Could Net Neutrality Rules Hurt the Internet?

[seancaptain]

Upcoming FCC regulations to keep the Internet open could quash emerging technologies and derail deals for customers, critics say.

Could Net Neutrality Rules Hurt the Internet? : Read more

 

[CarlosVe]

Everyone has the Right to Life, the Right to Liberty and the Right to Own Oneself and One's property, under God and noone should be allowed to violate your rights unless you try to violate theirs.

Regulations that violate your freedom, violate anyone's property rights (including yours and companies rights), instead of protecting them ARE SLAVERY. Government is out of control trying to ENSLAVE people and forcing their will instead of protecting our rights.

I thought the Gov. was supposed to be representative of the people, subject to natural rights? The Gov. FCC's will is in flagrant violation of such:

"lawmakers are pursuing to block regulations they argue will curb innovation and investment in the fast-growing Internet sector, and that were enacted against the will of a majority of Congress and in the face of a court order that ruled against the FCC's authority over broadband providers." http/www.datamation.com

http/www.lp.org/blogs/michelle/fcc-should-remain-neutral-on-net-neutrality
Libertarian Party against Net Neutrality

Ron Paul and Rand Paul against Net Neutrality
http/www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom#.pjrZV7qw

Lew Rockwell against Net Neutrality
http/www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/robert-wenzel/net-neutrality/

 

[HEXiT]

lol... seriouslyyy @above.. the current situation of 6 monoplies refusing to enterinto competition with each other due to lack of regulation is why most of america is still in the stone age with there 4meg internet.

even though these companies have had billions of your hard earned tax dollars on the grounds they needed it to improve connectivity. very little of that money has been used in that way. instead it has been used to lobby government and buy up any1 who might become a competitive threat.

currently the web in america is a monopoly with half a dozen companies have set up there walled gardens and if your inside your there customer... try to go outside and there so called competition will refuse your business. this isnt capitalism its out right greed.

 

[chesteracorgi]

The proposed regulations are secret to the FCC and a few insiders (how the h**l did Google get details of the proposals to pose objections to them if they are secret?), and they address a problem that doesn't exist. HEXit, the problem with the 4MB internet isnt the cables or the phones, it is the localg overnment which have granted them monopolies in their jurisdictions. If your local town/city/county cut a deal with Comcast to lay cable they gave them exclusive rights, thus creating a governement confrred monopoly for Comcast (or Time Warner or Verizon, etc.). There is no expectation that the FCC will open up competition for the line owners.

If the government wantsto regulate the internet it should pass legislation, not take it by administrative fiat. The FCC was created in the 1930's and has no business expanding its authority to the internet. The outright greed is that of the government for aggrandizing its power to tax and control the internet and (as it did with the phne company) provide billions in subsidies to the crony crapitalists, Yes, Verizon, AT&T and the other phones received billions to provide access, and diverted it to lobbying to keep their sinecures. But if the FCC passes new regulations and taxes, expect the internet to be more expensive and exclusive. After all the government has done such a good job with Solyndra.

 

[youmustbejoking]

"Carriers are not looking to build a tollbooth," Brake said, referring to situations when ISPs require content providers to pay more for access to the network. "They are looking for ways to fleece the customer when building a special-purpose network."
There: Fixed it for you.
He is using the same arguments Rockefeller used when the government broke his monopoly.
Sean Captain then goes on to quote a former Verizon lawyer at great length.
This isn't a comment piece...it's a blatant propaganda piece.

 

[ldun]

so paying for prioritizing packets will help start-ups how exactly? Allowing certain packets/data streams to have priority sounds like a good idea... until you realize that the decider has only one interest in mind, making as much money as possible. Why give free prioirty to netflix or a new competing service when the internet/cable/content provider has their own?

Had the ISP been reasonable and looking out for their customers and "the little guys" from the get go, the gov/FCC wouldn't need to go in and try and "fix" the situation with some regulations.

