FCC passes Net Neutrality; Government control of the Internet?

[amicus]

Thas right, folks, it's you they wanna control...

~~~


http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/fcc-net-neutrality/

The FCC approved strong openness rules for wired and wireless broadband connections to the internet Thursday, leaving the details of the rules open to public debate for the next 60 days. The move will gratify President Obama’s grassroots supporters and internet services like Google, but draw the wrath of large telecoms like AT&T and the wireless industry.

The FCC’s five commissioners unanimously agreed to expand and codify rules from 2005 that require cable and DSL providers to allow their customers to use whatever devices or online services they want so long as they don’t hurt the network. A similar rule applied to AT&T’s phone monopoly in the 1960s led to the fax machine, the football phone and the internet.
The 107-page FCC proposal (.pdf) was made public several hours after the vote. However, the rules are only a draft and will be subject to intense public debate and lobbying in the next 60 days. After that, the FCC will issue final rules, which will then likely face court and Congressional challenges.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/fcc-neutrality-mistake/

Now the FCC is proposing taking a free market that works, and adding another layer of innovation-stifling regulations on top of that? This may please the net neutrality advocates who helped elect the current administration, but it doesn’t add up.

Net neutrality regulations make sense in closed, monopolistic situations. But outside of small, rural markets, most of the U.S. offers a high level of competitive choice. Don’t like Comcast cable internet? Switch to SpeakEasy, Astound or SBC, or look into satellite internet. Don’t care for AT&T’s spotty 3G wireless network? Try T-Mobile or Verizon. Need help finding an alternative? Check Broadband Reports’ interactive ISP finder.

That’s why the FCC should take a very cautious, careful approach to implementing its brave, new principles. Free, unfettered innovation has been the secret to the internet’s explosive growth over the past two decades. Let’s not let a well-meaning attempt to preserve that innovation wind up doing exactly the opposite.
As Farber says, “Whatever you do, you don’t want to stifle innovation.”

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ty_rules?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2009-10-23

"Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

It's unclear whether the legislation would pass. Democrats, who generally support net neutrality rules, have majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but in recent days, more than 70 House Democrats have written the FCC expressing concern over net

~~~

Control over Banks, Auto Companies, Health Care Industry, Energy Industry, Chamber of Commerce, Cable News Stations and now the Internet...

Anyone send a trend here under a National Emergency Declaration?

Just askin'

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Control over Banks, Auto Companies, Health Care Industry, Energy Industry, Chamber of Commerce, Cable News Stations and now the Internet...

Anyone send a trend here under a National Emergency Declaration?

No.

Just tellin'.



Net neutrality makes sure your Internet operator can't censor your Internet content without your consent. It means you can reach all the web content and web services offered to the public. It also means that you will still in the future be able to start a web based business or content service and compete on a level playing field with the quality of your product, without having to have ties to an Internet operator.

What's the matter, I thought you like free market?

Now, I don't think Net Neutrality is nessecary, but if it isn't there, you'll need two other things:

1. A truth-in-advertising clause, so that an Internet provider that botches access or limits bandwidth to competitors' content, or give content providers in quid-pro-quo schemes with them extra priviliges, can't call their service "Internet".

2. A guarantee that in every market, for every customer, there's one or more operators left that offer real Internet access at a reasonably competitive rate.

Would you be cool with a phone operator that decided for you that you were not allowed to call California, Texas and Ohio anymore?

 

[amicus]

You must be right, Liar, a Republic Senator introduced a bill to kill the regulation because it does no harm at all. Somewhere I read another 50 Politicians in Washington were in agreement, but, since you are always in support of restrictions and regulations and never wrong about anything, then I suppose all who read you will swoon with your insight.

Such a deal...

Amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

Really? Amicus, McCain's bill would limit Internet freedoms.

You seem to parrot some really ignorant positions without understanding them at all.

It makes you seem a mindless shill.

 

[Liar]

You must be right, Liar, a Republic Senator introduced a bill to kill the regulation because it does no harm at all. Somewhere I read another 50 Politicians in Washington were in agreement, but, since you are always in support of restrictions and regulations and never wrong about anything, then I suppose all who read you will swoon with your insight.

Such a deal...

