The FCC votes on Net Neutrality tomorrow...

[boomerang]

Yeah let's hold judgement until it passes and then find out what's in it...

That's the form of government we have in the U.S. as we fundamentally transform. Eventually, it will be too much bother to even let us know what's in it after the fact. We'll know we've done wrong when there's a pounding on the door in the middle of the night.

We now have more regulation passed along strict partisan lines by people that refused to come public with it prior and a huge percentage of the population that sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was done.

Enjoy your Netflix videos everyone. They keep you happy, content and placated. Fat, dumb and happy might be a better description.

 

[LTC8K6]

Internet czar and a department of the internet? Taxes to fund?

 

[fskimospy]

In response to this policy affirmation by the FCC you are going to see Comcast and the gang go ahead with enacting or expand upon data caps on their users accounts in response. When you go over that data cap you are going to get nailed via fees and since there is no real competition in most areas you'll be stuck paying more for less with your internet. Then again this also lays down the groundwork for more government action/intervention with the internet which they don't have to run with today but will be used in the future because that is how these things play out.

Comcast was already moving forward with data caps before this ruling.

 

[sphenodont]

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote This is secret shit that Congress and the nation aren't going to know about ahead of the vote. We'll all find out afterwards.

Wheeler testified before Congress around 15 times last year.

The one time he refuses to come running when they call to try to stage a publicity ploy, and they start crying about it?

Try^Holl harder.

 

[sphenodont]

We don't know what's in it and we won't until after it's in place.

We know what will be in it, because as per FCC standards, they released a summary document several weeks ago which included their rationale, their justification of authority, and their intentions. It also staked out what it did not include, such as tariffs, taxes, or additional fees. It also said nothing about censorship or regulation of content, except to prohibit the provider from blocking legal and permissible content and material.

 

[sphenodont]

We now have more regulation passed along strict partisan lines by people that refused to come public with it prior and a huge percentage of the population that sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was done.

This discussion has been going on for six years now and has been well-known the entire time. If you've had your head in the sand until Breitbart or whatever right-wing rag lines your cage tells you what to believe, that's on you.

 

[boomerang]

We know what will be in it, because as per FCC standards, they released a summary document several weeks ago which included their rationale, their justification of authority, and their intentions. It also staked out what it did not include, such as tariffs, taxes, or additional fees. It also said nothing about censorship or regulation of content, except to prohibit the provider from blocking legal and permissible content and material.

Can you comprehend what you just wrote? I don't believe you do.

We know what will be in it, because as per FCC standards, they released a summary document several weeks ago which included their rationale, their justification of authority, and their intentions.

None of that tells us "what is in it". Do you understand that? Link please?

It also staked out what it did not include, such as tariffs, taxes, or additional fees.

Could any of those be added at a later date considering that they now have authority over the Internet? Yes or no.

It also said nothing about censorship or regulation of content, except to prohibit the provider from blocking legal and permissible content and material.

Can the definition of what constitutes legal and permissible content and material be changed? Yes or no.

Your post is at the heart of my issues with the left. Everything is taken literal and in the context of the moment. They see no problem with actions of these types because they live in the here and now. The potential for negative actions in the future don't figure into a thoughtful process of determining good from bad, right from wrong. People said months ago that they would not be doing xyz now, so I will ignore that given new authority, they would have the power to do xyz in the future.

This is how our rights are chipped away at one small piece at a time. Useful idiots can't or don't want to see what is happening in the here and now and don't care for what happens in the future.

But really, don't even bother with any responses. I get exactly where you're coming from. It just is not something you're going to concern yourself with. Fat, dumb and happy. Enjoy NetFlix.

 

[VRAMdemon]

^^^ LOL!... so, according to this projection happy wingnut, everyone that supports this ruling or is for net neutrality is a "left leaning fat, dumb and happy NetFlix subscriber". This place always delivers the Lulz!

 

[Vic]

This discussion has been going on for six years now and has been well-known the entire time. If you've had your head in the sand until Breitbart or whatever right-wing rag lines your cage tells you what to believe, that's on you.

Right? Net neutrality has been a long time in the making. The thing that surprised me the most yesterday was the number of outraged people who had apparently never heard of it.

