The FCC just voted to classify internet as a public utility

[Killer_GM]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Wow, couldn't work Benghazi in there?

Nope. I was too busy deleting government emails off my private server.

[thejeff]

Killer_GM wrote:

thejeff wrote:

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.

Much like the FCC has been abusing the similar regulator powers it has over telephone companies and broadcast TV.

And the companies had basically announced the abused they were going to commit.

[LazarX]

Killer_GM wrote:

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.

The Internet is still working fine. That's the point of Net Neutrality, to keep it an open and equal playing field. Instead of one where Comcast, and Verizon, and the other providers decide who gets fast access to their customers and who doesn't.

You may remember the NetFlix slowdown for Comcast users when they refused to pay Comcast's extortion fee for their customers to get a fast downstream? This is what Net Neutrality prevents. This is what keeps competition an option instead of internet providers throttling down content in favor of what THEY provide.

The Libertarians of course are unhappy about this, as for them, the only concern is that of private enterprise being free to do whatever the hell it wants.

[Krensky]

Killer_GM,

The IRS thing was essentially made up. More liberal groups were denied classification, and the issues that actually were caused by the GOP not doing their job so there was no one in charge at the IRS to decide how to handle stuff so the massively understaffed office in charge of doing so had to make it up as they went while being buried under applications.

The Acorn thing WAS made up. Completely. Every single aspect of it was fraudulent.

I'm not sure what you think Clinton and her irregular use of email has to do with the point at hand, but it's been pointed out by the Library of Congress and National Archives that it's a problem and such.

Everything you said about this is 180 degrees from the truth. You're listening to people who not only do not have your best interests at heart, that that have your worst interests at heart. That see you as nothing more then a mark to be fleeced, conned, and manipulated for their benefit.

Read some of the articles in the tech press about nat neutrality and what the FCC ruling means.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

I'm not sure what you think Clinton and her irregular use of email has to do with the point at hand, but it's been pointed out by the Library of Congress and National Archives that it's a problem and such.

Without derailing too much:

A problem and bad practice, but at the same time not illegal or against regulation when she did. Nor against precedent with earlier Secretaries of State.
Or for that matter the practices of most of the Republicans who'll be running against her. So it'll be hard for them to bring it up, without it being turned on them.

So yeah, bad idea, but a widespread long term one. Regulations have been updated for better practice in the future. Not a scandal.

[Killer_GM]

thejeff wrote:

Much like the FCC has been abusing the similar regulator powers it has over telephone companies and broadcast TV.

And the companies had basically announced the abused they were going to commit.

The FCC and numerous prominent politicians have in recent years wanted to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine, (which was repealed in 1987), that mandated private radio stations devote time to all points of view during discussion of controversial topics. This actions, if implemented (and they did try) would have been to stifle free speech, and have the government arbitrate what is “fair” and “correct” on your car radio.

[Killer_GM]

Krensky wrote:

Everything you said about this is 180 degrees from the truth. You're listening to people who not only do not have your best interests at heart, that that have your worst interests at heart. That see you as nothing more then a mark to be fleeced, conned, and manipulated for their benefit.

I might make the same observation about your statements as well. I do however thank you for your concern.

[thejeff]

Killer_GM wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Much like the FCC has been abusing the similar regulator powers it has over telephone companies and broadcast TV.

And the companies had basically announced the abused they were going to commit.

The FCC and numerous prominent politicians have in recent years wanted to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine, (which was repealed in 1987), that mandated private radio stations devote time to all points of view during discussion of controversial topics. This actions, if implemented (and they did try) would have been to stifle free speech, and have the government arbitrate what is “fair” and “correct” on your car radio.

Whatever you think of the Fairness Doctrine, it was in place for 40 years and the country thrived.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Heh, apparently the issue is too boring to even sustain a partisan fight.

[Killer_GM]

thejeff wrote:

Whatever you think of the Fairness Doctrine, it was in place for 40 years and the country thrived.

The country's thriving was in spite of the Fairness Doctrine. And I would contend that the country did a lot more 'thriving' from 1980 to 1988, and it's been a downhill slide ever since, even without the Fairness Doctrine.

[Fergie]

Killer_GM wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Whatever you think of the Fairness Doctrine, it was in place for 40 years and the country thrived.

The country's thriving was in spite of the Fairness Doctrine. And I would contend that the country did a lot more 'thriving' from 1980 to 1988, and it's been a downhill slide ever since, even without the Fairness Doctrine.

You would contend wrong then. For most people in the US wages have been stagnant since around the late 1970's. Stock market has done well, but unlike some folks thought, trickle down economics are a fraud.

[Killer_GM]

Fergie wrote:

You would contend wrong then. For most people in the US wages have been stagnant since around the late 1970's. Stock market has done well, but unlike some folks thought, trickle down economics are a fraud.

I think you are correct that wages as a whole have not significantly increased for a long time. Mine have, but then I work for myself and can create new clients/business as much as I have the time/desire to do so. The stock market has only done well because the Fed has dumped trillions (with a T) into it. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this. It gives the appearance that the economy is in better shape than it really is, but even more importantly, it funds everyone's pensions. And when people's pensions fails, then the government is in real trouble, and they want to prevent this. And make no mistake, Democrats are as beholden to Wall Street as republicans are, even though they suggest otherwise.

