Republicans Move To Block Net Neutrality Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
525
0
18,930
0
With regional monopolies created by the infrastructure, net neutrality rules are a requirement. If the infrastructure was owned by a separate entities than the service providers, the rules wouldn't be necessary. The lack of regional competition is the problem. DSL vs. cable vs. satellite vs. wireless vs. fiber isn't adequate for competition since the infrastructure for each has different characteristics. Multiple providers for each would be much better (DSL is the closest to that).
 

Ragnar-Kon

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2010
201
0
18,830
0
Seems to me that it is good for ISP companies, bad for the end-user.

Gonna be interesting when ISP companies start charging a premium to allow un-throttled bandwidth for online gaming.

But, at least it is rather entertaining watching my die-hard republican roommate get pissed at his own political party.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The same Republicans who are symbolically are cutting $100 billion for food safety inspections, schools, WIC, etc... not that it will even come close to balancing the budget, they just hate to think someone's getting something for free...

Of course, they could balance the budget by slashing defense spending to about what China or Russia spends, putting a 4 year moratorium on attacking or occupying another country, and letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
207
0
18,830
0
Thanks for spending trillions on a war that no one wants. But a billion to keep the internet working as intended? Pfft. . . that's a waste of money.
 

bourgeoisdude

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2005
142
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]Thanks for spending trillions on a war that no one wants. But a billion to keep the internet working as intended? Pfft. . . that's a waste of money.[/citation]

Pfft, billions (http://costofwar.com/en/). And more money was spent on Obama's stimulous than the entire Iraq war (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war).
 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
951
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]Thanks for spending trillions on a war that no one wants. But a billion to keep the internet working as intended? Pfft. . . that's a waste of money.[/citation]
This is why I'm no longer a Republican. Thanks Bush (both of them, particularly #2).
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
162
0
18,630
0
"We all want an open and thriving Internet," "That Internet exists today."

This is exactly what the FCC is trying to protect with net neutrality. And no, the Internet in the US is definitely not universally "open" or "thriving" at this time. As long as the activity is legal, net neutrality prevents ISP's from discriminating against users based on individual usage, or blocking content or services from competitors. I, and many others, don't understand how this in any way stifles competition. If anything net neutrality should bolster competition. I guess this is what happens when your logic and reasoning are driven primarily by your ideology (currently the vast majority of the Republican party).
 

artax33

Distinguished
May 4, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
@FrozenGpu Ya they did media did not think it was news worth to run a story that showed there full of crap for years. And on Net Neutrality I pretty sure I don't like the Idea of a group of non elected person making up there own rule. The FCC is trying to bypass the system, we have checks and balances for a reason. Lets see what the GOP does after they remind the FCC who tells who what to do.
 

ohseus

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2010
20
0
18,560
0
Good for them. The FCC is ran by a bunch of socialist leftist who have never had real jobs. The FCC has no business whatsoever sticking it's useless nose into the internet.

War nobody wanted? Ask the average Afghan if they prefer life under the Taliban.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Republicans = Attack abortion rights
Attack internet freedom
Attack the right to organize unions
Attack the right to sue corporations
Fight for corporations to abuse the environment and it's workers
Fight to lower taxes on people who never have to work again because of insane amounts of wealth

Who's freedom are they fighting for? The common man's or corporation's that aren't human?
 

Efrayim

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
35
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]ohseus[/nom]Good for them. The FCC is ran by a bunch of socialist leftist who have never had real jobs. The FCC has no business whatsoever sticking it's useless nose into the internet. War nobody wanted? Ask the average Afghan if they prefer life under the Taliban.[/citation]

Dude, the FCC is trying to protect the Internet form unnecessary Corporate influence and restrictions. If we gave the Right there way on this we would lose some Information freedoms. The Right always screaming about the right to freedom of speech, but the stance against Net Neutrality goes against it in many ways. It seems the only thing there after is to give there corporate buddies more ways to control us.
 

Sicundercover

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2007
125
0
18,630
0
Nothing ever gets better when its handed over to a Bureaucracy.

It will only be a short matter of time before the FCC starts censoring the net "For Your Benefit". Not to mention censoring people reporting news that what ever administration currently in control doesnt agree with.

We do not currently live in the Democratic Republic created by our founders. Instead we live in a Corporatist State where corporate and Federal interests are as one. So never think that one is doing something to inhibit the other.
 

bit_user

Distinguished
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
68
0
18,590
2
Net neutrality is about not giving your ISP the ability to decide what sites or content you access, how fast you access them, and whether those sites have to pay your ISP for said access. In short, the ISPs want to be the troll under the bridge that can act whimsically and unreasonably, when what the people want is a safe and reliable bridge.

Imagine if phone companies could control who you could call and could randomly decide to drop your connection whenever there was more profitable traffic they could send over any of the links! And what if the phone company was allowed to sell lists of phone numbers you called?

I think the phone company analogy is a good one. In the same way that phone companies are allowed to charge different rates for local calls vs. long distance, I would be okay with ISPs charging different rates for prioritized, low-latency traffic vs. bulk data, or to charge different rates for different levels of usage. However, there needs to be regulations to make sure that consumers understand the fee structure & limits. And just like the electric and water utilities have to provide a meter that lets you check your usage, so should ISPs.