And yes, people, the ISPs are utilities. Legal monopolies and/or duopolies with exclusive licenses to do business on infrastructure that was largely built with public funding and subsidies, and where redundancy of that infrastructure is impractical. Much like the phone, electric, gas, and water companies.

Treating the ISPs like utilities is all that has happened here.

 

[sphenodont]

^^^ LOL!... so, according to this projection happy wingnut, everyone that supports this ruling or is for net neutrality is a "left leaning fat, dumb and happy NetFlix subscriber". This place always delivers the Lulz!

"bu- bu- bu- but Netflix" is the standard argument for the people who've bought into the astroturf. It's truthy enough to fool 'em, because they have been convinced that they are being made to pay for someone else's consumption.

 

[sphenodont]

None of that tells us "what is in it". Do you understand that? Link please?

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf

Can the definition of what constitutes legal and permissible content and material be changed? Yes or no.

Yes, Congress could enact new legislation that could outlaw certain content, or remove existing restrictions. That hasn't changed.

The FCC has no authority to legalize or criminalize any form of content. It's in their charter.

Enjoy Netflix.

Thank you! I do enjoy Netflix, and I'm looking forward to binging through House of Cards after work today.

I'm also looking forward to not having to use a proxy to avoid my ISP's throttling of Netflix, since that's going to no longer be permissible, thanks to the NN proposal.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

So the government is stepping in to help us? If we like our internet, we can keep our internet? A family of 4 computers will see a reduction of $300 a year in fees? There will be no caps, or throttling? Those without internet will have to sign up for it to help fund this, OR pay a penalty? :whiste:

 

[PliotronX]

So the government is stepping in to help us? If we like our internet, we can keep our internet? A family of 4 computers will see a reduction of $300 a year in fees? There will be no caps, or throttling? Those without internet will have to sign up for it to help fund this, OR pay a penalty? :whiste:

:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

So the government is stepping in to help us? If we like our internet, we can keep our internet? A family of 4 computers will see a reduction of $300 a year in fees? There will be no caps, or throttling? Those without internet will have to sign up for it to help fund this, OR pay a penalty? :whiste:

Exactly all of those things! TED CRUZ WAS RIGHT.

Don't say things too loud though, you're going to be first in line to be Death Paneled at your local FEMA camp.

 

[jackstar7]

Obamanet is working. My speeds are already up by 70%.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wheeler testified before Congress around 15 times last year.

The one time he refuses to come running when they call to try to stage a publicity ploy, and they start crying about it?

Try^Holl harder.

Looks like all those training sessions didn't work...

 

[Zorkorist]

Treating the ISPs like utilities is all that has happened here.

Public Servants.

Communism. Socialism.

Another great expansion of Government power.

-John

 

[nickqt]

Public Servants.

Communism. Socialism.

Another great expansion of Government power.

-John

More nonsense.

You're free to pack up your belongings and sail into international waters if you believe that any government = slavery.

 

[Zorkorist]

More nonsense.

You're free to pack up your belongings and sail into international waters if you believe that any government = slavery.

Nope. I probably would need a permit.

-John

 

[nickqt]

Nope. I probably would need a permit.

-John

Yes, it's worse than Nazi Germany.

Keep up the nonsense.

 

[Vic]

Public Servants.

Communism. Socialism.

Another great expansion of Government power.

-John

I know that you won't understand, but this action actually preserved private ownership of the ISP's.

 

[Zorkorist]

There is no such thing as "private ownership" when Government has the power to regulate. It is communism, or socialism, and the Government owns the means of production, and therefore the product.

We just went from a "free" internet, to a government controlled internet.

Anyone that can't see that expansion of power by the Government, is blind.

They just took over the whole internet.

-John

 

[nickqt]

There is no such thing as "private ownership" when Government has the power to regulate. It is communism, or socialism, and the Government owns the means of production.

-John

There are no rich people in the US. We're all just slaves. It's worsier than Nazi Germany.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Zorkorist]

Next you will argue when I complain that every time I watch porn, I receive a condom in the mail.

-John

 

[Vic]

There is no such thing as "private ownership" when Government has the power to regulate. It is communism, or socialism, and the Government owns the means of production, and therefore the product.

We just went from a "free" internet, to a government controlled internet.

Anyone that can't see that expansion of power by the Government, is blind.

They just took over the whole internet.

-John

Should we assume then that you are also opposed to government enforcing laws against crime?