Amicus

So McCain must be right and the FCC must be wrong, is what you're saying? And that the politicians that ARE in agreement with the FCC must swoon with your insight, since you are always in support of complete deregulation and free antitrust for everyone, and never wrong about anything?

Is that the best you've got to an on-topic disagreement? Ridicule without even attempting to adress the points I made? Come on.

 

[Fantasies_only]

I want to know how you all would change the Internet if you could.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=678299

The mentioned Website is bogus.
Goverment sites are reserved for .gov and .org.
Government press is usually .edu.
Indipendent sources and home businesses will use .com or .net (the site admits it's a blog for opinions only).

I don't think there is even a person running the site!

 

[TxRad]

I want to know how you all would change the Internet if you could.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=678299

The mentioned Website is bogus.
Goverment sites are reserved for .gov and .org.
Government press is usually .edu.
Indipendent sources and home businesses will use .com or .net (the site admits it's a blog for opinions only).

I don't think there is even a person running the site!

Amicus always uses opinion in place of facts. He doesn't like facts, they get in the way of his preconceived ideas.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Amicus always uses opinion in place of facts. He doesn't like facts, they get in the way of his preconceived ideas.

Who the heck is Amicus?
Cerntainly not someone in the FCC.

If anyone knows what happened to my linked thread, please tell me.
It was written in the correct forum.

 

[TxRad]

Who the heck is Amicus?
Cerntainly not someone in the FCC.

If anyone knows what happened to my linked thread, please tell me.
It was written in the correct forum.

Amicus started this thread and it seems your thread was moved or deleted. I'm not sure which.

 

[Liar]

I want to know how you all would change the Internet if you could.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=678299

The mentioned Website is bogus.
Goverment sites are reserved for .gov and .org.
Government press is usually .edu.
Indipendent sources and home businesses will use .com or .net (the site admits it's a blog for opinions only).

I don't think there is even a person running the site!

Hm, your link goes to an error message for me saying I'm not autorised to access it. Does anyone else get that?

(ETA: Ok, it seems you noticed too. Never mind.)

Anyway, AFAIK, you're incorrect in this post.

.org is an unrestricted international TLD (top level domain). Anyone can register a .org domain for any reason. Traditionally, it's used for non-profit organisations.

.edu is reserved for post-secondary educational establishments. Universities et al. How do you mean that is government press?

 

[JamesSD]

(Does a little dance that Freedom won out again on this issue)

Net Neutrality FTW! Information wants to be free! No censorship by ISPs!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The FCC approved strong openness rules for wired and wireless broadband connections to the internet Thursday, leaving the details of the rules open to public debate for the next 60 days. The move will gratify President Obama’s grassroots supporters and internet services like Google, but draw the wrath of large telecoms like AT&T and the wireless industry.

The FCC’s five commissioners unanimously agreed to expand and codify rules from 2005 that require cable and DSL providers to allow their customers to use whatever devices or online services they want so long as they don’t hurt the network. A similar rule applied to AT&T’s phone monopoly in the 1960s led to the fax machine, the football phone and the internet.

The way I read it, this bill clearly guarantees people the right to access whatever sites they want without censorship or added access costs tacked on by the service providers. They can hook up whatever they please to service providers' networks as long as they don't damage or degrade the network and so don't have to buy the ISP's equipment at inflated prices.

Freedom. It gives us freedom, at the expense of the large corporations who want to stifle that freedom for the sake of profits by limiting access and requiring that you only use their equipment. If this bill doesn't pass, there'll be nothing to stop ComCast and other ISP's from making you pay a premium for access to certain sites, like those providing adult content, or showing movies, or--oh, don't know--just making you pay to access whatever site you like best. The ISP's will control the content of the internet.

McCain's argument that requiring free access is "another level of bureaucracy" is baldly misleading and disingenuous. It's like complaining that the Bill of Rights should be rescinded because that too adds another layer of government. What McCain and the dissenters are really in favor of is vesting control and profits from the internet in the corporate offices of ISP's.

Watch for it. If this doesn't pass, the internet will soon cost more than cable TV. And we know how much free competition has lowered the cost of cable TV. Like not at fucking all.

Now, either Amicus is for freedom devolving from the people to the big corporations, or he didn't even read the article but just saw Obama's name on it and took off into his own paranoid fantasy.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Hm, your link goes to an error message for me saying I'm not autorised to access it. Does anyone else get that?

