Several months ago there was quite a dispute on the board over the court ruling on net neutrality and the FCC.
My position was that the folks who built the infrastructure, took the risks and the investments, should have every right as to how their property was sold.
Others were incensed that they might have to pay more for their internet service.
It was kind of a "You didn't build that" proxy war....one of those fake 'income inequality' ploys.
To review:
1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service
2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.
3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway. ....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.
a. One example would be Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated. But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate
4. The providers say we took the risk and used beaucoup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???
a. providers like Verizon don't like the idea of net neutrality. They feel they should be able to pick and choose what people see online and charge content providers accordingly. Imagine if Verizon has tiers of Internet access. The highest paying customers could access everything on the web. The lowest paying customers could access only the information Verizon chooses to promote.
Ibid.
Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.
I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!
5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.
6. So says a federal judge.
Verizon challenged the Open Internet Rules because they contradicted the FCC's 2002 decision not to regulate Internet service providers. It said, by enforcing Open Internet Rules, the FCC was trying to regulate companies like Verizon.
The court agreed, saying, "even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates."
ibid
a. The court, following the Constitution, and the aims of the Founders, says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.
Appeals court strikes down FCC's net neutrality rules | PCWorld
7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to buy a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.
That sound like freedom to you?
Now, this, from today's Drudge:
8. "WASHINGTON — The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.
The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.
The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality — the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.
The proposal comes three months after a federal appeals court struck down, for the second time, agency rules intended to guarantee a free and open Internet.
Broadband companies have pushed for the right to build special lanes. Verizon said during appeals court arguments that if it could make those kinds of deals, it would.
Under the proposal, broadband providers would have to disclose how they treat all Internet traffic and on what terms they offer more rapid lanes, and would be required to act “in a commercially reasonable manner,” agency officials said. That standard would be fleshed out as the agency seeks public comment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/t...html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Freedom and liberty survives another assault by the collectivists!
My position was that the folks who built the infrastructure, took the risks and the investments, should have every right as to how their property was sold.
Others were incensed that they might have to pay more for their internet service.
It was kind of a "You didn't build that" proxy war....one of those fake 'income inequality' ploys.
To review:
1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service
2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.
3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway. ....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.
a. One example would be Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated. But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate
4. The providers say we took the risk and used beaucoup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???
a. providers like Verizon don't like the idea of net neutrality. They feel they should be able to pick and choose what people see online and charge content providers accordingly. Imagine if Verizon has tiers of Internet access. The highest paying customers could access everything on the web. The lowest paying customers could access only the information Verizon chooses to promote.
Ibid.
Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.
I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!
5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.
6. So says a federal judge.
Verizon challenged the Open Internet Rules because they contradicted the FCC's 2002 decision not to regulate Internet service providers. It said, by enforcing Open Internet Rules, the FCC was trying to regulate companies like Verizon.
The court agreed, saying, "even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates."
ibid
a. The court, following the Constitution, and the aims of the Founders, says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.
Appeals court strikes down FCC's net neutrality rules | PCWorld
7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to buy a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.
That sound like freedom to you?
Now, this, from today's Drudge:
8. "WASHINGTON — The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.
The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.
The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality — the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.
The proposal comes three months after a federal appeals court struck down, for the second time, agency rules intended to guarantee a free and open Internet.
Broadband companies have pushed for the right to build special lanes. Verizon said during appeals court arguments that if it could make those kinds of deals, it would.
Under the proposal, broadband providers would have to disclose how they treat all Internet traffic and on what terms they offer more rapid lanes, and would be required to act “in a commercially reasonable manner,” agency officials said. That standard would be fleshed out as the agency seeks public comment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/t...html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Freedom and liberty survives another assault by the collectivists!
Last edited:
