Are you willing to pay your ISP for access to Literotica?

[LJ_Reloaded]

Are you willing to pay your ISP's fee to subscribe to their "Erotica Network" internet access package to continue posting here and to continue reading stories?

If you are a right winger you must say yes.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html/print?x=0

US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality'
Federal appeals court rules for Comcast and against FCC on `net neutrality' case

Joelle Tessler, AP Technology Writer, On Tuesday April 6, 2010, 11:28 am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so-called "net neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The ruling also marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to officially set net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski argues that such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some online content and services over others.

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

The court case centered on Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning the company from blocking its broadband subscribers from using an online file-sharing technology known as BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net-neutrality principles it adopted in 2005 to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers. Those principles have guided the FCC's enforcement of communications laws on a case-by-case basis, and now Genachowski is trying to formalize those rules.

 

[bronzeage]

The bastards!

Next, the cable company will expect me to pay extra for the Playboy channel.

 

[FreshlyDirty]

The bastards!

Next, the cable company will expect me to pay extra for the Playboy channel.

The Playboy channel expects you to pay extra for the Playboy channel.
Literotica.com does not expect you to pay extra for Literotica.com.
Anymore false comparisons you wanna make?

 

[sr71plt]

The Playboy channel expects you to pay extra for the Playboy channel.
Literotica.com does not expect you to pay extra for Literotica.com.
Anymore false comparisons you wanna make?

I think Bronze was employing sarcasm.

But, no, I wouldn't pay to use Lit.--I mean beyond helping to provide its product, which I do now (as does anyone else contributing stories to the site).

 

[LaRocha]

Oh God! 1984 and Animal Farm are coming true! We have to do something!

 

[bronzeage]

The Playboy channel expects you to pay extra for the Playboy channel.
Literotica.com does not expect you to pay extra for Literotica.com.
Anymore false comparisons you wanna make?

Why is this a false comparison? My cable provider charges me for access to the Playboy channel, after I have paid for their basic service. I have no financial relationship with the people over at Playboy.

Literotica is currently a free service, but it is not cost free to provide. Someone pays for the cost of the servers and related expenses. There are lots of sites which demand a subscription for access. If demand were great enough, an ISP could fold the subscription into the internet service charge.

Television was free to anyone with a TV set, until cable came along. Times change.

I think Bronze was employing sarcasm.

But, no, I wouldn't pay to use Lit.--I mean beyond helping to provide its product, which I do now (as does anyone else contributing stories to the site).

I would hate to pay for Lit, but where else could I find such stimulating intellectual debate.

 

[sr71plt]

Your cable provide includes the Playboy channel in its basic service? Wow. (How are house prices in your area?)

 

[driphoney]

I'm confused (what's new .) I sometimes have trouble reading between the lines, but I don't see where fees were mentioned or even hinted at.

It seems back in 2005 the Republican admin (FCC) attempted to enforce a net neutrality rule, and today's administration is just attempting to clarify the guidelines, but doesn't appear to have a clear authority to control broadband.

It also looks like Comcast, initially, was just trying to cover their rears by disallowing a Napster-type file sharing software from being used over their service.

Did I misunderstand the article?

I don't know about where you live, but here, we do pay for ISP service, and cable, and satellite, and phone. And we pay obscurely listed governmental fees on top of the bill.

God, it's a beautiful day here. Why am I even reading the boards?

 

[bronzeage]

I'm confused (what's new .) I sometimes have trouble reading between the lines, but I don't see where fees were mentioned or even hinted at.

It seems back in 2005 the Republican admin (FCC) attempted to enforce a net neutrality rule, and today's administration is just attempting to clarify the guidelines, but doesn't appear to have a clear authority to control broadband.

It also looks like Comcast, initially, was just trying to cover their rears by disallowing a Napster-type file sharing software from being used over their service.

Did I misunderstand the article?

I don't know about where you live, but here, we do pay for ISP service, and cable, and satellite, and phone. And we pay obscurely listed governmental fees on top of the bill.

God, it's a beautiful day here. Why am I even reading the boards?

It's just another moronic LT thread. The OP does not have to make sense.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'm confused (what's new .) I sometimes have trouble reading between the lines, but I don't see where fees were mentioned or even hinted at.

It seems back in 2005 the Republican admin (FCC) attempted to enforce a net neutrality rule, and today's administration is just attempting to clarify the guidelines, but doesn't appear to have a clear authority to control broadband.

It also looks like Comcast, initially, was just trying to cover their rears by disallowing a Napster-type file sharing software from being used over their service.

Did I misunderstand the article?

I don't know about where you live, but here, we do pay for ISP service, and cable, and satellite, and phone. And we pay obscurely listed governmental fees on top of the bill.

