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

[SwimExpert]

Avoiding the We the People (via Congress) Obama's FCC classifies the internet as a public utility, a trojan horse for unrestrained censorship against "hate speech."

It passed just this hour in a 3-2 vote.

Good to know that chief lobbyist for the bill was appointed by Obama (and funded by George Soros) to lead the new regulations.

Yes, indeed.

The internet, the last bastion of Liberty, has been nationalized, infiltrated by the fascists.


.

I don't think 'fascist' means what you think it means. And so far, the only indication of 'regulation' we've seen is that internet service providers have to treat all data equally.

Pay no attention to him, he's an idiot.

 

[occupied]

I guess I need to remind everyone every few pages that censoring the internet for content is an impossibility.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Such delightful meltdowns from the fanatical pro-censorship Republicans here.

What hope do Republicans have left if they can't get their corporate masters to censor all contrary opinions? The Republicans here know they're screwed if they don't have the power to censor, which explains all the weeping we're now hearing from them.

Eee-gads, what planet do you inhabit? One of the reasons Republicans oppose the government takeover of the Internet is that they do not want the Internet to be censored! Right now the Internet is uncensored and open (unless you want to run a kiddy porn site or something), but that will gradually change if the government is allowed to fully regulate it.

If you want to understand why Net Neutrality is harmful and foolish, here's some reading for you, if you dare to risk freeing your mind:

Net Neutrality Puts Everyone In The Internet Slow Lane - Forbes

The President Is Wrong on Net Neutrality The Internet Needs Fast Lanes and Slow Lanes News Philadelphia Magazine

On Net Neutrality Even John Oliver Would Call John Oliver An Idiot

 

[occupied]

Such delightful meltdowns from the fanatical pro-censorship Republicans here.

What hope do Republicans have left if they can't get their corporate masters to censor all contrary opinions? The Republicans here know they're screwed if they don't have the power to censor, which explains all the weeping we're now hearing from them.

Eee-gads, what planet do you inhabit? One of the reasons Republicans oppose the government takeover of the Internet is that they do not want the Internet to be censored! Right now the Internet is uncensored and open (unless you want to run a kiddy porn site or something), but that will gradually change if the government is allowed to fully regulate it.

If you want to understand why Net Neutrality is harmful and foolish, here's some reading for you, if you dare to risk freeing your mind:

Net Neutrality Puts Everyone In The Internet Slow Lane - Forbes

The President Is Wrong on Net Neutrality The Internet Needs Fast Lanes and Slow Lanes News Philadelphia Magazine

On Net Neutrality Even John Oliver Would Call John Oliver An Idiot

All of those articles assume the "free market" without regulation will provide an internet we all can be happy with when it would really just build up monopolies and freeze out smaller competitors. Sure the big companies want it and it might even make their services better but we would have to say goodbye to the wonderful phenomena where a bright kid with an awesome idea can individually build it into a transformational technology. We already have an internet dominated by a few big players but losing neutrality would make it worse.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right now the Internet is uncensored and open

I previously listed four categories of people opposed to net neutrality. You fit into the first category, i.e. the misinformed.

The internet is not uncensored. The internet is not free. It used to be, but that internet (that is, the neutral internet) has died in the past couple years. Currently, internet service providers censor and limit internet content. The best example is the case of Netflix. Service providers are censoring content, like Netflix, that competes with content that service providers produce, because many service providers nowadays are also content providers. In order to alleviate the censorship, Netflix has been forced to pay millions of dollars to the people whose cable TV product has failed to offer a competitive product compared to Netflix's product. This is a conflict of interest which seemed destined to eventually lead to censorship by the service/content providers, and in the past couple years it came to fruition.

