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

[orogenicman]

Right. Individual citizens will lose out with net neutrality, and Hulu and Uverse will go bankrupt

If Verizon is given a national monopoly as ISP, then UVerse will certainly be gone. If AT&T gets the monopoly, it will thrive. It depends on who the FCC designates as the sole provider of internet backbone services in the nation.

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.? Z Ever hear of anti-trust laws?

 

[orogenicman]

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content

No they don't.

I support Net neutrality but that is not what the FCC just did - CNET

Did you even read the article you quoted?

{Internet evangelists frequently promote the virtues of innovation without permission. We now move to a world that turns that on its head. Networks may be less exciting than new software apps, but they too require innovation, evolution and revolution. That process now is subject to constant bureaucratic review, political considerations, and collateral attack by competitors.}

ROFL

You Soros monkeys are a hoot.

Actually, what is now, for the first time, under review are the 'innovative' ways ISPs screw us while charging outrageous prices for shitty service.

Ugh, shut up. Even in the 1% of instances where you are right on an issue (supporting net neutrality) you still do it for all the wrong reasons. If you don't like the service you are receiving, then cancel it. Nobody is forcing you to buy internet or cable services.

Excuse me? If there is only one service provider in an area (and that is certainly true in many locations across the country), and it happens to be the worst provider in the country, what choices do you think people in that market have? No one is forcing you to own a car, but I suspect that if your only choice was a model T, you might have one or two things to say about that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually it's a reasoned argument against excessive regulations without resorting to lying about censorship.

You failed to read the article. The objections to the FCC action included the fact that by placing the Internet under the 1934 law, the FCC has the power to regulate content - exactly as I stated.

You not only failed to refute my argument, you supported it.

He never once supported the lie that the FCC will now be able to regulate and censor content on the internet.

"a sweeping move that has significant regulatory implications, not just for Internet service providers, but for the entire broadband market including edge providers, middle-mile operators, and backbone facilities that together make up the interconnected networks of the Internet.

 

[bendog]

I dunno. I tend to trust television WATCHERS more than internet providers.

Trust them to do what?

Decide what can be censored or not. You argue for allowing providers to charge fees so hulu and Netflix ... and amazon... can stream without being slowed down, or whether they should pay extra to providers ... all of which is passed onto consumers often times without them even knowing. Your argument is that the "govt" will censor what's on the internet or television. That's largely hysterical because there is this thing called the First Amendment, but even to the extent it's a rational fear, any move by the FCC is open to public scrutiny, and our internet bills are not open to such scrutiny ... without third parties outing the providers' agreements.

As usual, your thoughts are ruled by mere partisan ideology.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have yet to hear a surgeon complain that he couldn't perform a surgical procedure due to an internet connection issue

That's because you haven't bothered to look, or even consider that there are issues beyond your desire to stream Netfilx or download pirated movies.

{But, deploying healthcare applications over WANs presents many challenges due to bandwidth limitations, network latency and congestion. IT personnel struggle to find affordable and flexible solutions that help them scale network operations, combat over-burdened and unreliable networks, and overcome the increasing number and complexity of applications that cause network congestion.}

WAN Optimization for Health Care Industry Sangfor Technologies

The concept that the Internet has a purpose other than entertainment is one the left is too ******* selfish to grasp.

(if it was a connection issue, that is an issue the ISP needs to resolve, yes?). I have also yet to hear of a single case of an ambulance that couldn't connect to a hospital (they have radios and phones for that anyway). What has slowed development and expansion is ISPs charging outrageous prices for shitty service (and non-existent customer service) and then pocketing the difference. It isn't like the technology for faster service isn't already on the market. Most certainly it is. And it doesn't take throttling a service and charging higher prices to obtain faster bandwidths. Lord knows it is already too expensive. You know, these ISPs seem to think we don't know how the friggin internet came about. They seem to believe that we don't realize that they never had to throttle anyone's services before in order to innovate. So why the hell would we believe that that is necessary now?

You haven't heard what you don't have an interest in.

Like most leftists, you are highly opinionated with scant to no grasp of the concepts involved. Throttling is a bullshit term used to stir up morons, All networks beyond a home LAN use some sort of packet prioritization to ensure certain types of traffic have priority - this is part of the IEEE 803 standard. What you are arguing against is basic network management, you simply lack the knowledge to grasp the details involved.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.? Z Ever hear of anti-trust laws?

Are you familiar with AT&T's history and the telephone service?

******* hate Marxists like you. You ever stop to think that maybe an ideology that you KNOW you have to lie about to promote, an ideology that has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions, is most likely NOT a good ideology?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, I do know that, because I'm not a sensationalizing lunatic who knows little and dishonestly portrays what little you do happen to know.

