|
House Democrats Slam Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Plan
The main thing that concerns me in the article is this line:
Rather than pursue the Google-Verizon plan, the FCC should move forward on its "third way" to regulate broadband, according to the letter. This option, which was proposed by Genachowski in early May, would narrowly reclassify the transmission of data as a telecommunications service that the agency could directly regulate, balanced by a hands-off approach to other aspects.
Does anybody else see the potential catastrophe here? The FCC over-regulates TV and radio and hands down major fines for "inappropriate" transmissions; what's to stop them from doing this with the internet if they get control? The alternative of "package" internet (getting a subscription that grants you access to a grouping of sites) isn't really much better, but it soulds like google/verizon had neutrality ready to go...the only thing it didn't cover was wireless ISPs.
House Democrats Slam Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Plan
The main thing that concerns me in the article is this line:
Rather than pursue the Google-Verizon plan, the FCC should move forward on its "third way" to regulate broadband, according to the letter. This option, which was proposed by Genachowski in early May, would narrowly reclassify the transmission of data as a telecommunications service that the agency could directly regulate, balanced by a hands-off approach to other aspects.Does anybody else see the potential catastrophe here? The FCC over-regulates TV and radio and hands down major fines for "inappropriate" transmissions; what's to stop them from doing this with the internet if they get control? The alternative of "package" internet (getting a subscription that grants you access to a grouping of sites) isn't really much better, but it soulds like google/verizon had neutrality ready to go...the only thing it didn't cover was wireless ISPs.
As always, is there anything the government doesn't want control of? Internet Freedom Preservation Act may be the most Orwellian title ever.
Internet Freedom Preservation Act may be the most Orwellian title ever.
In this particular case, the government may be fulfilling a legitimate fuinction of curbing industry over-control.
"Last year, Markey and Eshoo authored a net neutrality bill that would ban ISPs from blocking, interfering with, or discriminating against lawful applications and devices on the Internet. Those ISPs would also be banned from offering prioritized Internet access or requiring customers to sign up for service other than Internet access. The bill, known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, has not made it out of committee."
Without net neutrality, SBC or Sprint or whomever your ISP provider is will likely in the near future start selling "cable packages" of specific Internet sites you'd have access to, rather than general web access. Additionally, certain types of sites or applications would receive priority in being routed -- if you think the Paizo boards are down pretty often now, just wait!
Adding FCC oversight is a very sinister development -- the freedom of the net is screwed either way. Personally, I don't want ANYONE regulating the internet. Not the government, not industry.
+1 to all the posts here.
I will begin the civil disobedience now.
|
Personally, I don't want ANYONE regulating the internet. Not the government, not industry.
I like this sentiment. Truly, I do. However, we all know someone is going to end up regulating it eventually, and I'd rather it be the FCC than Verizon or any of the communications companies.
The idea of individual companies being able to tell you which sites you can and can't go to, or which ones load faster than the other, because those sites have some special deal with them, scares the ever-loving hell out of me. At least, if the FCC is going to regulate it, I'd like for it to stand up for Net Neutrality. I doubt the FCC would allow shenanigans like the Google-Verizon thing to happen, then again, I could be naive.
In the end, I'd agree with Kirth's statement I quoted. This is what I'd like, but I doubt it'll stay that way.
Stay the hell away from my pr0n!
Stay the hell away from my pr0n!
Pr0n is safe. It keeps the masses distracted. Tea Party websites on the other hand are EVIL.
Internet Freedom Preservation Act may be the most Orwellian title ever.In this particular case, the government may be fulfilling a legitimate fuinction of curbing industry over-control.
"Last year, Markey and Eshoo authored a net neutrality bill that would ban ISPs from blocking, interfering with, or discriminating against lawful applications and devices on the Internet. Those ISPs would also be banned from offering prioritized Internet access or requiring customers to sign up for service other than Internet access. The bill, known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, has not made it out of committee."
Without net neutrality, SBC or Sprint or whomever your ISP provider is will likely in the near future start selling "cable packages" of specific Internet sites you'd have access to, rather than general web access. Additionally, certain types of sites or applications would receive priority in being routed -- if you think the Paizo boards are down pretty often now, just wait!
Adding FCC oversight is a very sinister development -- the freedom of the net is screwed either way. Personally, I don't want ANYONE regulating the internet. Not the government, not industry.
Tragically I believe the NN proposals will end up with us having the worst of both worlds. Whether it's the FCC or some other incompetent corrupt bureaucracy the government will do everything in its power to impose some regulatory structure on the internet. This regulatory structure will grow out of control like a cancer, and it will be captured by industry influence, so we will wind up with a catastrophe like the current health insurance industry state of affairs. We will get all the games and asshattery of mega corporations and all the incompetence and inefficiency of government.
From the patriot act to Obama care the government creates these mega monstrosities to "protect" us from what ever they are telling us to be scared of. Then when it doesn't work in spite of throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the issue it's mind bogglingly difficult to dismantle or restructure the resulting bureaucracy.
I'm not pleased with some of the directions that the industry wants to move in, and there are providers like Sprint that I will NEVER do business with ever again, but I think the government cure will be worse than the disease.
Stay the hell away from my pr0n!
Better say goodbye to it now. If the FCC ("Federation for Christian morality Control") gets involved, everything not rated "G" will be banned.
Moving this thread seems to have kinda killed it.
Stay the hell away from my pr0n!Better say goodbye to it now. If the FCC ("Federation for Christian morality Control") gets involved, everything not rated "G" will be banned.
I see some of the stuff they get away with in other countries and I wonder why we can't do that. It seems ludicrous that all manner of violence can be displayed on the evening news, but heaven forbid we should see a naked human body.
What about Tea Party Pr0n?Stay the hell away from my pr0n!Pr0n is safe. It keeps the masses distracted. Tea Party websites on the other hand are EVIL.
Why do I instantly think of Sarah Palin?
It seems ludicrous that all manner of violence can be displayed on the evening news, but heaven forbid we should see a naked human body.
I can't figure that out, either. There's some sort of unspoken consensus in the U.S. that nudity = sex, and that sex = evil. I disagree with both equations, so I'm totally bewildered that Jack Bauer can torture people and it's "cool," but a nipple slip gets you a $250,000,000 lawsuit.