It's going to take a couple months to put into effect, and you better believe that Comcast and friends are going to sue to overturn it, but I think it's going to stand. I love all the opponents saying it'll drive up prices and stifle competition, as if the current monopolies don't do that as it is.
? The article pretty clearly said public utility.
The Libertarian freakout has already begun.
I have a friend who's hardcore Libertarian. He's freaking out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean the 16% FCC service charge will start showing up on my ISP bills?
I was merely asking a question so I did not have to look it up, since some of you already had.
SMH.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does this actually affect me?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does this actually affect me?
It means your ISP won't charge you more to download things from the Paizo website.
Or more precisely, they won't charge Paizo, who would then have to make up that money from somewhere...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. Possibly awesome. Only time will tell.
John Oliver is pretty much the only reason I at all understand this issue.That's a pretty good summation, although it is worth noting that;s over a year ago and what the FCC did is supporting what Oliver's talking about, not the rule changes he's discussing.
Is it? I get the impression he wasn't on Comcast's side.
The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept.
This was what Oliver was complaining about.
Or are you just saying the specific thing he's complaining about is old news?
There were old proposed rule changes. John Oliver complained about them. The FCC did not adopt them.
Instead, they adopted something closer to Net Neutrality.
Oliver's piece is still valid, but it was about the problem as it existed at that time. Things have since changed. The core concepts are still relevant, but details are different.
If I had been an American, I would likely have identified as a libertarian since liberal in America is nothing of the sort. I wholeheartedly support this decision. I don't understand your venom here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell is--other posters!
(And supporting the Gothenburg football club GAIS, I'm told.)
|
If I had been an American, I would likely have identified as a libertarian since liberal in America is nothing of the sort. I wholeheartedly support this decision. I don't understand your venom here.
I think you might have that backwards, Sissyl - let me try explaining the meaning of "libertarian" in America to you this way: My family had a good friend who joined the Libertarian Party sometime in the 1980s or early 1990s on the basis of their opposing the War On Drugs.
Fast-forward to Election 2000: He's the only person I know who voted for Pat Buchanan.
As far as I can tell, American liberals are what we would term social liberals over here, with American libertarians being everything from neo-liberals to the weird right.
Social liberals? Hardly. They sound far more like our left block (social democrats, left party and environment party).
If our liberals were more like your ex-Stalinists, I'd probably have less fights with them.
Well, different fights, anyway.
But I don't even know how to properly cleanse my browser history let alone what a f+&$ing ISP is, so maybe I should ignore this thread.
Social liberals? Hardly. They sound far more like our left block (social democrats, left party and environment party).
Interesting.
If our liberals were more like your ex-Stalinists, I'd probably have less fights with them.
Well, different fights, anyway.
But I don't even know how to properly cleanse my browser history let alone what a f@%$ing ISP is, so maybe I should ignore this thread.
interesting also. Hm.
Social liberals? Hardly. They sound far more like our left block (social democrats, left party and environment party).
Seeing as I'd say there are more social liberals in the Social Democrats than in Folkpartiet (the traditional liberal party in Sweden) these days, I don't entirely disagree with that ;)
In fact, during Major Björklund's tenure, I'd say FP has moved far enough to the right that if I were a liberal I'd vote for the Social Democrats, the Greens, or Moderaterna (traditionally the big-C Conservatives in Sweden) before them.
As for US liberals sounding like our left block, I'd say only if you ignore their economic policies. I'm pretty sure an economic debate between Obama and Jonas Sjöstedt would get pretty heated. ;)
|
|
I take issue with the term "liberals" being applied in this case based on associated politicians rather than people of any sort who actually deserve the term. There are some liberals in America's government (Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, the Udall family, and my man Mike Honda are a few), but precious few - all we've been permitted to really have for the past 15-ish years are conservatives VS shameless fascists. There IS a far superior America, what 21st-Century America SHOULD be rather than what it's been reduced to so far - but they are actively trying to murder it, like Kronos devouring his children.
I'm beyond angry. I can no longer feel. I'm just waiting for all these dreams deferred to finally explode.
That or some kind of reverse-direction D-Day. I'd welcome you as liberators.
I like Ellison a lot. He's got a nice bill he introduced recently HR 1098 that gives back a lot of consumer protection. I doubt it'll go far though.
Yeah, it looks like "public utility" was sloppy usage on the part of the Times. "common carrier" just doesn't mean anything to most people was probably the thinking.
Great news though.
Freaking out the Libertarians is only a bonus. :)
300+ pages of new government regulations over the internet is great news? Anything you don't want government regulating?