If you look at the critics of net neutrality, the large portion is made up of former/current/hopefully future employees of ISP or those that recieve massive donations and lobbying to get the ISP exactly what they want. What ISPs want is to run the show, milk customers out of all their money, and not have to compete with anyone.

 

[seancaptain]

Hey folks:

CarlosVe - We outlawed slavery a long time ago, so I'm not worried about that one.

chesteracorgi - Congress expressly expanded the FCC's authority to the Internet under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Check our FAQ http/www.tomsguide.com/us/net-neutrality-faq,news-18687.html

youmustbejoking - I quoted both sides of the debate. Also, that Verizon lawyer is an FCC commissioner.

As for opening up competition, that was a theme in the first half of the FCC meeting today when the FCC voted to allow city-owned broadband networks to expand.

Thanks all.

 

[Danny Wheeler]

Good to know someone is keeping a balanced (IMHO) view of this. And in your bottom line, you're right--it'll take BOTH sides to fight the unintended consequences and abuse.

 

[HEXiT]

The proposed regulations are secret to the FCC and a few insiders (how the h**l did Google get details of the proposals to pose objections to them if they are secret?), and they address a problem that doesn't exist. HEXit, the problem with the 4MB internet isnt the cables or the phones, it is the localg overnment which have granted them monopolies in their jurisdictions. If your local town/city/county cut a deal with Comcast to lay cable they gave them exclusive rights, thus creating a governement confrred monopoly for Comcast (or Time Warner or Verizon, etc.). There is no expectation that the FCC will open up competition for the line owners.

If the government wantsto regulate the internet it should pass legislation, not take it by administrative fiat. The FCC was created in the 1930's and has no business expanding its authority to the internet. The outright greed is that of the government for aggrandizing its power to tax and control the internet and (as it did with the phne company) provide billions in subsidies to the crony crapitalists, Yes, Verizon, AT&T and the other phones received billions to provide access, and diverted it to lobbying to keep their sinecures. But if the FCC passes new regulations and taxes, expect the internet to be more expensive and exclusive. After all the government has done such a good job with Solyndra.

like i said they bought laws in government made agreements with local councils to exclusive rights in exchange for upgraded facilities. which the isp's subsequently broke time and time again. all the while taking billions of tax dollars from your pockets at the federal and state level and over charging for for upgrades you were never going to see.
instead they spent there billions in profits buying up lesser competition to the point the u,s went from 30 isp's down to 6. with zero competition between them. basically there greed and rampant capitalism had ground them into a halt. they cant expand unless there willing to risk there billions on taking on another company worth billions also. if it became a hostile take over millions of peoples jobs could be at risk. as a result they have decided to divvy up the country into there own little kingdoms which they are litrally plundering for profits.

this is what i imagine in a day at comcast...

comcast, wow netflix is taking up a lot of bandwidth to the point we need to open more ports on our routers.
oh! we will have to buy more bandwidth from our providers.
should we get some?
nah, if we do, it will compete with our advertising. hey i know we can sell that extra bandwidth as a fast lane on the internet... gladdis, quick get in touch with the fcc...

gladdis... hello, tom wheeler plz...

comcast.. tell any 1 who asks, we are not throttling netflix...

end user... why is my netflix stuttering...

comcast... not our fault, talk to netflix.

comcast... hey netflix, your customers are complaining they cant get a smooth service...
give us some money and we will sort you out... if you dont we wont...

end user ... my netflix is slow...
netflix ... im sorry we are going to have to charge you a bit more, so we can pay off comcast to let you have the bandwidth you already payed for... they even had the cheek to put up prices last month...

end user... what? they are literally charging me twice. but putting netflix in as the middle man...
well we will see about that....

end user... Dorris, get on the phone to the fcc, get on the internet while your at it...

Dorris... hello, fcc, tom wheeler plz.

comcast... hey, tom wheeler... if you take any notice of dorris we will sue the fcc in court...

tom wheeler... make may day comcast.

seriously mate the big 6 have been acting in such a way, its detrimental to the idea of capitalism itself.