What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FCC Discussing Control of Internet

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,056
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
55,666
Reaction score
20,938
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Agreed. The government fucks up everything it tries to fix. They need to keep their hands off of the Internet. It's developed where it is today perfectly fine.
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
7,302
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
You'll like your new internet bill once this is in effect.

Preview?

Look at your landline phone bill (or ask someone who has a landline) and scan the list of taxes and fees that, when added up, typically total 1.4 times the basic cost of service.

So your $60 internet bill will become your $144 internet bill. But you will really enjoy knowing everybody is being treated equally.

There are ways to ensure net neutrality without opening the tax/fee box but you can count on this regime to avoid them.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Agreed. The government fucks up everything it tries to fix. They need to keep their hands off of the Internet. It's developed where it is today perfectly fine.

How'd that work out with radio in the 1920s?

I won't wait for an answer -- it was chaos until the gummint stepped in and created the FRC (foreunner of the FCC) to get it under control. Left to its own devices the free market simply put any station it wanted on the air -- limited to the rich who could afford to of course -- and you could simply overpower mine, and I could simply overpower yours, and the end result on the airwaves was a circus of chaos. In other words, anarchy.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
You'll like your new internet bill once this is in effect.

Preview?

Look at your landline phone bill (or ask someone who has a landline) and scan the list of taxes and fees that, when added up, typically total 1.4 times the basic cost of service.

So your $60 internet bill will become your $144 internet bill. But you will really enjoy knowing everybody is being treated equally.

There are ways to ensure net neutrality without opening the tax/fee box but you can count on this regime to avoid them.

I don't have cable TV. But 24% of my internet bill is charged because of that -- what I don't have.
That's not a tax -- it's the free market, penalizing me for not using one of its "services".
Fun fact.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
170,876
Reaction score
28,693
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Agreed. The government fucks up everything it tries to fix. They need to keep their hands off of the Internet. It's developed where it is today perfectly fine.
Sort of, except for the scam scum, spammers and people like you......er I mean hackers.....
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
170,876
Reaction score
28,693
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
You'll like your new internet bill once this is in effect.

Preview?

Look at your landline phone bill (or ask someone who has a landline) and scan the list of taxes and fees that, when added up, typically total 1.4 times the basic cost of service.

So your $60 internet bill will become your $144 internet bill. But you will really enjoy knowing everybody is being treated equally.

There are ways to ensure net neutrality without opening the tax/fee box but you can count on this regime to avoid them.
$6.50 for federal end user fee alone....
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
7,302
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
I don't have cable TV. But 24% of my internet bill is charged because of that -- what I don't have.
That's not a tax -- it's the free market, penalizing me for not using one of its "services".
Fun fact.

That's because you are paying for a "bundle". Until recently if you wanted any serious internet you were forced to buy a bundle that included shit you didn't want. Now stuff like ROKU and Apple-TV have started stripping away cable users. Providers are figuring out that they have to offer standalone internet or see subscribers abandon their cable or fiber and jump to satellite. That may not have happened yet in your market and, when it does, there won't be any big announcements. Read your bills carefully for fine-print mention of new services.

Reality is we'll largely continue to use wired providers for speed but the economics are changing. Net neutrality, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, will have little if anything to do with prices; only with the TAXES and FEES larded onto those prices.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
I don't have cable TV. But 24% of my internet bill is charged because of that -- what I don't have.
That's not a tax -- it's the free market, penalizing me for not using one of its "services".
Fun fact.

That's because you are paying for a "bundle". Until recently if you wanted any serious internet you were forced to buy a bundle that included shit you didn't want. Now stuff like ROKU and Apple-TV have started stripping away cable users. Providers are figuring out that they have to offer standalone internet or see subscribers abandon their cable or fiber and jump to satellite. That may not have happened yet in your market and, when it does, there won't be any big announcements. Read your bills carefully for fine-print mention of new services.

Reality is we'll largely continue to use wired providers for speed but the economics are changing. Net neutrality, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, will have little if anything to do with prices; only with the TAXES and FEES larded onto those prices.

