Enter the Age of Censorship, FCC circumvents Congress to classify internet as Public Utility

[orogenicman]

So what you are saying is that the internet is not, nor should it be for anyone who wants it. That it should only be accessible by the elite. Got it.

That's not at all what I said. You're sounding just like Uncensored now. You're making things up.

I said that you have the choice to not buy it if you don't like the services you receive, or if you don't like the quality for the price. Buy or don't buy, it's your decision. Has nothing to do with elitism.

I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.

You don't speak for everyone else. There goes YOUR theory.

No, I speak for myself. I make my own decisions. Everyone else can make their own decisions. You are arguing from a position of wanting. I am arguing from a position of choosing. I assure you, taking action is always superior to wallowing in emotion.

You really should look around and see what the ISPs have been up to these days.

 

[SwimExpert]

I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.

People making their own purchasing decisions is elitism?

You really should look around and see what the ISPs have been up to these days.

That is way too broad of a statement, and is largely irrelevant.

Look, do you want internet or not? Are you willing to pay $X for the quality of service that is provided by your ISP?

Why can't you take responsibility for your own purchasing decisions?

 

[SwimExpert]

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

I wonder....do you tell such blatant bullshit lies because you're that audacious, or because you're that stupid?

I simply note the facts, dumbass. I lived in Denver when the city council granted a monopoly to one of the cable providers. The cable companies were falling all over each other attempting to bribe the council members. One cable company actually publicly offered to give each council member a certain number of shares of company stock. They had a press conference to announce they were offering to bribe the city council!

That's how your local cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Uh, no, that's how your cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Except, wait a second.....This just in, it's not a local monopoly. A quick google search produces different companies who both offer cable TV services in Denver.

Moving to Denver Colorado Allconnect

Cable Denver - Cable TV Internet Phone Providers Denver CO

On top of that DirectTV and Dish Network both offer satellite service in Denver.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft. The ISPs make out like they do not have the capacity to handle high bandwidth sites and want to charge them more but that's total bullshit, they really want the ability to throttle competing sites out of existence or to block them from their servers altogether.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

To make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.

Since the ISP market is not illegal nor a black market, your claim was silly.

 

[bripat9643]

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.?

50 years of mandated monopoly to AT&T.

Erm, mandated? And I suppose the antitrust lawsuit ATT lost has no bearing whatsoever on your silly claim?

Not at all. What government created, government can destroy.

Right. It's all a government run conspiracy. Got it.

Who said it was a conspiracy? It's right out in the open. You simply refuse to look at the facts.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

I wonder....do you tell such blatant bullshit lies because you're that audacious, or because you're that stupid?

I simply note the facts, dumbass. I lived in Denver when the city council granted a monopoly to one of the cable providers. The cable companies were falling all over each other attempting to bribe the council members. One cable company actually publicly offered to give each council member a certain number of shares of company stock. They had a press conference to announce they were offering to bribe the city council!

That's how your local cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Uh, no, that's how your cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Except, wait a second.....This just in, it's not a local monopoly. A quick google search produces different companies who both offer cable TV services in Denver.

Moving to Denver Colorado Allconnect

Cable Denver - Cable TV Internet Phone Providers Denver CO

On top of that DirectTV and Dish Network both offer satellite service in Denver.

That may be the case now, but it wasn't the case in 1980 when they first offered cable in the city.

 

[orogenicman]

I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.

People making their own purchasing decisions is elitism?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. You seem to think, based on what you've said here, that if people aren't happy with their internet service, that that is just tough shit, and they can just opt out instead of complaining about it. So yes, that is an elitist position if ever there was one.

 

[occupied]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft. The ISPs make out like they do not have the capacity to handle high bandwidth sites and want to charge them more but that's total bullshit, they really want the ability to throttle competing sites out of existence or to block them from their servers altogether.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage?

There isn't one, the ISPs were lying about not being able to keep up with demand for Netflix. They just saw an opportunity to treat bandwidth like a precious commodity and make a mint, they just had to get the pesky government out of the way.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So the internet wasn't under this ruling until the other day and now it is being treated just like the following:

"Until the 1980s in the United States, the term "telephone company" was synonymous with American Telephone & Telegraph. AT&T controlled nearly all aspects of the telephone business. Its regional subsidiaries, known as "Baby Bells," were regulated monopolies, holding exclusive rights to operate in specific areas. The Federal Communications Commission regulated rates on long-distance calls between states, while state regulators had to approve rates for local and in-state long-distance calls.

Government regulation was justified on the theory that telephone companies, like electric utilities, were natural monopolies. Competition, which was assumed to require stringing multiple wires across the countryside, was seen as wasteful and inefficient. That thinking changed beginning around the 1970s, as sweeping technological developments promised rapid advances in telecommunications. Independent companies asserted that they could, indeed, compete with AT&T. But they said the telephone monopoly effectively shut them out by refusing to allow them to interconnect with its massive network."

Deregulating Telecommunications

(more at link)


If this rule is so good, why did the FCC deregulate AT&T?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is very odd that liberals, who pride themselves on being against censorship and who use the Internet as much as others do, are just blindly backing the government takeover of the Internet. They don't want NSA merely checking the identity of the sender and recipient of e-mails and phone calls that are to/from overseas, but they don't mind if the government takes over the Internet. Very odd.