(ETA: Ok, it seems you noticed too. Never mind.)

Anyway, AFAIK, you're incorrect in this post.

.org is an unrestricted international TLD (top level domain). Anyone can register a .org domain for any reason. Traditionally, it's used for non-profit organisations.

.edu is reserved for post-secondary educational establishments. Universities et al. How do you mean that is government press?

The FCC and many govenment sites link to third party sites with the .edu address.
This is usually set aside for goverment anouncements in PDF format.

Back to the topic, or something like it:
The Coming Internet Shutdown?
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas: Your email has been sent. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would let Obama disconnect parts of the Internet in an emergency.
FULL ARTICLE AT THE DAILY BEAST

As for Net Neutrality itself, torant users consider this invention (such as the Napster and RealVideo debates) part of free speech even though it's illegal.
This activity is allowed on places like Dailymotion and Myspace.
Net Neutrality disallows illegal utilities.

The sites http://www.radgametools.com/ and http://www.cdburnerxp.se/ both feature ripping software that can be called freedom of expression, but are also illegal.
Net Neutrality disallows illegal software.

Even the site http://mfgg.net/ could be considered illegal for the various tools it uses to make games.
Nintendo declairs using it's characters may or may not be illegal in your community, and can't take responsponsibility for the actions of the user (meaning if we get in trouble, it's our problem not theirs).
I am conserned at this particular site more for music, sound, and voice, but also full and partail engines to create Nintendo type games are being made (sega has the same problem).
There are also sites for M.U.G.E.N.s (fighting game creators) that can copy the most current platform fighting games, and the user can play and keep them for free.

What would happen to all of this if Net Neutrality was passed?

Come to think of it, the VCR would have been banned under this kind of thinking.

 

[Liar]

The FCC and many govenment sites link to third party sites with the .edu address.
This is usually set aside for goverment anouncements in PDF format.

Uh yes. They often link to academic studies. By, you know, universities.

As for Net Neutrality itself, torant users consider this invention (such as the Napster and RealVideo debates) part of free speech even though it's illegal.
This activity is allowed on places like Dailymotion and Myspace.
Net Neutrality disallows illegal utilities.

The sites http://www.radgametools.com/ and http://www.cdburnerxp.se/ both feature ripping software that can be called freedom of expression, but are also illegal.
Net Neutrality disallows illegal software.

Even the site http://mfgg.net/ could be considered illegal for the various tools it uses to make games.
Nintendo declairs using it's characters may or may not be illegal in your community, and can't take responsponsibility for the actions of the user (meaning if we get in trouble, it's our problem not theirs).
I am conserned at this particular site more for music, sound, and voice, but also full and partail engines to create Nintendo type games are being created (sega has the same problem).
There are also sites for M.U.G.E.N.s (fighting game creators) that can copy the most current platform fighting games, and the user can play and keep them for free.

What would happen to all of this if Net Neutrality was passed?

Come to think of it, the VCR should have been banned under this kind of thinking.

The proposal assures neutraltity for all legal services and content, but says that operators will keep the right to act against illegal content and services. That's nothing surprising and entirely reasonable.

Because they have that right already. Nobody can force a company to be a tool for crime. It's likely stated in your subscrption EULA (as well as for your phone subscription) that you're not allowed to use your net connection for illegal activity.

Oh, and torrents as well as torrent trackers are not illegal. There are many legal torrents, for instance many commersial software update services like antivirus signatures and security patches are distributed with torrent technology, as well as online purchases of games.

Most torrents are illegal file sharing though, copyright infringment, and in most places, an operator have the right to block traffic that they know is illegal. But they have to have positive proof.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Uh yes. They often link to academic studies. By, you know, universities.

The proposal assures neutraltity for all legal services and content, but says that operators will keep the right to act against illegal content and services. That's nothing surprising and entirely reasonable.

Because they have that right already. Nobody can force a company to be a tool for crime. It's likely stated in your subscrption EULA (as well as for your phone subscription) that you're not allowed to use your net connection for illegal activity.

Oh, and torrents as well as torrent trackers are not illegal. There are many legal torrents, for instance many commersial software update services like antivirus signatures and security patches are distributed with torrent technology, as well as online purchases of games.

Most torrents are illegal file sharing though, copyright infringment, and in most places, an operator have the right to block traffic that they know is illegal. But they have to have positive proof.

