has won on the basis that the world has moved from dial-up to other modes and the ruling should not apply anymore.

This decision is NOT a ruling against government. This is a ruling against YOU the consumer and small business ISPs, that the government was trying to protect.

In the US, now, those dildos that creates their laws have a new thing to argue about. WOW!

See which way they go as, now, there's new money on the table from Telcos and Cable ISPs with deep pockets.

[jpeps]

Since the internet was a creation of the US government. I have always thought of it as controlled by the government. net neutrality was just the government forcing corporations to treat each other the same. Now corporations are free to favor themselves on the internet.

From the original link:

The flat and dispersed architecture of the Internet defies centralized and top-down control: No government is capable of keeping up with the Web's warp-speed evolution. The nimble multi-stakeholder structure of Internet governance, which enjoyed broad bipartisan and international support during the Clinton and Bush administrations, has made the Internet the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

This is about increased regulations by the FCC, which is right in line with what Putin is proposing to dispose of an international agreement to leave the Internet unfettered. As we've seen with the NSA, government will assuredly use new regulations for its own political purposes.

As demonstrated by various comments by members of the FCC on providing broadband coverage lately, it's also clear that they are completely clueless. These aren't professionals, and their suggestions are at best amateurish.

[gcmartin]

I, for one, am opposed to the idea put forth by the author of that link you provide...respectfully. And, respectfully, @Moose On The Loose shares what many citizens found worthy in the original FCC ruling. "Equity and Fairness".

The article seem to bring a political undertone to task versus looking at the impact on the people versus corporate interest.

Verizon's request is "leave it to us and we will decide harmony for our use on the internet". Yeah, right!

[jpeps]

I, for one, am opposed to the idea put forth by the author of that link you provide

Yes, well there's nothing like first hand experience to separate juvenile speculation from reality.

[Moose On The Loose]

Since the internet was a creation of the US government. I have always thought of it as controlled by the government. net neutrality was just the government forcing corporations to treat each other the same. Now corporations are free to favor themselves on the internet.

From the original link:

The flat and dispersed architecture of the Internet defies centralized and top-down control: No government is capable of keeping up with the Web's warp-speed evolution. The nimble multi-stakeholder structure of Internet governance, which enjoyed broad bipartisan and international support during the Clinton and Bush administrations, has made the Internet the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

This is about increased regulations by the FCC, which is right in line with what Putin is proposing to dispose of an international agreement to leave the Internet unfettered. As we've seen with the NSA, government will assuredly use new regulations for its own political purposes.

No, this is really about maintaining the status quo. From the time of its start to now, the internet has been neutral. Corporations now want to make it no longer neutral. The FCC attempted to make a rule that said they were not allowed to do so and the court struck down the FCC's rule that was intended to preserve the status quo. Now the change to a non-neutral network is allowed.

As demonstrated by various comments by members of the FCC on providing broadband coverage lately, it's also clear that they are completely clueless. These aren't professionals, and their suggestions are at best amateurish.

Your characterization of them and as amateurish looks to me as bias on your part in favor of changing the internet to the non-neutral state. Is this what you desire?

[jpeps]

No, this is really about maintaining the status quo. From the time of its start to now, the internet has been neutral. Corporations now want to make it no longer neutral. The FCC attempted to make a rule that said they were not allowed to do so and the court struck down the FCC's rule that was intended to preserve the status quo. Now the change to a non-neutral network is allowed.

Personally, I'll place my bets on the marketplace vs government any day. I don't have any fears about not getting bandwidth in the future. If it is tiered, I'll opt for the cheapest package and be happy that people who watch netflix all day pay more. I also have no problem paying a little more for health insurance, so I can choose the best specialists with no deductible.

Willfully Ignores the Marketplace – The Internet’s success and growth came about mainly from deregulation of our communications networks, not more FDR-era regulation.  Consequently, vibrant, silo-busting competition proliferated. Ironically, as the market and technology shattered the industry’s agency-created silos, the FCC believed it remained immune to similar pressures.  In its eyes, the Commission stands above the “fatally flawed

[gcmartin]

... Personally, I'll place my bets on the marketplace vs government any day. ...

I'm sure that this is NOT going to impact your views about government and how you feel marketplace (which as @Moose points out is truly "Corporate") is somehow going to not try to seize upper hands in how they rule internet traffic for their own commerce benefit(s). Nor do I see how marketplace which started the fight before the FCC stepped in, will solve the problem as each company fights for increasing its control and its share of control of what you and I will pay for (either directly or indirectly).