As an uninformed opponent of net neutrality you are under the mistaken belief that net neutrality is government oversight and/or supervision of the internet for the sake of judging the quality or merits of content. However, this is not the case. Net neutrality is the principle that information that is shared over the internet is treated neutrally and equally, without some sources being given preference or special hindrance. In other words, if you like to read news from Fox News on the internet, the data should flow through the internet without Comcast obstructing or throttling it in hopes that either 1) you'll get frustrated and go to NBC News instead so that Comcast makes more money from you consuming the content that they own, or B) Fox News will start paying millions of dollars to Comcast to make up for Comcasts' "lost" revenue from people liking Fox News better than Comcasts' content.

A few years ago, we had net neutrality. Internet service providers weren't obstructing content you consume in hopes that you'll change your mind and consume different content. But with circumstances like the throttling of Netflix by cable companies who want to dissuade Netflix use in favor of their own content, net neutrality is now dead and a thing of the past. This may soon change, though, as the FCC has adopted new rules to protect the open internet. If the rules are adequate to prevent companies like Comcast from obstructing competitors' content, it may be the rebirth of net neutrality.

Because net neutrality has died in the past couple years

 

[Billo_Really]

>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<
yaa, where the hell is the NEUTRALITY part ?

looks to me it is destruction of free enterprise and practically everything AMERICAN !!

How is treating everyone equally, destroying free enterprise?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Avoiding the We the People (via Congress) Obama's FCC classifies the internet as a public utility, a trojan horse for unrestrained censorship against "hate speech."

It passed just this hour in a 3-2 vote.

Good to know that chief lobbyist for the bill was appointed by Obama (and funded by George Soros) to lead the new regulations.

OK, just think....If Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, et al. get their way you will most likely have to start paying a fee to access this site.

USMB will have to pay to play in order to get the bandwidth needed to keep this site running like it does now. Got it yet?

Or are you willing to wait 2-3 minutes to log on? Just stand back, turn on your timer to 120-180 seconds, wait, and let me know.

The way you solve this problem is more choices.... Not less. The government is now going to have oversight on content. You liberals are all about your own free speech but not about free speech for conservatives. How American is that?

 

[mamooth]

The government is now going to have oversight on content.

No, it isn't. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

You're basically claiming that forbidding internet censorship is censorship. It's like claiming that the first amendment gives the government censorship powers. It's just wacky.

 

[percysunshine]

.
I think we should pay Karl Rove to be a Moderator on USMB. We could get everyone to pay for him by imposing a 1 cent per post surcharge. Starting a new thread would require a permit and a permit fee.


This is going to work out just great!

.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The government is now going to have oversight on content.

No, it isn't. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

You're basically claiming that forbidding internet censorship is censorship. It's like claiming that the first amendment gives the government censorship powers. It's just wacky.

.... Yea, and people used to believe that elected politicians would ever use the IRS to punish their enemies with targeted audits or deny exemptions for free speech. No, that could never happen. That is just wacky.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a public utility. It should be. People need it to compete. It isn't a luxury. In fact.....it ought to be free like Broadcast television.

Yeah, we'll get real good quality Internet service once it's "free." I really wonder what planet you people hatch on that you can exist in such a cocoon of disillusion.

It's not going to be free. You will still be paying like you do now.
It means that websites won't be held hostage to pay extra in order to compete for bandwidth.
Lonelaugher is right to compare it to network television. Did people put up a fuss 60 years ago when CBS, NBC and ABC were regulated and free? How has that worked out for you so far? Pretty good, hmmmm?

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem. It's purely a political power grab. The Dims want to censor the internet. Soon you'll have to get a license from the government to have a website on the internet, and you'll have your license revoked if you don't provide a "benefit to the community" as determined by FCC bureaucrats.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They don't pay extra now, so the FCC is solving a non-problem.

A good thing. Being ahead, for once.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a public utility. It should be. People need it to compete. It isn't a luxury. In fact.....it ought to be free like Broadcast television.

Yeah, we'll get real good quality Internet service once it's "free." I really wonder what planet you people hatch on that you can exist in such a cocoon of disillusion.

It's not going to be free. You will still be paying like you do now.
It means that websites won't be held hostage to pay extra in order to compete for bandwidth.

If you're using more bandwidth then you should pay for more bandwidth. The long term result of this is going to be degradation of our Internet infrastructure or higher prices on consumers.

