FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21 319
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider 'adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression.' House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."
There it goes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we're boned.
(No, I have no faith that the Right Thing(TM) will be done given the number of asshats involved. It's only a question of where it goes wrong)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the issue was that the FCC had no power in the issue - not that they couldn't decide what to do?
Have I been wrong all this time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of fighting Republicans, the FCC should just re-designate the internet lines as "phone lines" and apply existing common carrier rules.
Re:There it goes. (Score:4, Insightful)
House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."
Yes, because our tax dollars need to be pissed away into the wind fighting anything and everything one person suggests 'just because'. I'm always amused that politicians talk about intelligence and maturity and wisdom but then they act like a three year old who would rather rip the head off a doll than share it.
Re:There it goes. (Score:4, Informative)
" they oppose the FCC Chairman because they think he's trying to yank rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com..."
Really, someone throws out an excuse and you suck it up like chocolate milk?
They oppose the FCC because that is what defines the Republican Party: all opposition all the time, let there be no successes under Democrats. They are insane and it works because there are enough stupid people to believe their lies.
Re:There it goes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, the Republicans are dead-set against that too. Now I'm way confused...
That's really kind of a contorted way to look at things in order to make Mitt Romney-style health care setups look evil though.
I'm not a huge fan of the fine myself, but I think it makes sense. If you are not going to buy insurance at all, that means whenever you (or a certian percentage of folks like you) get really sick (which is more likely, since you'll be avoiding those full-price doctors), you'll end up at a really expensive emergency room, since they can't legally deny you treatment. Then you'll most likely declare bankrupcy when you get the >$10,000 bill, effectively sticking *me* and everyone else with insurance with your bill. It seems perfectly fair to me for there to be an extra fee on *your* tax bill to recoup some of the extra costs you will be incurring.
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that a lot of people on the right have a hard time understanding things, but President Bush got 6 years of softball questions from the press, nearly a full year before anybody blamed him for anything. And you're full of it if you're seriously suggesting that Obama has gotten even a small fraction of that support. The more realistic observation is that the Republicans don't love this country or are at least so mind blowingly incompetent as to believe that screwing over the citizens is the best way of expressing ones patriotism.
At least in recent years the Democrats have been trying to do the right thing, the Republicans at this point aren't even bothering to pretend like they care about the country, it's more important to screw over the Democrats and win the Presidency in 2012 than it is to enact good legislation. It's really, troubling that it's coming out of their own mouths without any prompting by left wing operatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is not about outside ISPs. It's about the local monopoly ISP not blocking your access to sites they don't like - such as rushlimbaugh.com or netflix.com
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Interesting)
FCC doesn't care about content in and of itself, but rather how it's treated, which is the entire point. It doesn't matter if the 'content' is outside of the US. What matters is how your local ISP treats your connection to said content. It's also not strictly about blocking content (although that is inherently a part of the larger picture as some will threaten exactly that, like Comcast has threatened with Netflix.
It simply requires that an ISP will treat all content equally. That way they can't discriminate against a competing firms 'content' by reducing the quality of service for that content, while increasing the quality/bandwidth of their own offerings. It levels the playing field.
This wouldn't be as big an issue if content providers were not subsidiaries of telecom providers and vice versa. The first step that should be taken is to separate the internet provider from any content. It is a conflict of interest and spells nothing but trouble for the end user.
I just wish they would regulate internet like they do utilities. it has become an integral part in peoples lives. It is not much different than phone service in that regard.
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have it backwards. Nobody is imposing fees on ISPs. Net Neutrality is to protect ISPs from imposing fees on content providers.
Cue gangster voice:
"Nice content you have here.. Would be a shame should anything untoward happen to it during delivery over our networks."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, we're boned.
I dunno about that...
It *is* the solstice and a total lunar eclipse on that day, after all. Maybe there are enough pro-Net-neutrality moon gods to swing the vote our way?
Yes, I'm putting my faith in some rare planetary alignment. We're boned.
Re: (Score:2)
and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.
Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure this the case here.
I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means. McCain said in the Presedential debates that he didn't understand the issue completely, but he was against more government regulation of business.
This is more ignorance than evil.
Overall I believe both parties support big business. There isn't a political party that doesn't love money.
The massive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want social freedoms, but want to regulate the hell out of everything else. Republicans want financial freedoms, but want to regulate social issues.
It seems the public just wants freedom period, and neither party is really interested in delivering that.