God, it's a beautiful day here. Why am I even reading the boards?

Those are UCUL fees.

 

[driphoney]

Those are UCUL fees.

Uncle fees?

I'm gonna have to give him a talkin' to!

 

[bronzeage]

Uncle fees?

I'm gonna have to give him a talkin' to!

You can't hide.
http://www.musicweb-international.com/film/2003/Feb03/man_from_uncle.jpg

 

[Liar]

If I can not make a call to every public IP adress, it's not Internet. (Exception made for adresses with illegal content - many ISPs filter out known kiddie porn sites, I have no objection there.)

I think an ISP should be allowed to sell a limited access subscription at a lower price. They just can't call it "Internet access". And they must also offer an all-inclusive option. Then let competition and demand set the rates.

 

[Liar]

Why is this a false comparison? My cable provider charges me for access to the Playboy channel, after I have paid for their basic service. I have no financial relationship with the people over at Playboy.

You have no financial relationship with Nike. You have a financial relationship with the shoe store. Who have a financial relationship with Nike. Same thing.

The cable company is the retailer for cable channels. You pay them, they pay Playboy.

Duh.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Uncle fees?

I'm gonna have to give him a talkin' to!

No not your uncle or the man from your uncles.

UCLE pronounced YouCull Fees.

 

[bronzeage]

You have no financial relationship with Nike. You have a financial relationship with the shoe store. Who have a financial relationship with Nike. Same thing.

The cable company is the retailer for cable channels. You pay them, they pay Playboy.

Duh.

It's bad form to duh people who agree with you.

The ISP is the retailer. If they think there is money to be made by charging extra for premium access, they will do it.

 

[Liar]

It's bad form to duh people who agree with you.

The ISP is the retailer. If they think there is money to be made by charging extra for premium access, they will do it.

I was duh-ing your analogy between Literotica and the Playboy Channel. Maybe I didn't make that point well enough.

A cable company is a cable service provider, and a retailer of cable channels (the same way a shoe store is a retailer for shoes). An ISP is an Internet service provider, but not a retailer of web sites.

Literotica, like most websites, is free of charge and public. If the ISP starts charging you extra for selected content that is otherwise free and public, for instance Literotica, those sites are not getting the money.

 

[bronzeage]

I was duh-ing your analogy between Literotica and the Playboy Channel.

A cable company is a cable service provider, and a retailer of cable channels. An ISP is an Internet service provider, but not a retailer of web sites.

Literotica is free of charge. If the ISP starts charging you extra for selected content that is otherwise free, for instance Literotica, those sites are not getting the money.

That is what the original post is trying to warn us about.

If an ISP has control over access, they could market exclusive sites and market premium sites at an extra charge.

Literotica is free now, in the same way just about everyone in the nation once enjoyed free television. Once cable TV became the norm, it was possible to charge extra for the premium product.

Today, the technology to control access to web sites is not very efficient, but the economics will drive it that way.

Even though ISP's are private enterprise operations, at some point their hardware must use public right of way easements. Their cables run right beside the power and the telephone lines. Both of which are regulated by the government.

If it were possible and legal to charge for access to premium internet content, can you think of any reason why it wouldn't happen?

 

[amicus]

You folks miss the entire point. As I posted several months ago, "Net Neutrality" is a government take-over of the Internet; nothing more, nothing less, total government regulation and taxation of your computer and your access to the Internet.

http://www.drewclark.com/net-neutrality-critics-now-in-the-limelight/

Amicus Veritas

 

[FreshlyDirty]

If it were possible and legal to charge for access to premium internet content, can you think of any reason why it wouldn't happen?

Nope. That's why hopefully it won't be legal. If Literotica.com provides their services free of charge to the public, then ComCast has no right to charge people extra to access the site. Imagine the shit load of cash that Comcast and other ISP's could rack up if they charged extra for the crazy amount of otherwise free XXX content on the web.

Also, I think the proposed law has something to do with not allowing ISP's to censor content just because it may criticize it's company, parent companies, or subsidiaries. Lots of companies are connected with different industries these days. So theoretically an ISP could censor content that was bashing a new shoe released because that shoe was released by the ISP's parent or subsidiary company. Rating sites would have to play to the ISP and not give honest ratings for risk of being blocked by ISP for giving unfavorable ratings to a certain brand name.

The opponents of this law say that it is about censoring and controlling content on the internet when it is about just the exact opposite. It is about preventing the censorship and controlling of content. What language in the law makes the opponents think it is about adding censorship rather than preventing it? Are their arguments based in reality at all?