Actually it's the opposite -- it's because I'm not paying for a bundle. If I got their TV stream, an avenue of diarrhea I consider useless, they'd waive the $12 extortion fee but then charge more for a stream of diarrhea I neither need nor want, so it would cost even more.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,744
Reaction score
2,468
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service


The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website
www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."



.





 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Anyone old enough to remember when if you wanted a phone you could only go to AT&T? And if you wanted a phone in that other room, you'd have to go to them too? And how you could score a phone on the black market, but then AT&T could detect the extra voltage drop on your line and start charging more, so you took the phone apart and disabled the bell so it wouldn't drop the voltage...... ?

Those were the days. Damn gummint fucked that all up. And in the process made it possible for a bunch of other phone companies to start up and "compete". Damn commies.
 
Last edited:

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
7,302
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Actually it's the opposite -- it's because I'm not paying for a bundle. If I got their TV stream, an avenue of diarrhea I consider useless, they'd waive the $12 extortion fee but then charge more for a stream of diarrhea I neither need nor want, so it would cost even more.

That IS a weird deal.

You could consider DISH internet service if you could live with the speed. Also I think Hughes-Net is still available in many places. But, in any case, so-called "net neutrality" as proposed won't help - only add taxes and fees on top of what you pay now. But, hey! it's money going to your favourite cause, right?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service


The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website
www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Actually it's the opposite -- it's because I'm not paying for a bundle. If I got their TV stream, an avenue of diarrhea I consider useless, they'd waive the $12 extortion fee but then charge more for a stream of diarrhea I neither need nor want, so it would cost even more.

That IS a weird deal.

You could consider DISH internet service if you could live with the speed. Also I think Hughes-Net is still available in many places. But, in any case, so-called "net neutrality" as proposed won't help - only add taxes and fees on top of what you pay now. But, hey! it's money going to your favourite cause, right?

No clue what "my favorite cause" is supposed to mean but no, I've seen Hughes dish speed, and it's absolute crap.

That isn't intended to relate to the Net Neutrality issue. It's an illustration of where my, for one, exorbitant ISP dollars are going. And it ain't taxes.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
25,190
Reaction score
7,471
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
So, according to the screamers here, prohibiting censorship _is_ censorship.

But then, the same people also think prohibiting discrimination is discrimination, so at least they're consistently goofy.

Conservatives, if you want to pay obscene fees to Comcast and Verizon for slow service, then you are free do so. Just stop trying to pick our pockets by forcing us to do the same.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,515
Reaction score
22,593
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
So, according to the screamers here, prohibiting censorship _is_ censorship.

That's an odd one, innit? The OP (and others) go to some lengths to declare they don't want gummint messing with the internet, but don't seem to mind Corporatia messing with the internet. And only the latter would be engaging in any kind of content regulation. Doublethink at work?

Here's the whole statement
by the FCC Chairman about the deal, including some historical background.
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
7,302
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
No clue what "my favorite cause" is supposed to mean but no, I've seen Hughes dish speed, and it's absolute crap.

That isn't intended to relate to the Net Neutrality issue. It's an illustration of where my, for one, exorbitant ISP dollars are going. And it ain't taxes.

That would be government.

I haven't used Hughes internet in over give years but, back then, slow as it was, it put internet in places where there were no fibers, cables or microwave installations for a thousand miles. I would have thought they might have picked up the speed but apparently not.

Just this week I looked at dumping cable for DISH internet but decided against it. They're pretty clear about their speeds and data quotas and do honest comparisons to terrestrial providers. In my case the data quota would be OK for what I do now but I do use some TV off the cable and would shift that to internet viewing so the quota would no longer work out and speed would be questionable for streaming.

The new internet/landline (or mobile) packages sans cable they have announced are attractive but the few TV channels I regularly use aren't available online so I'm stuck for now. What I really resent is that in order to get the six channels I use I have to pay for 200 and the program providers keep upping their per-connection fees which drive up the monthly bill several times a year. If government is going to mess with internet it also needs to mandate a-la-carte TV cable. Each channel might cost more but the aggregate would be less.
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
7,302
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts

Yeah!

And wouldn't it be great if we could just tax Democrats for their Obamacare mandates; their social engineering programs and for all the obstructive environmental mandates.

Somehow I believe Republilcans would come out a bit ahead!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top