300+ pages of new government regulations over the internet is great news? Anything you don't want government regulating?Yeah, it looks like "public utility" was sloppy usage on the part of the Times. "common carrier" just doesn't mean anything to most people was probably the thinking.
Great news though.
Freaking out the Libertarians is only a bonus. :)
Anything that affects as many people as the Internet? No, not really.
Okay. Apparently they (the government) knows what's best for you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Apparently they (the government) knows what's best for you.
It's more likely to know --- and implement --- what's best for me than the major corporations, which are required by law to implement what's best for the stockholders, and in practice implement only what's best for the board of directors.
Okay. Apparently they (the government) knows what's best for you.
Well it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, at least in theory. I guess you would prefer something other then democracy?
Your other choice is big business doing whatever they feel like, which ends up looking like Pablo Escabar in the 1980's. While that does have an odd miami vice appeal, I would rather suffer the dim masses rather then an enlightened psychopathic dictator.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Apparently they (the government) knows what's best for you.Well it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, at least in theory. I guess you would prefer something other then democracy?
Your other choice is big business doing whatever they feel like, which ends up looking like Pablo Escabar in the 1980's. While that does have an odd miami vice appeal, I would rather suffer the dim masses rather then an enlightened psychopathic dictator.
No one's talking about a dictatorship. The internet was working just fine prior to a few days ago when 3 out of 5 FCC members decided to implement 300 + pages of new federal regulations. Who would disagree with that? Now the government wants to pick winners and losers in the internet, and decide what content gets onto the net and what doesn't. Law enforcement already pursues criminal activity on the net. That is not the purpose of this new government regulations.
Neither you nor I need our government making other decisions and coming up with new taxes related to internet use. How's it working in China? We're about to find out. And you mentioned democracy. 3 out of 5 FCC members (all Democrats) made this decision. Where is the democracy in that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes me wonder if anyone in this thread has actually READ those 300 pages...
Makes me wonder if anyone in this thread has actually READ those 300 pages...
I am not aware of them being available to the public at the present time. Nor were they available to the public prior to the 3-to-2 vote. Very transparent governing, wouldn't you agree.
The reason for the new rules is to keep that happening. The main issue that the regulation is intended to prevent is proposals by the near monopoly access providers (cable companies, telecoms) to charge content providers for higher speed.
Don't worry about the government picking winners and losers or deciding what content gets onto the net. This doesn't allow any of that. If it did, I'd be against it as much as you are. This is to keep the access providers from doing so. Common carrier provisions, much like your phone company is required to carry phone calls coming from other phone companies customers and do so transparently without extra charges or degraded signal.
The devil is so often in the details. Whether or not these new regulations will have the intended effect on providers is unknown. You say it will do that, and at this point, I cannot prove or disprove your statement, though I don't know how you can make that statement with any confidence.
You say that these regulations don't allow "picking winners and losers." I'm sure it doesn't state that in the regulations. Naturally it would not, but it does not stop persons or agencies in the government from abusing these new regulatory powers now that they have been created. No one ever announces they are going to trounce the Constitution or break the law. They just do it later, usually quietly, via the back door. An example: the targeting of Conservative groups by the IRS (ie the Lois Learner) Scandal, or the activities that Acorn was involved in prior to them getting caught.
The reason for the new rules is to keep that happening. The main issue that the regulation is intended to prevent is proposals by the near monopoly access providers (cable companies, telecoms) to charge content providers for higher speed.
Don't worry about the government picking winners and losers or deciding what content gets onto the net. This doesn't allow any of that. If it did, I'd be against it as much as you are. This is to keep the access providers from doing so. Common carrier provisions, much like your phone company is required to carry phone calls coming from other phone companies customers and do so transparently without extra charges or degraded signal.
The devil is so often in the details. Whether or not these new regulations will have the intended effect on providers is unknown. You say it will do that, and at this point, I cannot prove or disprove your statement, though I don't know how you can make that statement with any confidence.
You say that these regulations don't allow "picking winners and losers." I'm sure it doesn't state that in the regulations. Naturally it would not, but it does not stop persons or agencies in the government from abusing these new regulatory powers now that they have been created. No one ever announces they are going to trounce the Constitution or break the law. They just do it later, usually quietly, via the back door. An example: the targeting of Conservative groups by the IRS (ie the Lois Learner) Scandal, or the activities that Acorn was involved in prior to them getting caught.
Wow, couldn't work Benghazi in there?
Have fun!Makes me wonder if anyone in this thread has actually READ those 300 pages...I am not aware of them being available to the public at the present time. Nor were they available to the public prior to the 3-to-2 vote. Very transparent governing, wouldn't you agree.
Nice to see they've made it public. Let's see what they do with these nice new regulatory powers in the future.