I really thought that on this one issue, given that it's about the Internet, that most liberals, or at least many liberals, would break ranks with Obama. But, so far, only a few liberals have done so. Most are still blindly supporting the takeover. I'm guessing that most of them don't know the details of the "Net Neutrality" regulations passed by the FCC. They're trusting that the White House talking points on the takeover are accurate.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft. The ISPs make out like they do not have the capacity to handle high bandwidth sites and want to charge them more but that's total bullshit, they really want the ability to throttle competing sites out of existence or to block them from their servers altogether.

Profit made from an artificially created shortage is theft.

Where is the artificially created shortage?

There isn't one, the ISPs were lying about not being able to keep up with demand for Netflix. They just saw an opportunity to treat bandwidth like a precious commodity and make a mint, they just had to get the pesky government out of the way.

There isn't one,

Exactly. That's why the profiteering claim is moronic.

the ISPs were lying about not being able to keep up with demand for Netflix.

Streaming video by Netflix and others isn't an issue at times of peak demand?

They just saw an opportunity to treat bandwidth like a precious commodity and make a mint,

That's awful when you look at the lack of competition. Wait, what?

 

[SwimExpert]

I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.

People making their own purchasing decisions is elitism?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. You seem to think, based on what you've said here, that if people aren't happy with their internet service, that that is just tough shit, and they can just opt out instead of complaining about it. So yes, that is an elitist position if ever there was one.

So....are you saying they can't stop buying? That makes not sense.

The problem here is that you seem to think that complaining and whining on the internet is a meaningful action. And that your complaints and whining are adequate justification for governmental action. They're not. Just because you have complaints about the quality of your internet service does not justify the government's actions to preserve net neutrality. As I said before, even though in this case you are on the correct side of the issue, it's for all the wrong reasons. The rational reasons that justify government action are preserving a healthy market from the anti-competitive nature of service providers who are also content providers restricting content from their competitors and the potential harm of smaller businesses who may not be able to gain vital internet visibility if service providers were to decide to restrict them. The consumer concerns are the fact that consumers are having the service they've paid for arbitrarily withheld. That your service provider just sucks and you hate them is your problem, and nobody else's problem. You're a fucking idiot if you continue to dump money down a black hole for, in your words "shitty service" which you clearly hate.

The problem isn't that I'm being elitist. The problem is that you're being pathetic.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

I wonder....do you tell such blatant bullshit lies because you're that audacious, or because you're that stupid?

I simply note the facts, dumbass. I lived in Denver when the city council granted a monopoly to one of the cable providers. The cable companies were falling all over each other attempting to bribe the council members. One cable company actually publicly offered to give each council member a certain number of shares of company stock. They had a press conference to announce they were offering to bribe the city council!

That's how your local cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Uh, no, that's how your cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Except, wait a second.....This just in, it's not a local monopoly. A quick google search produces different companies who both offer cable TV services in Denver.

Moving to Denver Colorado Allconnect

Cable Denver - Cable TV Internet Phone Providers Denver CO

On top of that DirectTV and Dish Network both offer satellite service in Denver.

That may be the case now, but it wasn't the case in 1980 when they first offered cable in the city.

So you're making arguments about shit that happening 35 years ago? I knew that you were retarded, but I didn't realize you were that slow.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is not a solution, and isn't even needed. It is only a means to eliminate the competition while stiffing everyone else with ridiculously high fees. It's extortion, is what it is.

You are extremely ignorant and hold positions you don't understand because Soros tells you to hold them.

Without packet prioritization, the Internet fails - today. Technical issues that you have zero grasp of have been misrepresented and hyped by those with a political agenda. You of the left have lusted for control of the Internet for decades; using a campaign of fear, uncertainly, and doubt, the big government advocates have convince you the stupid that putting the Internet under the strict rule of the FCC will make it "free."

Yeah, you really are that stupid.

Realistically, it means that neither the government nor the American people are going to allow ISPs free reign on the internet to do as they please at everyone else's expense.

This doesn't affect ISP's, moron. This dictates network operations at the backbone level.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the prioritization is based on data type only and not the content provider itself....how then could companies like Comcast or Verizon offer the proposed 'super fast lane' for those content providers who are willing to pay extra?

Very easily.

Using a simple example.

I have 20 users, I plug them all in to a SOHO switch with a single uplink to my server.. I'm evil because George Soros says se, so I decide that I'm going fuck with a couple of users.

What do I do? How do I affect their connectivity if they are using anonymous DHCP for IP assignment? The answer is, nothing. I can't tell one data stream from another. I CAN identify content type in packets and block or lower the priority of certain packet types - but I still have no way of knowing what user is what.

One of the users complains, and I tell them I can ensure better service for a fee. How can I do that? Simply, I set up a separate switch with a dedicated uplink and bypass the collision domain of the public switch.

If a video packet from say, YouTube couldn't be distinguished from one from netflix....how then would 'superfast' access to available for netflix if it paid. Or denied youtube if it didn't

Youtube uses unique encoding, I can and do identify Youtube content - and block it outright.