No, you don't know this - you are just a blind sycophant who is convinced that all government is perfect and the more government we have the better life will be.

The FCC regulates free-to-air broadcasts for indecency. This is something Congress has granted it has the power to do for free-to-air services. This regulatory power does not exist for paid services, like cable, satellite radio, or internet. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying "Cable is television and they can regulate broadcast television, so they can regulate cable." Or to give an example more relevant to your own life, it's the equivalent of a four year old asking "But mommy if boys marry girls why can't I marry you?"

How did congress grant the FCC this power?

Hint - think "Telecommunications act of 1934."

 

[orogenicman]

I have yet to hear a surgeon complain that he couldn't perform a surgical procedure due to an internet connection issue

That's because you haven't bothered to look, or even consider that there are issues beyond your desire to stream Netfilx or download pirated movies.

Since those issues don't apply to me (streaming Netflix or downloading pirated movies), straw man. I have looked at many of the same issues you claim to have looked at, and I am calling bullshit on your claim. 99% of issues that pop up during surgeries have nothing at all to do with connectivity. Having said that, I have no doubt that there are occasional connectivity issues which do cause surgeons problems. It is the responsibility of the ISP and the hospital in question to resolve those issues. If that involves the hospital upgrading their system or purchasing a dedicated line, they should do that. They don't need to throttle anyone else's service to achieve this. The notion that Netflix is a bane to surgeons everywhere is simply beyond idiotic.

{But, deploying healthcare applications over WANs presents many challenges due to bandwidth limitations, network latency and congestion. IT personnel struggle to find affordable and flexible solutions that help them scale network operations, combat over-burdened and unreliable networks, and overcome the increasing number and complexity of applications that cause network congestion.}

And those are issues the healthcare providers are responsible for addressing in conjunction with their providers, not Joe Public connecting to Wikipedia.

(if it was a connection issue, that is an issue the ISP needs to resolve, yes?). I have also yet to hear of a single case of an ambulance that couldn't connect to a hospital (they have radios and phones for that anyway). What has slowed development and expansion is ISPs charging outrageous prices for shitty service (and non-existent customer service) and then pocketing the difference. It isn't like the technology for faster service isn't already on the market. Most certainly it is. And it doesn't take throttling a service and charging higher prices to obtain faster bandwidths. Lord knows it is already too expensive. You know, these ISPs seem to think we don't know how the friggin internet came about. They seem to believe that we don't realize that they never had to throttle anyone's services before in order to innovate. So why the hell would we believe that that is necessary now?

You haven't heard what you don't have an interest in.

Like most leftists, you are highly opinionated with scant to no grasp of the concepts involved. Throttling is a bullshit term used to stir up morons, All networks beyond a home LAN use some sort of packet prioritization to ensure certain types of traffic have priority - this is part of the IEEE 803 standard. What you are arguing against is basic network management, you simply lack the knowledge to grasp the details involved.

Throttling is a concept that ATT and Verizon have talked about and wanted to implement for a number of years. What I am arguing against is giving the ISPs (who already have a default monopoly on the services provided to the American public) carte blanche to drive up prices for the simple reason that they refuse to keep up with technological advances. Apparently, lining their own pockets at our expense is the biggest priority for them.

 

[orogenicman]

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.? Z Ever hear of anti-trust laws?

Are you familiar with AT&T's history and the telephone service?

Absolutely I am. Are you aware of the antitrust lawsuit that broke up ma bell?

******* hate Marxists like you. You ever stop to think that maybe an ideology that you KNOW you have to lie about to promote, an ideology that has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions, is most likely NOT a good ideology?

Yes, we are all aware that the sphincter sniffers on the forum get an erection whenever they get to use words like "Marxist" and "socialist" regardless of the appropriateness of doing so. Congratulations. They say that intelligence skips a generation. But hey, I bet your children will be smart as tacks.

 

[Misty]

In charge of truth Google considers ranking sites on facts not popularity RT News


"Thus, websites that Google deems to have contradictory information would be ranked lower in search results.

The idea is still a prototype and the system is currently offline.

The idea raises concerns as to how exactly the fact checking would take place, and whether it would impact controversial or alternative stances on various issues, which could be a blow to freedom of speech and diversity of opinions online."

 

[Misty]

When has FCC censored anything?
You know that, right?

It hasn't been able to, it can now, that's the point.

Ah, so it comes from the speculation fallacy of your own as-we-know-by-now unhinged imagination.

Four.

A big powerful government is as dangerous as a big powerful corporation.

Actually it's worse because we have to give our money to the government or they can take everything you own and put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Z Ever hear of anti-trust laws?