That aside, the FCC will probably get sued again anyway like they were last time they tried to do this and the courts struck down their rules.

So, sue. That's how we resolve conflicts here. It's not the FCC doesn't expect it.

That is kind of futile when the government is the final arbiter of any lawsuit against itself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a public utility. It should be. People need it to compete. It isn't a luxury. In fact.....it ought to be free like Broadcast television.

Yeah, we'll get real good quality Internet service once it's "free." I really wonder what planet you people hatch on that you can exist in such a cocoon of disillusion.

It's not going to be free. You will still be paying like you do now.
It means that websites won't be held hostage to pay extra in order to compete for bandwidth.

If you're using more bandwidth then you should pay for more bandwidth. The long term result of this is going to be degradation of our Internet infrastructure or higher prices on consumers.

That aside, the FCC will probably get sued again anyway like they were last time they tried to do this and the courts struck down their rules.

So, sue. That's how we resolve conflicts here. It's not the FCC doesn't expect it.

That is kind of futile when the government is the final arbiter of any lawsuit against itself.

Who do you propose, God?

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, we'll get real good quality Internet service once it's "free." I really wonder what planet you people hatch on that you can exist in such a cocoon of disillusion.

It's not going to be free. You will still be paying like you do now.
It means that websites won't be held hostage to pay extra in order to compete for bandwidth.

If you're using more bandwidth then you should pay for more bandwidth. The long term result of this is going to be degradation of our Internet infrastructure or higher prices on consumers.

That aside, the FCC will probably get sued again anyway like they were last time they tried to do this and the courts struck down their rules.

So, sue. That's how we resolve conflicts here. It's not the FCC doesn't expect it.

That is kind of futile when the government is the final arbiter of any lawsuit against itself.

Who do you propose, God?

I propose to eliminate the problem by abolishing government. I would especially like to abolish the FCC, a totally useless agency if there ever was one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's not going to be free. You will still be paying like you do now.
It means that websites won't be held hostage to pay extra in order to compete for bandwidth.

If you're using more bandwidth then you should pay for more bandwidth. The long term result of this is going to be degradation of our Internet infrastructure or higher prices on consumers.

That aside, the FCC will probably get sued again anyway like they were last time they tried to do this and the courts struck down their rules.

So, sue. That's how we resolve conflicts here. It's not the FCC doesn't expect it.

That is kind of futile when the government is the final arbiter of any lawsuit against itself.

Who do you propose, God?

I propose to eliminate the problem by abolishing government. I would especially like to abolish the FCC, a totally useless agency if there ever was one.

Well my little infant, anarchy is not likely to break out in your lifetime. What's that nonsense you believe in again, a property-based something by that nut of an econ101 teacher?

 

[bripat9643]

If you're using more bandwidth then you should pay for more bandwidth. The long term result of this is going to be degradation of our Internet infrastructure or higher prices on consumers.

That aside, the FCC will probably get sued again anyway like they were last time they tried to do this and the courts struck down their rules.

So, sue. That's how we resolve conflicts here. It's not the FCC doesn't expect it.

That is kind of futile when the government is the final arbiter of any lawsuit against itself.

Who do you propose, God?

I propose to eliminate the problem by abolishing government. I would especially like to abolish the FCC, a totally useless agency if there ever was one.

Well my little infant, anarchy is not likely to break out in your lifetime. What's that nonsense you believe in again, a property-based something by that nut of an econ101 teacher?

It may take 100 years or even 1000, but that doesn't mean it's not a goal we should work towards. It took 1500 years to climb out of Feudal slavery to the relative freedom we enjoy today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A decent graphic of what getting rid of net neutrality might lead to:

The Open Internet A Case for Net Neutrality

 

[bripat9643]

A decent graphic of what getting rid of net neutrality might lead to:

The Open Internet A Case for Net Neutrality

It would lead to the situation we have right now, which is perfectly satisfactory

 

[LoneLaugher]

The stupid......it MUST burn.