'FCC to toughen internet rules' in the US

[TM2-Megatron]

The FCC needs to stay the fuck out.

As you proved before, you need to learn about the issue.

Enjoy your RepubCorpNet, though, if America is ever unfortunate enough that the telecom companies get their way.

Also, why you're incapable of comprehending the difference between literally controlling the internet (which this isn't about; period) and stopping the companies which merely sell access to it from blocking and throttling data according to their whims is beyond me, though. Are libertarians just really that silly and paranoid?

 

[wolffangalchemist]

the main problem is people don't fight for their freedoms anymore they let the government regulate everything even if they disagree with it.
just like how voting doesn't actually do anything, it's all one big sham.....

 

[Rayder]

Well, the way I figure it, if I can't download stuff for free off the internet anymore and all I can do is look at ads, then I'll just cut off the internet and to hell with it. There's other stuff I SHOULD be concentrating on anyway.

 

[monkat]

just like how voting doesn't actually do anything, it's all one big sham.....

The presidential election's votes really don't matter though >_> I don't see why we even hold it, to be honest - huge waste of paper.

 

[Styles420]

While it may be true that the government is not currently trying to take control of our access, this is how issues like that start - they step in to "protect" us from corporate douchebags who are trying to control us, so they get the control, and shortly thereafter, we get regulated anyway. Someone will always be trying to take control one way or another...

The bright side is, the corporate and political worlds tend to be hampered by their own red tape, so those of us who support true freedom *usually* find ways to stay ahead of the game because we're less impeded by rules and regulations that we're more than willing to break. I'll never support true anarchy, but we need a little lawlessness to bring balance to the force... (The Jedi would have become dictating bastards if they weren't busy with the Sith, right?)

And I have to admit, the quote that started this topic does kinda make it sound like our choices are 1.) Keep it as is (corporate interference), 2.) strict government regulation (which will very likely be abused in the future, because it's hard to take power back from the government once we give it to them), or 3.) reclassify broadband access to essentially achieve option #2 from a different angle...

 

[DSGamer64]

But the FCC do also want to stop people from going to certain areas of the internet.

Such as?

Even if they did, they have neither the power nor ability to actually do so. But as it stands, they're pushing to keep the internet the way it is now, instead of what the telecom companies want to turn it into. So what you're saying doesn't particularly make sense. Net neutrality, as it says right in the article you've quoted, is treating all data equally. It has nothing to do with censorship or control. The only thing they want to "regulate" in this instance is the companies that are interested in restricting the access of their customers.

The only thing they are trying to stop is child pornography and the exploitation of minors on the internet, but at the end of the day those are international issues that should be dealt with by the international community in order to shut down all of the websites out there where minors and children are being exploited and abused in many countries around the world. I think that is where the internet companies want to have that control, so they can block all access for anyone trying to get to that kind of material which is a smart thing to do, however in the same token they are going to try and stop people from using the internet for other things that they might not like such as piracy.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

But the FCC do also want to stop people from going to certain areas of the internet.

Such as?

Even if they did, they have neither the power nor ability to actually do so. But as it stands, they're pushing to keep the internet the way it is now, instead of what the telecom companies want to turn it into. So what you're saying doesn't particularly make sense. Net neutrality, as it says right in the article you've quoted, is treating all data equally. It has nothing to do with censorship or control. The only thing they want to "regulate" in this instance is the companies that are interested in restricting the access of their customers.

The only thing they are trying to stop is child pornography and the exploitation of minors on the internet, but at the end of the day those are international issues that should be dealt with by the international community in order to shut down all of the websites out there where minors and children are being exploited and abused in many countries around the world. I think that is where the internet companies want to have that control, so they can block all access for anyone trying to get to that kind of material which is a smart thing to do, however in the same token they are going to try and stop people from using the internet for other things that they might not like such as piracy.

That kind of content isn't at all what the companies are interested in blocking, though... that's not why they're fight Net Neutrality with millions of dollars. They want to limit access to services which could potentially be alternatives to ones they'd offer, and make you pay extra for as part of a "package" internet price. Right now you just pay them to access the internet through their infrastructure, but if they're allowed the level of control they want you'll be paying extra for virtually everything you do online short of generic browsing.

 

[_Chaz_]

There are no rules on the internet.


Got it memorized?

 

[worlok375]

I'm not afraid.

 

[darkranboria]

Wait, I don't get it.

More porn of it?

 

[DSGamer64]

But the FCC do also want to stop people from going to certain areas of the internet.

Such as?

Even if they did, they have neither the power nor ability to actually do so. But as it stands, they're pushing to keep the internet the way it is now, instead of what the telecom companies want to turn it into. So what you're saying doesn't particularly make sense. Net neutrality, as it says right in the article you've quoted, is treating all data equally. It has nothing to do with censorship or control. The only thing they want to "regulate" in this instance is the companies that are interested in restricting the access of their customers.

The only thing they are trying to stop is child pornography and the exploitation of minors on the internet, but at the end of the day those are international issues that should be dealt with by the international community in order to shut down all of the websites out there where minors and children are being exploited and abused in many countries around the world. I think that is where the internet companies want to have that control, so they can block all access for anyone trying to get to that kind of material which is a smart thing to do, however in the same token they are going to try and stop people from using the internet for other things that they might not like such as piracy.

That kind of content isn't at all what the companies are interested in blocking, though... that's not why they're fight Net Neutrality with millions of dollars. They want to limit access to services which could potentially be alternatives to ones they'd offer, and make you pay extra for as part of a "package" internet price. Right now you just pay them to access the internet through their infrastructure, but if they're allowed the level of control they want you'll be paying extra for virtually everything you do online short of generic browsing.

Well then they are going to find out that about 90% of their user base will be walking out the door with big signs saying "Fuck You *insert company here*" and people telling them off. This at least will be the case with the major internet providers, if the little guys aren't going to do fight net neutrality then it will mean big business from customers who were pissed off at the big corporations.

 

[Styles420]

A few years ago, I did hear about attempts to make the internet more like cable television - the base price gets you the basic sights, and other sites will be part of premium packages just like HBO and Cinemax, and all of the sports packages

But the throttling issue they mention refers mostly to torrents - I know of several people (each with different ISPs) who have trouble downloading torrents because their services recognize the torrent packets, and attempt to slow them down. That's why encryption was introduced to the torrent protocol - to attempt to fool the bandwidth throttling mechanisms of the big ISPs.

They don't care about people looking at images, whether they're harmless photos or child porn. The only traffic they have been interfering with so far is torrent traffic and similar peer-to-peer protocols. Interestingly, I haven't heard anything about interfering with UseNet and other premium pay sites that offer the same level of piracy... so it all comes down to money

 

[Bladexdsl]

remember that side boob ?