Ever hear of history?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Decide what can be censored or not.

Do you likewise yearn for a government regulator to tell you what to say? Or is that what you think is happening when Soros provides talking points?

You argue for allowing providers to charge fees so hulu and Netflix ... and amazon... can stream without being slowed down, or whether they should pay extra to providers ...

Netflix sent me a letter urging me to support the government takeover of the internet because it isn't fair that some can pay for faster service.

They sent it priority overnight mail....

all of which is passed onto consumers often times without them even knowing. Your argument is that the "govt" will censor what's on the internet or television. That's largely hysterical because there is this thing called the First Amendment, but even to the extent it's a rational fear, any move by the FCC is open to public scrutiny, and our internet bills are not open to such scrutiny ... without third parties outing the providers' agreements.

As usual, your thoughts are ruled by mere partisan ideology.

The first Amendment is not in play on a regulated medium. The FCC can start licensing the use of the internet and regulating what is said as part of the license.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Throttling is a concept that ATT and Verizon have talked about and wanted to implement for a number of years. What I am arguing against is giving the ISPs (who already have a default monopoly on the services provided to the American public) carte blanche to drive up prices for the simple reason that they refuse to keep up with technological advances. Apparently, lining their own pockets at our expense is the biggest priority for them.

No, it is not. What the backbone providers have talked about is network prioritization. Specifically that customers with a need could purchase priority service that will have a higher QOS rating. QOS works by placing prioritized packets at the top of the queue in layer 3 switching equipment. Nothing is "throttled" and if there is sufficient bandwidth you won't notice it. IF there are bandwidth constraints, the prioritization will make the packets with a higher quality of service status take priority.

Realistically, this means that streams that must be smooth, the medical applications linked, telepresence for large organizations and for emergency purposes, have a higher QOS than the porn videos that leftists demand be equal.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, I do know that, because I'm not a sensationalizing lunatic who knows little and dishonestly portrays what little you do happen to know.

No, you don't know this - you are just a blind sycophant who is convinced that all government is perfect and the more government we have the better life will be.

The FCC regulates free-to-air broadcasts for indecency. This is something Congress has granted it has the power to do for free-to-air services. This regulatory power does not exist for paid services, like cable, satellite radio, or internet. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying "Cable is television and they can regulate broadcast television, so they can regulate cable." Or to give an example more relevant to your own life, it's the equivalent of a four year old asking "But mommy if boys marry girls why can't I marry you?"

How did congress grant the FCC this power?

Hint - think "Telecommunications act of 1934."

Skippy, I'm far more small government than you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Excuse me? If there is only one service provider in an area (and that is certainly true in many locations across the country), and it happens to be the worst provider in the country, what choices do you think people in that market have?

I already told you, you can choose to not buy internet.

No one is forcing you to own a car, but I suspect that if your only choice was a model T, you might have one or two things to say about that.

I choose to not own a car at this time. So there goes your little theory.

 

[idb]

False.

Why?

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content; what makes you so certain they will not?

That's right...if the FCC have the power to unilaterally repeal legislation then they will certainly have the power of censorship.

 

[SwimExpert]

Throttling is a concept that ATT and Verizon have talked about and wanted to implement for a number of years. What I am arguing against is giving the ISPs (who already have a default monopoly on the services provided to the American public) carte blanche to drive up prices for the simple reason that they refuse to keep up with technological advances. Apparently, lining their own pockets at our expense is the biggest priority for them.

No, it is not. What the backbone providers have talked about is network prioritization. Specifically that customers with a need could purchase priority service that will have a higher QOS rating. QOS works by placing prioritized packets at the top of the queue in layer 3 switching equipment. Nothing is "throttled" and if there is sufficient bandwidth you won't notice it. IF there are bandwidth constraints, the prioritization will make the packets with a higher quality of service status take priority.

Realistically, this means that streams that must be smooth, the medical applications linked, telepresence for large organizations and for emergency purposes, have a higher QOS than the porn videos that leftists demand be equal.

Of course, your entire position becomes bullshit when we admit that some content providers have been throttled. Let's be honest, Comcast and Time Warner don't really care about bandwidth issues. They care that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and the like are cutting into their cable profits. So they want to charge for it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Skippy, I'm far more small government than you.

Yeah, we can see that sploogy..

 

[SwimExpert]

False.

Why?

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content; what makes you so certain they will not?

That's right...if the FCC have the power to unilaterally repeal legislation then they will certainly have the power of censorship.

And if one eyed, one horned, flying, purple people-eaters have the chance, they'll eat people. But there's no use in speculating on fantasies that aren't happening, so how about you stick to reality. The FCC hasn't repealed any legislation.