Obviously companies like Comcast and Verison can distinguish one content source from another.

And prioritize accordingly. Meaning that you'd get far better speeds from a website that 'paid for priority' over one that didn't. Exactly as net neutrality advocates have claimed. With companies like Comcast and Verison proposing this 'super fast lane' concept .....for those willing to pay for it.

For those who don't....well, fuck em'.

Again, you are a leftist -ergo selfish and petulant. Do you demand the government do something so that those who pay more for a house don't get a better house than you?

You leftists are absurdly childish.

I don't want these companies choosing priorities for me. I want to make that decision myself. So if I want video packet data, I can get it. Regardless of whether or not my content provider is paying the middle man to keep from having their data 'deprioritized'.

You can get what you want - you simply have to pay for it.

Wait....so the reason that Comcast and Verizon propose their 'super fast lane' where they charge fees for priority to companies like Netflix and Youtube.....is to help hospitals?

It's to make a profit, just like helicopters fly to make a profit. Yet we grown ups recognize that the use of a helicopter to transport a patient saves lives and don't pout "no fair - I want free helicopter rides."

Give me a fucking break.

If there's a genuine issue of hospitals being unable to send data via their VPN connections, then regulating the internet as a utility can provide a simply and easy exemption. IF that issue comes up.

So, end the free Internet and place it under the government - but give hospitals an exemption because you fucked it up with your ignorant meddling?

I've got a better idea, don't fuck with something that has worked flawlessly for over 20 years that you don't have the slightest fucking clue how it works?

But as the 'fast lane' for Netflix demonstrates elegantly, this is clearly a pay to play system that has exactly dick to do with a hospital's VPN or public safety. As Netflix can BUY comparable priority to show episodes of Monster Garage....for the right price.

Which you've already admitted to right here;

So what?

I guarantee that your ISP charges you more for faster service. Why should Netflix be exempt? It's the way grown ups do things. Filet Mignon costs more than chicken nuggets.

Grow up.

So you just admitted to the very pay to play prioritization that Net Neutrality prevents.

And you insisted was a 'farce'. With how 'vital' a piece of information is being determined by price. Not 'public safety', or a Hospital's VPN connection.

Which is exactly what Net Neutrality advocates argue against. And exactly what you just admitted to.

You are exceptionally ignorant and lack any understanding at all of the situation. Netflix floods backbones. We either allow all users to suffer, limit the ability to flood - OR FUCKING CHARGE NETFLIX TO INCREASE INFRASTRUCTURE.

Option 3 is what grownups do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Erm, mandated? And I suppose the antitrust lawsuit ATT lost has no bearing whatsoever on your silly claim?

You can't really be this stupid.

Wait, you're a leftist - of course you can...

 

[Uncensored2008]

ISP's never charged more for tiers of bandwidth?

Did you think the FCC ruling changes that? Do you think the Netflix net neutrality proposals even mentioned ISP pricing?

ROFL; ignorant fool - useful idiot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh, no, that's how your cable company became a government protected monopoly.

Except, wait a second.....This just in, it's not a local monopoly. A quick google search produces different companies who both offer cable TV services in Denver.

Moving to Denver Colorado Allconnect

Cable Denver - Cable TV Internet Phone Providers Denver CO

On top of that DirectTV and Dish Network both offer satellite service in Denver.

Satellite for Internet, sploogy?

Do tell?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who said it was a conspiracy? It's right out in the open. You simply refuse to look at the facts.

My contempt for the willfully ignorant in this thread is growing. It's clear that most of these utter retards think this is about what they pay to their cable company. I wonder how these Soros retards would react if a large corporation suddenly put 10 million cars on their local freeway or highway? Would they demand "freeway neutrality" for the 10 million new cars clogging their highways? Or would they demand that this giant corporation - let's call it Netflix, pays it's own way to expand the roads to handled the traffic that it alone caused? Obviously George Soros has bought a huge chunk of Netflix stock and has the minions spewing stupidity to increase the profits of this mega-corp.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So the internet wasn't under this ruling until the other day and now it is being treated just like the following:

"Until the 1980s in the United States, the term "telephone company" was synonymous with American Telephone & Telegraph. AT&T controlled nearly all aspects of the telephone business. Its regional subsidiaries, known as "Baby Bells," were regulated monopolies, holding exclusive rights to operate in specific areas. The Federal Communications Commission regulated rates on long-distance calls between states, while state regulators had to approve rates for local and in-state long-distance calls.

Government regulation was justified on the theory that telephone companies, like electric utilities, were natural monopolies. Competition, which was assumed to require stringing multiple wires across the countryside, was seen as wasteful and inefficient. That thinking changed beginning around the 1970s, as sweeping technological developments promised rapid advances in telecommunications. Independent companies asserted that they could, indeed, compete with AT&T. But they said the telephone monopoly effectively shut them out by refusing to allow them to interconnect with its massive network."

Deregulating Telecommunications

(more at link)


If this rule is so good, why did the FCC deregulate AT&T?

Anyone? Bueller?