Yes, I read that in the ISP rules, but saying no illegal use is like saying don't distribute video tapes and DVDs, not copying them, which is clearly illegal as well, but isn't challenged.
This is what I'm saying, ALL of the rules will be enforced.

Do you really think copying a TV movie and allowing your friends to see it in a home cinema party is legal?

 

[Liar]

Yes, I read that in the ISP rules, but saying no illegal use is like saying don't distribute video tapes and DVDs, not copying them, which is clearly illegal as well, but isn't challenged.
This is what I'm saying, ALL of the rules will be enforced.

Do you really think copying a TV movie and allowing your friends to see it in a home cinema party is legal?

It's never been, and you can get busted for it.

Are you saying that you'd be more likely to be busted by it with the new Net Neutrality rules in place? If so, why? Cause I don't see it. All it does is specify that the operators maintain the right they have today to nail your ass to the wall if you use their service for something illegal. But most of the time it's not good business for them to bother, so what makes you think they will start now all of a sudden?

 

[Fantasies_only]

It's never been, and you can get busted for it.

Are you saying that you'd be more likely to be busted by it with the new Net Neutrality rules in place? If so, why? Cause I don't see it. All it does is specify that the operators maintain the right they have today to nail your ass to the wall if you use their service for something illegal. But most of the time it's not good business for them to bother, so what makes you think they will start now all of a sudden?

I read something to that effect somewhere, that ISPs will be policing the Web for things like child porn, copyright infringement, and other illegal activities.
They are allowed and encouraged (and possibly bribed) to play "Big Brother" by Congress.
ISPs have previously just let the "Fat Cats" in Washington worry about this without getting their hands dirty.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I read something to that effect somewhere, that ISPs will be policing the Web for things like child porn, copyright infringement, and other illegal activities.
They are allowed and encouraged (and possibly bribed) to play "Big Brother" by Congress.
ISPs have previously just let the "Fat Cats" in Washington worry about this without getting their hands dirty.

I'd echo what Liar asked. Where in the Net Neutrality rules is there anything about ISP's policing the web? Why would they want to start censoring content when they run the risk of violating this very Net Neutrality rule if they should ban legal content?

If anything, net neutrality would discourage internet policing by guaranteeing free and ready access to all legal sites.

Not passing the rule means that ISP's can do what they want as far as access; censor what they want, pick and choose what you can see, and even charge you extra for accessing certain sites, like they do with cable premium channels. Who wants that?

I don't know. I smell a rat here in the bad rap NN is getting. I noticed in that McCain article that ostensible web-access groups are for NN, while the people who seem to be against it are certain Republican legislators and the ISP operators themselves.

 

[Liar]

The only thing is that ISP operators might have a harder time cashing in on content services they develop. Because they can't be guaranteed that their subscribers choose their service over an independent competitor.

But if that is "stifling innovation", I'm a cucumber.

 

[Fantasies_only]

I'd echo what Liar asked. Where in the Net Neutrality rules is there anything about ISP's policing the web? Why would they want to start censoring content when they run the risk of violating this very Net Neutrality rule if they should ban legal content?

If anything, net neutrality would discourage internet policing by guaranteeing free and ready access to all legal sites.

Not passing the rule means that ISP's can do what they want as far as access; censor what they want, pick and choose what you can see, and even charge you extra for accessing certain sites, like they do with cable premium channels. Who wants that?

I don't know. I smell a rat here in the bad rap NN is getting. I noticed in that McCain article that ostensible web-access groups are for NN, while the people who seem to be against it are certain Republican legislators and the ISP operators themselves.

US lawmaker injects ISP throttle into Obama rescue package
Stimulus bill may have allowed packet inspection
By the way, questioning the Net Neutrality bill in this thread by no means should be interpreted as me being against it.
I've heard both good and bad points of it and I'm very confused.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

US lawmaker injects ISP throttle into Obama rescue package
Stimulus bill may have allowed packet inspection
By the way, questioning the Net Neutrality bill in this thread by no means should be interpreted as me being against it.
I've heard both good and bad points of it and I'm very confused.

