Lol what?
No, actually, it wouldn’t, not unless it’s for “terrorism” or “state security” issues, which, again, is already the case.
Telephones have been regulated for lifetimes and there is no regulation on what can and can’t be said over them. The same will apply to the internet. There is no cause, benefit, or even really a goal when it comes to government regulation of content, it’s a non-threat. About as significant as the threat of grey goo to the world.
Even in the case of NSA spying over the internet, the goal is not to regulate content, it’s to identify people.
FCC going to vote on net neutrality next month.
Whenever the federal government regulates something it has a high likelihood of fucking it up. The US government is intentionally inept, if you think a government is supposed to operate for the best interests of its people. If you understand that they’re a bunch of tyrannical oligarchs however, who will do anything they can to limit people’s freedom and ruin their quality of life, then you have to understand they are in fact the opposite of inept, and are actually quite awesome at what they do. They’ve managed the greatest wealth disparity in modern history, and they still want more. That takes balls. Balls and a stupid public.
http://recode.net/2015/02/18/billionaire-mark-cuban-says-net-neutrality-will-fuck-everything-up/
I thought the point of Net Neutrality is for the Internet to not be regulated…
That Cuban guy must be high on cocaine.
Mark Cuban is great sometimes, terrible other times. This is a terrible time. The internet should be kept open and regulation is useful for that.
The point of Net Neutrality is to stop providers from throttling service and/or offering packages that distribute service unevenly (needing to pay to access google or netflix etc). Companies love using the word regulation to mean that the government is stopping them from doing business when a lot of regulation is basically there to say “you can’t fucking do this because its fucking over the citizens”. The FCC stepping in and saying that providers are not allowed to slow down the service to websites they don’t like is technically regulating the market.
So…yeah…
Cuban hasn’t been getting fined as much for criticizing NBA referees. Maybe criticizing the FCC will get his fine quota matched again.
Mark Cuban can (and should) keep his trap shut.
These companies are like the bullies on a playground taking lunch money from smaller kids who are trying to avoid being beaten-up. The teachers (federal government) shouldn’t turn their heads away and let them keep getting away with it, but they do anyways because the bullies give them a small portion of that lunch money.
I guess by corrupt laws we’re supposed to let those same bullies fight it out for control of the playground, except it doesn’t really matter because everyone else is fucked no matter what…
The govt has been trying to get in on the internet for a while now. This is the 5th attempt at legislating internet regulation. Why is this? Look how much business is conducted over that medium (new govt revenue stream). The govt is injecting themselves into a dispute between high profile billion dollar businesses. However these billion dollar business have already come to a mutually beneficial agreement and now the quality is better than ever. Price discrimination may be an everyday part of business but the govt knows that it can leverage a generic moral outrage from the public on this issue as it has for over a century and regardless of the netflix/comcast agreement the govt has your attention now.
The administration is aiming at regulating the internet under Title II (Telecom act of 1934). Title II oversight governs the classic, suffocation-style govt regulation. The only reason the internet is the model of exponential growth and innovation is because it has not (up to now) fell under the FCC’s definition of telcommunication (‘selling transmission of content without changing of content’) and thus remained outside the jurisdiction of govt regulation. What makes you think that the internet is going to escape the fate of other industries that fell under this clause? Look at FCC history; regarding site licenses, access requirements, reporting guidelines, price restrictions, and an assortment of other arbitrary imposed obligations do you really think this will help with overall internet speeds and proliferation?
Proponents argue that the internet can be protected from the most suffocating aspects of Title II regulation via ‘forebearance’/waiver court proceedings. So are we willing to gamble internet freedom on these proceedings? Even some net neutrality proponents are against regulation under the umbrella of Title II as being too heavy handed and that other existing telecom legislation can be invoked with more flexibility and the regulatory restraint which has enabled unprecedented innovation.
Same old ish from Uncle Sugar, see also: Common Carrier and Fairness Doctrine
What? Shut the fuck up.
Please read up on what is in Title II. The FCC is saying that they will use the honor system (hahaa, what?) and not touch the more onerous regulatory privileges offered by Title II. However they also specifically said that moving forward all of the regulatory options outlined in Title II are on the table to future FCC regulators and administrations. In other words there is no guarantee that in the future there will be no rate regulations, price controls, license requirement for new entities (websites), new rigorous accounting and reproting requirements, new taxes and fees, etc… The opened ended nature of the new proposal is something not emphasized in the info given at FCC.gov. *(Let me underscore this point: This is straight from the horses mouth, the FCC has stated that: it is possible that this is just the thing that gets the govt’s foot in the door in regulating the internet similar to all other industries that fell under Title II over US history) *
Here is a nice, non-partisan, easy-to-read link:
Apparently a zero-rating section is notably absent from the info given by the administration which could change the landscape regarding how apps like pandora, rhapsody, spotify, etc are charged regarding data transmitted. Who knew?
Please take an interest in the laws and how they are intended to work (protecting freedoms or enriching an oligarchy?) in this country. If you dont, then it is hard to argue that we even deserve any of the freedoms in question.
The internal FCC vote is this Thursday.
Piracy exists. It can’t be stopped.
Just ignore the laws, that’s what they do, turnabout is fair play.
/topic
I understand how the proposal would work, but I would rather have that than corporations being in control of the most important tool to our economy. I don’t trust them keeping prices down, doing what they do in our best interest, or upgrading when it hurts their bottom line. So let them do it. An enemy I know is better than the one I don’t.
You think govt regulation will spur upgrades? Based on history I would think that may be a naive expectation.
Maybe govt could use anti trust legislation to break up the monopolies that cable companies possess in most communities? Why do you think they are not doing this? Look what the Govt has done to get us here. They have endorsed the local monopolies of the cable companies for the purpose of reaping the benefits. hahaaa Everybody loses in this scenario. We have poor service and high prices that would be mitigated by competition. Is the govt still ‘the enemy you know’?
This is a terrible analogy but, the Companies are like Melanie from Jackie Brown. She may have seemed like bad news for Ordell’s venture, but she was consistent. Ordell always knew how she was going to react (simple, selfish) and Ordell could trust her to default to her intrinsic nature (Ordell brought in a new partner that biased the equilibrium of his little ecosystem there and everything fell apart). Companies will always act in their own best interest, which in a free market usually means most attractive to consumers than other options available on the market (lower prices, better quality, etc.). If the market is not kept free, all bets are off, this intrinsically selfish nature of companies is no longer restrained consumer choice. The last thing you want a companies to do is get in with the Govt, this breaks all the rules you cannot trust a company to give them that type of responsibility to have a relationship with the referees. Title II regulation solidifies this relationship; preserves/strenghtens the monopoly and makes the barrier of entry of competitors more difficult. In contrast to your stated expectations, this reduces the incentive for optimization, innovation, lower prices, etc.
Someone please explain to me what is happening.
Please keep in mind I have ADHD and anything like the post above just looks like a bunch of ants attacking my screen.
FCC voted 3-2 in favor of net neutrality.
WE DID IT REDDIT.
I was reading last night that the republicans were backing down and giving up. GOOD!
Do you guys want something done with the OP? Link to articles or some other nonsense. Open to suggestions.