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Informative)
Funny thing is, the states that vote Democrat tend to pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. It is the poor rural red states that are the leaches off of the rich blue states. The Democrats "base" tend to be more educated and affluent than the Republican base. The Republican base are the ones actually receiving entitlements like farm subsidies, and "homeland defense" for small towns of 400 who get more money than New York City.
Read this [taxfoundation.org] report on taxes versus spending per state. Note which states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes, and which pay more than they get. Republicans should stop accusing others of being leaches, when all the evidence shows that they are leaching off of the very people they call leaches. Must be nice living in a Red state, getting all the dirty liberal commies to pay for your farm subsidies and other benefits, and still getting to believe that you are the productive citizen and they are the leaches. Denial is alive and well in America.
Re:There it goes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Must be nice living in a Blue state and getting all those benefits and food of the farm subsidies to the Red States.
You fail to see the bigger picture and are more interested in the us vs. them mentality.
You mean, the socialist farm subsidies used to pay farmers NOT to grow food? And that is just part of the welfare the red states get. What about all the homeland defense spending on states with no real targets?
Re: (Score:3)
As well they should, don't you see the danger of internet providers controlling content?
Re:There it goes. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.
Net neutrality basically means that ISPs can't throttle traffic for any reason other than maxing out a connection at the advertised download/upload rate. It says nothing about the content. It gives no extra power to the FCC or any other government agency. What it takes away is the ISPs ability to censor content, or say something like "that's a nice website, real shame if it were unable to be viewed by any of our customers."
Re: (Score:3)
You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.
This is what the FCC thinks it is [fcc.gov]:
The key point being:
"Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access
service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory
manner."
Where:
"We understand the term "nondiscriminatory" to mean that a broadband Internet access service provider may not charge a content, application, or service provider for enhanced or prioritized access to th
why havsn't Obama called out the republicans yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
bunratty: What do you want him to do about it?
Perhaps he could, oh I dunno, Call them out on it! It usually involves pointing out the congressmen that simply refuse to even look at the issue and ask them why they reject it all out of hand. Ask them to simply stop obstructing all progress and maybe consider the possibility of working together. Just maybe.
And if they ask him to, oh I dunno, cut taxes, kick out the immigrants, or defend our longtime ally or N. Korea, he could
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want Obama to do about it? It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts.
Yes, but how should people know about this when even the political opponents do not talk about it? Why should the media cover the Republican obstructonism when even the Democrats seem to have no problem with it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts.
The thing is, partisan politics have totally screwed up the ability for people to truly vote in representatives that do what they want.
I can vote in a Republican who wants to grant mega-corporations the right to extort each other (and us by proxy).
Or I can vote in a Democrat who wants to take my guns away (in addition to promoting a welfare state).
There's no balance in issues. Closest thing to a sane party I've found is the Modern Whigs, but they're not going to win an election in my lifetime. Being prese
Re: (Score:2)
I hear its because he's been behind closed doors dealing with The Gregory Brothers to get the sound JUST right - so that when he makes such an announcement it can easily make the next "Auto-Tune the News" Episode and go viral in mere seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what he ran on, Obama can do nothing but set and example, and show his willingness to work with them.
It's not like he can just tell the Republicans to play nicely. And, if as you suggest, he "calls them out", then all he's going to do is piss them off even more, and they'll work with him even less.
I don't see how Obama
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody has already made up their mind to kill you any way they can, it hardly matters if you make them mad, you might as well kick their crotch and get something done.
The problem is that for several years the Democrats have been unable or unwilling to overcome the Republican's underwhelming minority, so people voted them out for being do-nothings.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you happen to remember when democrats had [...] a super majority in the Senate[...]?
The Democrats have never had a super majority in the Senate, that would almost be impossible. For the big 'D's (should be 'P' for pussy) to have a super majority in the Senate they'd need to hold 100 seats, and only then would it be a super majority if the Vice President was a Democrat as well. Well, that and ALL of the fucking lobbiest had decided to take a vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that in any way related to the OPs suggestion that Obama "call out" the Republicans for their current behavior? Or is it a parallel set of circumstances?
Would that two year period of time have had any bearing on a vote which is happening on December 21st?
In short ... have you said anything on topic? Or thrown out some random and unrelated items? (Honest question, I'm confused.)
Re: (Score:3)
And this sort of thing is why I'm a Groucho Marxist:
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
(watch Groucho sing it [youtube.com])
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to compromise when the choice is between enslavement with chains around your neck, or a plush felt collar. The latter IS a better compromise but the end result is still Anti-choice and Anti-freedom.
Obama keeps pushing ideas that would take away freedom of choice, and leave us as Wards of the new Lords... like serfs. He who holds the money, holds a monopoly and the citizens are left with no options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is still trying to figure out how to fit it into his "car in a ditch" metaphor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama mentions it all the time.