Yeah, it's kind of confusing, but what your references seem to say is that this "ISP throttle" is NOT a part of the Net Neutrality Act. Rather it was an amendment Diane Feinstein added to the $800 Billion Stimulus Bill, which was a completely different animal, and loaded down with all sorts of riders and amendments, as we know. The relevant clause says:

"...the assistant secretary shall allow for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement."

So this bill would allow for reasonable network management but not mandate it.

What that appears to mean to me is that responsibility for policing copyright infringement would fall on the ISP's, who could then be held liable for any case of copyright infringement. (In other words: it becomes your responsibility to make sure no one steals my stuff.)

The movie and recording industry would very much like to see such a bill become law, and, sure enough, the article goes on to say (& this is all from your second reference):

However, the clause was introduced as part of a Managers Amendment package in Congress, where a grab bag of amendments gets debated by Senate leaders and has to pass via a unanimous vote. The vote failed but may be reintroduced as part of ongoing negotiations on the bill.

"“This is Hollywood. They never give up," said Art Brodsky, communication director at Public Knowledge, a public interest group for the technology industry. "These guys never quit. I have no doubt they will be back."[/I]

So it appears that it was Hollywood and the recording industry that was pushing for this provision.

While President Obama is a supporter of net neutrality, it seems that the ISP industry is planning its own responses to allow it to introduce variable pricing

Feinstein has strong links with the Hollywood industry and has in the past sought to make the addition of digital rights management software mandatory for internet music stations.

Notice that next to the last paragraph. [My emphasis].

 

[amicus]

The consensus seems to be breaking down along party lines and that should tell some of the usual suspects here something...that some do perceive the act as restrictive and unnecessary...

Amicus

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The consensus seems to be breaking down along party lines and that should tell some of the usual suspects here something...that some do perceive the act as restrictive and unnecessary...

Amicus

Consensus? What consensus? I don't see anyone against the Net Neutrality Act except you: a brave patriot in a tinfoil hat. I do see one post reporting that he heard rumors that there might be something bad in the NNA, but no specifics and no description of exactly how it might be bad or why.

I have no doubt that you perceive the act as bad, simply because you perceive everything this administration does as bearing the devil's claw marks. But I'd be interesting in knowing just how and in what way you think the NNA is "restrictive and unnecessary," seeing as how without the Act, the ISP's are sure to prohibit access to certain web sites and charge more for their service.

 

[Fantasies_only]

"So it appears that it was Hollywood and the recording industry that was pushing for this provision."

It wasn't just those two.
Back in March and again in May, we heard of this group (ACLU) who not only wanted to do away with lolicon in the US, but manga (the source of most lolicon) as well (may get their wish in Japan in 3 years).
I fear both artistic freedom and freedom of the press will be destroyed for the sake of cartoon child porn (already happened in virtual worlds like Second Life, WoW, and Everquest).

I understood these were two separate bills when I read about it, however they both effect the Internet in a unique way (May be merged with McCain's Freedom Act), and the fact Congress approved both is very confusing, as they say one thing and do another.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"So it appears that it was Hollywood and the recording industry that was pushing for this provision."

It wasn't just those two.
Back in March and again in May, we heard of this group (ACLU) who not only wanted to do away with lolicon in the US, but manga (the source of most lolicon) as well (may get their wish in Japan in 3 years).
I fear both artistic freedom and freedom of the press will be destroyed for the sake of cartoon child porn (already happened in virtual worlds like Second Life, WoW, and Everquest).

I understood these were two separate bills when I read about it, however they both effect the Internet in a unique way (May be merged with McCain's Freedom Act), and the fact Congress approved both is very confusing, as they say one thing and do another.

Wait a minute... You're saying ACLU was advocating censorship of manga?? This is the American Civil Liberties Union? The people who always seem to represent the artists in obscenity cases?

I'd like to see the original reference on this. This doesn't sound right at all. Like the Heritage Foundation standingup for homosexual marriage.

Are you maybe thinking of the Christopher Handley case where the ACLU stepped in to help defend a man who'd been arrested on obscenity charges for ordering manga through the mail?

ACLU has a policy of not defending child porn as a freedom-of-speech issue, but they will help defend most people arrested on dubious obscenity charges.

In any case, I'm not sure how you figure child porn will shut down the web if the Net Neutrality Act goes through. There's nothing in the act that says an ISP has to carry any and every site regardless of content. It just says they can't deny access to the sites they do allow.