I don't believe that trickle-down is a fraud. The country has to actually have prosperity to have trickle-down. Having the Fed buy up bad debt and bailing out the stock market only masquerades as prosperity. More business paying taxes generates more tax revenue. I think that is preferable than just taking more, knowing that it will result in people working and making less (Supply & Demand versus Keynesian economics).
I find it interesting that many on the political left (and I am by no means suggesting where your political inclinations are), think that 'Conservatives' worship at the trough of Wall Street. Conservatives stand to lose as much, if not more than anyone, by Wall Street's abuses. The more money the fed prints to bail out Wall Street, the less my money is worth. That hardly benefits me and the hard working people who play by the rules, save & invest, and who aren't independently wealthy. Mainstream republicans may support Wall Street bailouts and indiscriminate military action abroad. 'Paleo-conservatives' have (I think) a more sensible view on a number of these sorts of issues.

[Irontruth]

Your analysis of the economy fails because you are reliant on one cause to explain something that is exceptionally complex with many influences.

Your analysis completely ignores multiple facets of economics and history.

You're right, the Fed has pumped massive amounts of money into the stock market. But that is NOT the only factor, or probably even the largest factor, on why wages are stagnant. In fact, if trickle-down does work, it actually disproves your theory that that is why wages are stagnant.

Your theory is actually mutually exclusive to itself.

[BigNorseWolf]

Killer GM wrote:

I don't believe that trickle-down is a fraud. The country has to actually have prosperity to have trickle-down.

Or just take it, like a pyramid scheme.

Quote:

Having the Fed buy up bad debt and bailing out the stock market only masquerades as prosperity.

Correct. But it does so long enough for a ceo to retire and a politician to avoid blame.

Quote:

More business paying taxes generates more tax revenue.

More businesses not generating tax revenue means revenue being spent on bribes.

Quote:

I think that is preferable than just taking more, knowing that it will result in people working and making less (Supply & Demand versus Keynesian economics).

The amount taken is not going to change. Who its taken from is. We have an outright regressive tax policy at the moment.

Quote:

Conservatives stand to lose as much, if not more than anyone, by Wall Street's abuses.

No. Because they know its coming and have their pockets lined before it gets here.

Quote:

The more money the fed prints to bail out Wall Street, the less my money is worth. That hardly benefits me and the hard working people who play by the rules, save & invest, and who aren't independently wealthy.

That is the one percent.

The rules are being written by and for the .01 percent.

Quote:

Mainstream republicans may support Wall Street bailouts and indiscriminate military action abroad. 'Paleo-conservatives' have (I think) a more sensible view on a number of these sorts of issues.

and like their ossified namesakes nd bigfoot, you often hear about someone that knows someone that saw one but you never see any evidence for them...

[thejeff]

Killer_GM wrote:

Fergie wrote:

You would contend wrong then. For most people in the US wages have been stagnant since around the late 1970's. Stock market has done well, but unlike some folks thought, trickle down economics are a fraud.

I think you are correct that wages as a whole have not significantly increased for a long time. Mine have, but then I work for myself and can create new clients/business as much as I have the time/desire to do so. The stock market has only done well because the Fed has dumped trillions (with a T) into it. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this. It gives the appearance that the economy is in better shape than it really is, but even more importantly, it funds everyone's pensions. And when people's pensions fails, then the government is in real trouble, and they want to prevent this. And make no mistake, Democrats are as beholden to Wall Street as republicans are, even though they suggest otherwise.

I don't believe that trickle-down is a fraud. The country has to actually have prosperity to have trickle-down. Having the Fed buy up bad debt and bailing out the stock market only masquerades as prosperity. More business paying taxes generates more tax revenue. I think that is preferable than just taking more, knowing that it will result in people working and making less (Supply & Demand versus Keynesian economics).
I find it interesting that many on the political left (and I am by no means suggesting where your political inclinations are), think that 'Conservatives' worship at the trough of Wall Street. Conservatives stand to lose as much, if not more than anyone, by Wall Street's abuses. The more money the fed prints to bail out Wall Street, the less my money is worth. That hardly benefits me and the hard working people who play by the rules, save & invest, and who aren't independently wealthy. Mainstream republicans may support Wall Street bailouts and indiscriminate military action abroad. 'Paleo-conservatives' have (I think) a more sensible...

The Fed has pumped massive amounts of money into the stock market since the recession. Wages have been stagnant for 40 years.

The Fed has pumped massive amounts of money into the stock market since the recession. Inflation has been very low - Your money isn't worth much less.

[Squeakmaan]

Killer_GM wrote:

thejeff wrote:

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?

It's only about 7 pages of rules, the rest is background information, definitions, footnotes, and about 80 or so pages of dissenting opinion that amounts to nothing more than "We don't like government."

[Kolokotroni]

In this particular case, any libertarian who isnt completely blinded by a hatred of the existance of government should support the outcome. If you believe in free industry, then it is necessary that the government protect the means by which people interact with that industry. The internet is in some ways more vital then our roads at this point in terms of innovation and industry. A very small group of companies control the bulk of that vital infrastructure. The purpose of this ruling is to prevent those companies from picking and choosing who can use that infrastructure and for what purpose.

Imagine if all roads in the country were toll roads. We all paid a certain amount to drive on those roads, interact, travel, conduct business. What was being proposed by telecom companies was akin to ford and general motors dictating who could drive on those roads, and installing, Ford only lanes, while every other type of vehicle crammed into the space that remains.

I cant imagine a greater nightmare for someone who believes in free industry then to have a small group of people dictating who can or cannot travel freely. The policies the telecom companies were beggining to enact, and were proposing, were exactly that. They wanted to dictate who could or could not effectively do business on the internet. And while you may not trust government to act completely in your best interest, you cant honestly tell me you trust comcast or time warner more can you?