Perhaps you should choose a different media outlet thata ctually talks about all the issues for your news?
I suggest your local NPR stations.
And no, NPR isn't biased. Contrary to what the morons here think.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, NPR isn't biased. Contrary to what the morons here think.
Your ad hominem has me convinced.
Not his style. (Score:2)
He's too cool (in several senses of the word) for that.
Re: (Score:2)
He barely calls out republicans for stuff like "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."
Good hell! He won't call out Republicans for the hypocrisy of how they won't extend unemployment benefits because they'll add to the deficit, but want to extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich without any mention of the deficit.
Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.
I think that you have the way he bends opposite of the way he really bends, and I think that you have the length of time that Republicans spend on top of him and what they do there wrong. Hint: it doesn't involve lube, although it should.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't think FCC should regulate the Internet, full stop. What difference does it make what the proposal by Genachowski contains?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.
Not correct. The Republicans only had ~40% of the congress and zero power to stop anything. It was the Blue Dog DEMOCRATS that have been opposing Obama. They are the ones that were blocking health reform and opposed single payer. They also demanded Obama write an XO forbidding the funds be used for abortions.
Obama had problems these last two years, but those problems existed *within* his own party, since many Dem
Re: (Score:3)
>>>only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.
Not correct. The Republicans only had ~40% of the congress and zero power to stop anything. It was the Blue Dog DEMOCRATS that have been opposing Obama. They are the ones that were blocking health reform and opposed single payer. They also demanded Obama write an XO forbidding the funds be used for abortions.
Obama had problems these last two years, but those problems existed *within* his own party, since many Dems are quite conservative & not agree with Obama's agenda.
those dems disagreed on specific issues like as you mention no money for abortion. The difference is they actually read the bill before saying we won't even consider it. repubs flat out as a party refused to discuss any issue related to the matter. and yes repubs did have the power to stop the bill by saying they would not support it in any form, that required a higher percentage of dems to go along with it. the goal of democracy is an agreeable medium not one side happy at the others expense. of cours
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone in congress who blanket refuses to look at matters that a Chairman of an government agency recommends is not doing their job. Yes I understand that their opposition is just a letter from a committee saying they do not like the FCC's approach to Net Neutrality. But the fact is they are objecting before the FCC has even discussed the matter yet. The real thing to do is wait till the FCC has a proposal and then the committee should discuss and provide a detailed critique of the individual rules in th
Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sticking to their guns"? Haven't you heard all their carrying-on about reducing the deficit and in the same breath killing all tax increases? That they want to do reduce the deficit by cutting spending by [billions] and cutting taxes by [trillions]? That sounds like saying one thing and doing the opposite to me, or else their pants-on-head-retarded position prevents them from counting zeros properly.
It's amazing how cognizant everyone in Congress is of their own hypocrisy--when Stephen Colbert trolled
So why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So why? (Score:4, Informative)
Mostly the latter. If a Republican administration did the same thing, then a few of them would complain, but they'd go along with it.
Re: (Score:3)
No mostly the former. Republicans believe Net Neutrality is simply a new name for an old idea: Fairness Doctrine. And they oppose the Fairness Doctrine completely and totally, because they think it means Rush Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck) will be yanked off the air and replaced with Rachel Maddow, per the requirement of the Fairness Doctrine. They also think the doctrine violates Amendment 1 (your station can say anything it wants w/o restriction).
So anyway - they oppose FD therefore they oppose NN, because
Re:So why? (Score:4, Informative)
Only idiots think that. There is nothing in any Net Neutrality proposal that does anything close to that. If you are parroting those ideas, you're either an idiot who had them told to you, or you're just spreading FUD to defeat something the Democrats are trying to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, the American people don't want government regulation and I am required to abide by their wishes instead of actually making a sensible decision. Besides, these friendly
Re: (Score:2)
>>>They're against govt. regulation and pro business
So too are the Democrats. How else do you explain the D White House yanking websites? Or pushing COICA in the congress? Or running-around the world and demanding countries sign the ACTA? Or supporting 3 Strike Laws w/o a right to trial? Obviously: To protect their business friends in Hollywood and crush those teenagers who dare download Britney Spears.
D or R - it matters little. They're both a-holes. Both shills of their corporate masters.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't he do this during the past two years if you believe it was that important? Surely they can walk and chew gum at the same time?
Did it occur to you that they waited until they knew it would fail to bring it to vote?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they really said "oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski" then that means they must simply be opposed to a Democrat.