If WE will step back just a little and look not at government but look at the problem recognizing that government is just a arbitration party to assist fairness, then we may see a different view of what was done and why it was so important to both you and I as citizens in our use and any business concerns we have on the internet.

Lastly, the Court system is not a "citizen' system....its a part of Government. Why the hatred, that is, if there is some?

This ruling is reasonably significant and citizens outcry should be raised by all of us who are aware of what this means. There is NOT one once of how Verizon proposed to improve things for the public. Its a selfish request on behalf of the BIG GUNs and they found a sympathetic ear. If you or I had requested the courts to overturn, we would have been laughed all the way back to the high-heavens that inspire our idea...BUT we are NOT one of the Largest ATT blocks of the world; therefore, they will get an ear.

Score: Verizon Wins....Public Loses!

Respectfully shared

[jpeps]

If WE will step back just a little and look not at government but look at the problem recognizing that government is just a arbitration party to assist fairness...

It's primary function is national self-defense. Right now the US is involved in special military operations in something like 138 countries..almost all of which are completely unknown to the public. The ones we know about are complete disasters, serving only to increase chaos and blowback..not to mention the deaths and displacement of millions of civilians. You can decide whether this state of perpetual war is the result of not being able to correctly think things through, or just a military-industrial complex making money for itself.

No business could survive if it ran as inefficiently as the government. If you think regulatory boards operate under "fairness," you've never dealt with one. You do exactly what they tell you, whether it makes sense or not. The bottom line is fees to the board, which get passed on to the customers.

[rokytnji]

just a military-industrial complex making money for itself.

No business could survive if it ran as inefficiently as the government

Personally, I'll place my bets on the marketplace vs government any day.

Yes, well there's nothing like first hand experience to separate juvenile speculation from reality.

I am a confused country boy. The military and govt. run like a private business which personally you favor as making the right decision but the govt is wrong because it runs like a private business. I be confused as hell.

I am not pro govt or pro corporation. Being a flaky dude from west texas watching free enterprise frack the hell out of the desert here. At least a few wind farms operate out here.

Confused Puppy user in West Texas.

[jpeps]

Confused Puppy user in West Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

[rokytnji]

Cronyism I am aware of back when I punched a time clock to get by.
I am pretty sure you see it also in your work environment.

I don't think Obama screwed up the health care bill without help from all the tea party guys that watered down the bill to begin with.

The rest of the world can support free health care but we act like retards.
Edit: Selfish Retards.

Same same for the net neutrality thing.

I may be a confused west Texas puppy user But I am not a Pt Barnum victim either.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_ ... ery_minute

[jpeps]

I don't think Obama screwed up the health care bill without help from all the tea party guys that watered down the bill to begin with.

I sure feel like a sucker on that one, since I was generally supportive..well, we obviously need to do something..let's go for it.

Latest of many examples. Client who seriously needs help and works for Xerox got his workable insurance plan cut, and now is as good as uninsured. He use to have a $30 copay..now he's got something like a $30,000 deductible..meaning he'd have to pay the entire bill out of pocket. Even after meeting the deductible, he has to pay 40%. It took me over an hour (no exaggeration) just to track down his plan. The phone number on the back of his card connected me to an automatic machine that asked for his ID, but couldn't understand the response and would hang up. I tried on several different phones, including a land line.

Persevering, I called some other numbers associated with his insurance company, and the only number associated with his ID (this was after getting a supervisor to assist me) was an incorrect one somewhere in Ohio. It took being on hold for about 20 minutes for them to answer and say they had no idea who serviced the plan.

I won't bore you with the rest, but even after getting a recording about his plan (one of the supervisors in Ohio was able to punch in the ID from her end) there was no way to determine if I am in or out of network. Basically, companies are dropping workable insurance plans and taking on new plans that they can afford. A few major companies are acting as umbrellas to a host of incompetent cheap carriers that don't even have real people to answer the phones.

I know a host of other people, like my dentist, who have completely lost their insurance plans. Basically, they're being forced into HMO's, where they can no longer see the doctors and specialists they've been seeing for years. Everyone's insurance premiums have gone up significantly, often with decreased service and high deductibles.

If you are a provider and someone comes to you with a high deductible, you can count on not being paid at least 50% of the time. Providers like hospitals are responding accordingly, laying off staff and closing down units.

We could go on and on about the expense of this disaster, the low enrollment of healthy young people that were being counted on to foot the bills, etc.

The rest of the world can support free health care but we act like retards.

Free health care doesn't exist..anywhere