C'mon people, this stuff is just common sense. Don't let politicians sell us out!
 

bit_user

Distinguished
Herald
Jan 20, 2010
68
0
18,590
2
[citation][nom]sicundercover[/nom]Nothing ever gets better when its handed over to a Bureaucracy.[/citation]Really? Have you gotten sick from eating tainted meat, recently? Have you been poisoned by unsafe FDA-approved medicines? Have you ever wanted to know what was in packaged food you ate? Have you been able to use cellphones or broadcast radio/TV largely without issues of interference? Have you applied for a credit card and wanted to know how much interest you'd be paying? Have you ever flown anywhere on an airplane and did you arrive safely?

There's a time and a place and a proper role for regulation. In the best case, it aligns self-interest of corporations with what's good for the consumer and prevents them from profiting at the expense of conumers' health, safety, or ability to make an informed choice.

[citation]It will only be a short matter of time before the FCC starts censoring the net "For Your Benefit".[/citation]You mean like how they censor your phone calls?
 

descendency

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
255
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]littlebomb[/nom]Republicans = Attack abortion rights Attack internet freedom Attack the right to organize unions Attack the right to sue corporations Fight for corporations to abuse the environment and it's workers Fight to lower taxes on people who never have to work again because of insane amounts of wealth Who's freedom are they fighting for? The common man's or corporation's that aren't human?[/citation]

Did you miss the biggest piece of legislation the government has passed in it's history? It effectively mandated that Americans whom are required to buy health insurance be required to buy a more expensive version (which may not necessarily be better for them) but as well expanded the number of people whom had to purchase it? Anyone see those "shrinking premiums" that were promised. Anyone notice how Wall Street watched the stocks of the major insurance companies sky rocket after the bill was signed into law?

Who did that help? The common man or the insurance company executives who haven't worked a real job in their life?

I can go on if you like, but I am sure you can see that both sides play that game. And don't give me the load of crap that one side is worse than another.

On topic: this is a very scary issue to talk about. On one hand, you have people talking about censoring the internet, metering the bandwidth provided to certain kinds of files, etc. On the other hand, you have consumers who are basically paying for people to whatever they want on the internet.

If I as a consumer only visit my e-mail, Tomshardware, and facebook, then it doesn't make sense for me to pay for internet that is intended for gamers, file sharers, and other power internet users. It would be cheaper for the average consumer to allow more intensive materials to cost more than less intensive, because the average internet user doesn't use extremely intensive applications.

It also makes sense that a site like Tomshardware would be outraged that this would be going on because they are likely power users (I personally am) and enjoy the common man paying for their right to game, file share, youtube, etc.

It goes beyond simple metering though. While some may cringe at the idea of an internet filter, it could be argued that an internet filter could block potentially harmful content from entering the computing eco-system. We could restrict information like "how to make a bomb" or "how to shoot an assault rifle" from common people so they have to consult an expert on these matters who can make decisions on whether it's safe to hand out such information.

Obviously, this is a very very very touchy subject. It's one that should be thought out immensely.

Furthermore, the current Net-neutrality rules are abysmally bad for everyone. The FCC did a terrible job with them. I wouldn't fund them either. I can't say it's for the same reason the Republicans are blocking this, but it's definitely a reason.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
774
0
18,940
4
well i already emailed my congressmen my intentions to creat a bill eliminating interstate commerce and roadway neutrality. i said if the FCC gets blocked by this then i am going to put forth a bill to block and limit commerce and travel in my state citing the same principals used in stripping this regulation. after all fair is fair. every one should have to have my states lisc, registration, tabs, regulations and taxes whether they are just passing thru or comming to my state from another. i stipulated this could go further even down to the county and city level because of the country and city sales tax involvement.

this is what i did instead of fumming at the screen and ranting to you guys XD
i did something that matters yea me! you guys gotta try this!

a good senator who understand this and knows what it means and stands for the consumers is al franken, he is pretty much right on top of this and capable of shooting down any arguement to the contrary since telecoms lines are subsidized by tax payers. i personally got to talk with him about it back when the FCC was mulling imposing these regulations and he was way on top of it then even.

as for the idiot with the WMD's, yes there were, and how can you not have realized this since there was even nightly televised news reports of the actual WMD's being used by Iraq in the iran-iraq war. only germany, france, britian, russia, and america openely had that technology despite the ban. iraq suddenly popped up over night with that tech and using it within days. and to fight the people who toppled the iranian shah, who america put in power, and for what benefit? it was widely televised the CIA's involvement with training the iraqi army. i can cast some doubt in here as to who supplied the WMD since iran was a former colony of britian, but reality speculates other wise. it can't ever come out who provided that tech other then iraq itself because of the huge issue or non proliferation treaties and geneva conventions violations.
you failed history, you should forfeit your diploma to me now.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
gtr22 Streaming Video & TVs 5
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 7
H Streaming Video & TVs 3
S Streaming Video & TVs 7
ITclimber Streaming Video & TVs 2
Mark Spoonauer Streaming Video & TVs 35
G Streaming Video & TVs 16
A Streaming Video & TVs 11
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 24
G Streaming Video & TVs 15
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 24
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 18
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 4
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 45

ASK THE COMMUNITY