This is the problem with a party system.
An ounce of prevention (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's already the government's job to break up monopolies, then why is Net Neutrality needed?
Re: (Score:2)
Natural monopolies are tougher to break up. (Score:2)
A natural monopoly being one where actual physical things, like cable, have to be invested in on a large scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does phone service run on powerlines? (Score:2)
The same poles, yes, but not the same cables.
Re:An ounce of prevention (Score:5, Insightful)
With true competition there would be no need to discuss net neutrality as those that offered unimpeded access to the web would be the ones people would use. More specifically, there would always be a competitor who offered up neutral access for those of us who cared.
Like streets, communication access is a natural monopoly (oligopoly at best) and should be either directly state owned (like our streets) or set up as a non-profit stand-alone with a mandate to maintain and upgrade the wires. Retailers would then connect and be charged for connection + (time-of-day?) bandwidth. Retailers would be free to make price plans as they see fit.
Fighting for net neutrality is working on symptom and failing to cure the problem.
Want a free/libre internet? Take back control of the last mile.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Microsoft perform anti-competitive practices?
I highly doubt anyone could ever establish a monopoly on the Internet, or even any Internet service. But that sure as hell doesn't mean that the wonderful and cherished Internet, which currently has an incredibly open and free market, is somehow inherently immune to anti-competitive practices. Such practices that would make it less open and less free.
Like contracts between ESPN3.com and ISP directly, bypassing the users a
Re: (Score:3)
You know, prior to government regulation (i.e. late 1800s and early 1900s), people had choice among many electricity providers. Wires were running everywhere and you could choose which company you wanted. Then the city or county government stepped-in, picked their favorite company, and gave said company a monopoly.
Your belief that government does not like monopoly is mistaken. Governments LOVE monopoly and if local governments stopped giving "exclusive franchises" to Comcast, we'd probably be able to cho
Greedy People who Run Things (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone else think that the relentless pursuit of money-at-all-costs mentality is greatly hindering science, freedom, innovation and technology?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what's your point? seriously, life is not a disney movie. life is mostly about bad people abusing their power and the not so bad guys having to deal with the brunt of it.
this is how humankind has been forever; its not a new phenomenon.
lose the fairy tale about concepts such as freedom and justice. life is not about that. at the core, its about power and those who have it vs those who do not. all else is decoration for show.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that in the past, people were actually held accountable for ripping people off. Now, it is the new way of doing big business.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your worst (Score:3)
tl;dr (Score:2)
That was the shortest article I've ever seen. I had more information in my 4th grade "Weekly Reader" pamphlets.
Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
For as much as they rile up their constituency about how America has lost all it's jobs, the economy being in the tank and how China is taking over, they do their best to constantly oppose new job creation and assist large corporations in stifling competition and innovation. Opposing Net Neutrality shows that the Republican party is against innovation, against American competitiveness and only seeks to put more money in the hands of their friends and contributors, the Nation and the people be damned.
But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.
Net Neutrality assures more jobs, more innovation and continued competitiveness in an open marketplace. Opposing it will only benefit Comcast, Verizon and AT&T while preventing new startups who can't pay the extortion fees if they aren't blocked all together for daring to compete with their own "premium services"
America is already falling far behind in internet infrastructure. Asians can get Gigabit lines for what we pay for standard DSL, yet AT&T and Comcast are still stumbling around dragging their feet with IPv6 and it's taking an act of Congress to FORCE them to get internet access speeds to 1/10 of what Japan has today by 2020! Yet they have spared no expense suing municipalities who wanted to offer free wifi services and opposing Google's plans for municipal WiMAX offerings. Opposing Net Neutrality will only insure this situation grows exponentially worse.
Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.
Wow. If that isn't blatant typecasting if I have ever saw it...
Time for a true story...
The night that Obama was elected into office, I was downtown in a major US city. The moment that it was announced, a woman working a local convenience store turned from the TV she was watching and shouted, "Obama is elected! Everything is going to get better now!" Her coworkers cheered. She then proceeded to go back to her TV and cigarettes and not worrying so much about doing a good job. You see, the problem with your typecasting is that it can work both directions. In my case, I saw someone who was relying on another person to fix their life for them. It made me sad, actually. I ended up not even buying what I wanted to get because I just wanted to get out of there.
The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of smart people and a lot of dumb people living in the US, and a lot of people in between. However, we're all just human, and classifying a group of people as you did does nothing to actually solve the problems of this nation that we live in and only exacerbates the divide between political lines.
Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to swilling a Bud while I read 1 Corinthians and yell at the driver's on TV (and hope for a good crash).