 

[FreshlyDirty]

You folks miss the entire point. As I posted several months ago, "Net Neutrality" is a government take-over of the Internet; nothing more, nothing less, total government regulation and taxation of your computer and your access to the Internet.

http://www.drewclark.com/net-neutrality-critics-now-in-the-limelight/

Amicus Veritas

That article you linked to offers no evidence that net neutrality is about a government take-over of the Internet. It's the same old tired talking points offered every day without any facts to support them. Specifically what in the law allows for government take over of the Internet?

 

[amicus]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the U.S. telecommunications regulator. It is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing the FCC.[2]

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in U.S. telecommunication policy. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. Due however to close geographic proximity to the United States, the FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC has a 2009 proposed budget of $466 million which is funded by $1 million in taxpayer appropriations and the rest in regulatory fees. It has 1,899 "full-time equivalent" federal employees.[3]

~~~

In a blow to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its Chairman, Julius Genachowski, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today ruled against the agency in a case brought by Comcast. At issue in the court action was the question of whether the FCC currently has sufficient authority to regulate broadband services. The Court has now determined that it does not.

The ruling leaves open three options for Genachowski in continuing to push for heightened regulation. First, the FCC can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Second, the FCC could urge Congress to rewrite legislation. Third, the FCC could pursue what some observers have dubbed a “sweeping reclassification” of broadband services under an existing set of rules which relate to telephone services.

~~~

Following the leadership of the Obama White House, the FCC is considering a reversal of their 2003 decision. At the request of an Atlanta company, Cbeyond, the FCC would force AT&T and Verizon to lease their Internet lines to rival companies. Cbeyond -- whose present lines are significantly slower than those of the major phone companies -- wants access to their rivals' lines in order to offer their Internet services to small businesses.
By forcing Verizon and AT&T to share their lines, the FCC would effectively be putting the Internet under government control. Government control of the Internet is precisely what the Obama administration wants with its support of "net neutrality" -- the idea that there should be no restrictions or priorities on the type of content carried over the Internet by the carriers and ISPs. It states that all traffic be treated equally, regardless of where it originated or to where it is destined.

~~~

Net Neutrality is a complex and complicated issue that effects much of contemporary communications via the internet, landline and satellite facilities.

The basic function of the FCC is to control and regulate 'the airways', when radio frequencies were declared, 'public property', to be licensed and regulated by the FCC.

Amicus Veritas

 

[bronzeage]

Nope. That's why hopefully it won't be legal. If Literotica.com provides their services free of charge to the public, then ComCast has no right to charge people extra to access the site. Imagine the shit load of cash that Comcast and other ISP's could rack up if they charged extra for the crazy amount of otherwise free XXX content on the web.

Also, I think the proposed law has something to do with not allowing ISP's to censor content just because it may criticize it's company, parent companies, or subsidiaries. Lots of companies are connected with different industries these days. So theoretically an ISP could censor content that was bashing a new shoe released because that shoe was released by the ISP's parent or subsidiary company. Rating sites would have to play to the ISP and not give honest ratings for risk of being blocked by ISP for giving unfavorable ratings to a certain brand name.

The opponents of this law say that it is about censoring and controlling content on the internet when it is about just the exact opposite. It is about preventing the censorship and controlling of content. What language in the law makes the opponents think it is about adding censorship rather than preventing it? Are their arguments based in reality at all?

Pay attention for a moment. Internet service is not free. It takes wires and all kinds of stuff. Someone buys it and puts it all together, and for a monthly fee, allows you to use their system.

Literotica is free, but that is not really what the discussion is about, although it is in the thread title. Forget about Literotica for a moment.

Think about a site that sells movies. Complete movies, several hours of video. This site charges for the movie. You pay the movie site directly. The movie uses a ISP capacity. If too many people are watching a movie, other users may not be able to get the service for which they paid.

If you had a business, how would you feel if someone else was making money from your service and reducing the service you could provide at the same time?

Is an ISP supposed to allow full and free access to anyone, if it means they can not provide the service they promised to their customers?

This is about money. If money were not at the heart of it, would anybody care?

 

[driphoney]

You can't hide.
http://www.musicweb-international.com/film/2003/Feb03/man_from_uncle.jpg

No not your uncle or the man from your uncles.

UCLE pronounced YouCull Fees.

Thirty minutes of googling brought me no results on UCLE, but it did lead me to the fact that only 10 states are allowed to tax for internet. Texas, where I am, is one of them. Amounts over $25/mo. are taxed. At least we don't pay income tax.

But I was just talking off the top of my head on the taxing, and you caught me out. I was recalling trying to sort out my phone bill fees and taxes a couple of years ago and couldn't.

I'll let you all get back to your debate.

 

[The_Fool]

Net Neutrality is all about the money.