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast's overreach might help the cause (Score:3, Insightful)
The timing *could* be right since they've just tried extorting content providers.
Re:Comcast's overreach might help the cause (Score:5, Informative)
It was Level3 trying to position this as a net neutrality story when infact it was a breach of already existing commercial peering arrangements - Level3 expected Comcast to take more traffic than formally agreed to and Comcast said "no".
What's in a name ... (Score:2)
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. . . Sarah Palin : "I'm against any legislation from a legislator whose name I can't pronounce. And you, North Korea, and South Korea get your names sorted out, and stop confusing us! Oh, and I am also looking at you, Dakotas!"
"Wait, Carolina, too? And why would someone find West Virgina, like kinda west of Virginia? I'll get back to you on this."
At least Sarah Palin can pride herself with not having any dirt flung at her from all those WikiLeaks.
I am always disappointed that with such things... (Score:2)
I am always disappointed that with such things, the decision to move one way or the next is left up to people who don't understand the topic. The founding fathers were educated men and philosophers. They wrote books on concepts and engaged in intellectual discourse regarding those concepts.
Congress, in its short history, has been almost entirely a political game, however. Money interests and personal bias determines how important decisions are made.
Have there been congressional debates guest-starring import
The idiots are confusing this (Score:2)
with the Fairness Doctrine, dead since Reagan.
Gah, you gotta read the comments over in the Yahoo! pages on this.
"I feel a strong stupidness in the Force."
I asked a republican. . . (Score:3)
A good guy too. His response to the Comcast/Level 3/Netflix thing was "The middlemen always get their cut". The netflix bits on the wire have a higher "value" or "profit potential" than other bits, and therefore the people carrying those bits should be entitled to a cut of that profit. I asked if shipping companies do the same thing regarding the content and value of the boxes they move around and he suggested they do. He was totally cool with the concept.
I guess this is basically the idea that businesses need to maximize profits using any means. This is actually really great-- instead of profits being tied to your own operations, i.e, shipping more packages at minimal cost-- now you can "piggy back" on the success of other companies. The more successful another company becomes, the bigger your cut can become!
I feel dirty now.
Typical... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All kinds actually. Cell phones, wifi; anything that takes up spectrum space is under the jurisdiction of the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you mention that, since they have complete jurisdiction over cable TV.
FTFY.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.
God damn there outta be an IQ requirement to post here! What part of "Federal" or "Communications" or "Commission" equates to only "over-the-air"?
Here is a formula for figuring out whether things will pass in the US: Does it pander to a moron's sense of morality? pass Does it benefit only the super-rich? pass Does it look like it benefits the middle class but really does nothing or actually just benefits the super-rich? pass Does it do something to really strengthen the US? fail
Ask yourself: what does not having net neutrality do? It benefits the super-rich. Net neutrality laws will fail. No matter what you do. No matter what you think. No matter how many "middle class" do-gooders you have on your side. It will fail. The super-rich will somehow convince the silent majority (morons) that it is somehow in their best interest that net neutrality does not succeed. Don't believe me? Just watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you get the idea that the FCC only regulates over-the-air signals? Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter I, Section 151 [cornell.edu] describes the purpose of the FCC, and includes the words "by wire and radio."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be fun. I miss those days! :)
Re:Not even there's to legislate. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not even there's to legislate. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>So the same governing body that allows me to be forced to a single ISP
What the hell are you talking about? The FCC is part of the national government, and it's your *local* city or county government that gave Comcast a monopoly. Wakeup man. We live in a federalist system which means power lies at different levels.
You can't blame the national FCC for something controlled locally. Go to your townhall meeting and bitch at them about the monopoly they've created.
Re: (Score:2)
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Regan.
He understood how the government likes to do things.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure
>>>
Hey Mussolini! Is that you? Yep. We should have private corporations but under the control of government, to order them when and what to build. AKA national socialism, aka fascism. Preach it man.
>>>Free (unregulated) markets don't work.
Damn straight. What we n
Re: (Score:2)
Free markets led to the Great Depression.
No, government imposed central banking running artificially low interest rates in order to make people thing 'you've never had it so good' in order to keep them voting the usual suspects back into power led to the stock market boom and bust, and then the government created the Great Depression by raising taxes when the economy was tanking.
Free (unregulated) markets don't work.
The free market is what people do when some guy isn't holding a gun to their head to force them to do something else. Obviously it 'works' because otherwise we'd still be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go eat shit.
I left the United States so that I could stop eating shit and start eating decent food.
Re: (Score:2)