what is to be gained by giving Iran the roadwork for a plan of nuclear growth and ultimately a bomb. I just don't get it! On another note why does this Administration want control of the Internet?
Iran Nuclear Plan
Iran Nuclear Plan
Can someone explain to me
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Sounds like maybe Bibi shouldn't have poked the bear.
I don't know what this internet nonsense is you're referring to, so I'll leave that one alone.
I don't know what this internet nonsense is you're referring to, so I'll leave that one alone.
I don't subscribe to the WSJ.
But the net neutrality thing is not a threat to free speech. There are certainly arguments both for and against it, but it has nothing to do with free speech. It's simply the proposal that data carriers may not show favoritism to certain content providers over others (e.g., Verizon choking Netflix data on their pipelines unless Netflix pays a fee). It's not a government takeover of anything; it's just a proposed common carrier-style regulation of data transfer.
goat
But the net neutrality thing is not a threat to free speech. There are certainly arguments both for and against it, but it has nothing to do with free speech. It's simply the proposal that data carriers may not show favoritism to certain content providers over others (e.g., Verizon choking Netflix data on their pipelines unless Netflix pays a fee). It's not a government takeover of anything; it's just a proposed common carrier-style regulation of data transfer.
goat
There is a lot more at stake than streaming movies and music
Mark Cuban makes a convincing case for allowing fast lanes. We don't know what we don't know, meaning we don't know the potential of the internet and how it could be used. The heavy hand of regulation could unnecessarily freeze today's technology in its present mode and inhibit innovation for that reason and for the reason that fast lanes won't be available to innovators. We already know about the need for fast high quality connections required for everything from remote robotic surgeries, to remote printing of machine parts, to self-driving vehicles to other remote control robots. We are also bound to see a proliferation of ISP providers perhaps many intended and designed for technical or industrial applications. Why do we need governmental control of those? The best approach would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
We have had several discussions about this and I learned a lot about this here and on the internet. The internet also contains a lot of venom directed at Cuban for his view. I've come to the conclusion that government control is not needed and might do harm.
Mark Cuban makes a convincing case for allowing fast lanes. We don't know what we don't know, meaning we don't know the potential of the internet and how it could be used. The heavy hand of regulation could unnecessarily freeze today's technology in its present mode and inhibit innovation for that reason and for the reason that fast lanes won't be available to innovators. We already know about the need for fast high quality connections required for everything from remote robotic surgeries, to remote printing of machine parts, to self-driving vehicles to other remote control robots. We are also bound to see a proliferation of ISP providers perhaps many intended and designed for technical or industrial applications. Why do we need governmental control of those? The best approach would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
We have had several discussions about this and I learned a lot about this here and on the internet. The internet also contains a lot of venom directed at Cuban for his view. I've come to the conclusion that government control is not needed and might do harm.
Did I say there wasn't?
No. I just said this wasn't an issue of government takeover of the internet and inhibition of free speech. Because it isn't.
No. I just said this wasn't an issue of government takeover of the internet and inhibition of free speech. Because it isn't.
Actually it can involve free speech
Here is an ACLU page showing times ISPs have cut off traffic because of the content of the speech, not traffic concerns.
As the mother ACLU article points out, we probably NEVER would have allowed AT&T to take money from Pizza Hut to interfere with your phone calls to Dominos. But that is exactly what we are wanting to allow by removing net neutrality. I know some here favor eliminating net neutrality, I would like to know how that phone example is an invalid comparison? Or, should your phone provider be allowed to do just that, restrict your access to Domino's because Pizza Hut paid them to do that?
Could Comcast create a system where sites that complain about Comcast service are blocked?
The internet serves multiple purposes, but at its core it isn't much different than the phone lines. Many of us used to connect to the internet literally my plugging our telephone handset into a modem. So the roots are there. We had strict laws on what phone companies could do. For some reason we are told internet is completely different, but I'm not sure why. Largely the exact same corporate overlords are involved.
CO mentions Mark Cuban. I get Cuban, he sees a chance to make a few billion more and he wants to take it. I can't say I would think differently if I were him. The question for us as a society, are the benefits to the society as a whole better or worse with no neutrality and a richer Mark Cuban?
This debate existed in television not long ago. How could we move the people who wanted digital tvs into digital while making sure grandma on SS didn't lose tv altogether. That debate was fought in the halls of congress and in boardrooms, and finally we figured it out. I think we can figure out some way to guarantee complete access and higher speeds. Somehow other countries do it, provide far faster speeds at cheaper rates than we do.
Here is an ACLU page showing times ISPs have cut off traffic because of the content of the speech, not traffic concerns.
As the mother ACLU article points out, we probably NEVER would have allowed AT&T to take money from Pizza Hut to interfere with your phone calls to Dominos. But that is exactly what we are wanting to allow by removing net neutrality. I know some here favor eliminating net neutrality, I would like to know how that phone example is an invalid comparison? Or, should your phone provider be allowed to do just that, restrict your access to Domino's because Pizza Hut paid them to do that?
Could Comcast create a system where sites that complain about Comcast service are blocked?
The internet serves multiple purposes, but at its core it isn't much different than the phone lines. Many of us used to connect to the internet literally my plugging our telephone handset into a modem. So the roots are there. We had strict laws on what phone companies could do. For some reason we are told internet is completely different, but I'm not sure why. Largely the exact same corporate overlords are involved.
CO mentions Mark Cuban. I get Cuban, he sees a chance to make a few billion more and he wants to take it. I can't say I would think differently if I were him. The question for us as a society, are the benefits to the society as a whole better or worse with no neutrality and a richer Mark Cuban?
This debate existed in television not long ago. How could we move the people who wanted digital tvs into digital while making sure grandma on SS didn't lose tv altogether. That debate was fought in the halls of congress and in boardrooms, and finally we figured it out. I think we can figure out some way to guarantee complete access and higher speeds. Somehow other countries do it, provide far faster speeds at cheaper rates than we do.
Don't be so sensitive, goat
There is a lot to this discussion and there are a lot more people who read posts than you. I was adding to the discussion not posting a retort to you. However, your parenthetical focused on consumer use and there is much more to the internet than that.
BTW, I do think there are aspects of a government takeover to the proposed regs. That ipso facto isn't a bad thing, but it could be as the government has often demonstrated in other contexts. Even if government control would be a good thing, the government doesn't know how to self-limit its control. The feds could easily wind up with a Kinder Egg scenario as i pointed out below or regulating the internet equivalent chocolate chip cookies in schools as I've mentioned before.
There is a lot to this discussion and there are a lot more people who read posts than you. I was adding to the discussion not posting a retort to you. However, your parenthetical focused on consumer use and there is much more to the internet than that.
BTW, I do think there are aspects of a government takeover to the proposed regs. That ipso facto isn't a bad thing, but it could be as the government has often demonstrated in other contexts. Even if government control would be a good thing, the government doesn't know how to self-limit its control. The feds could easily wind up with a Kinder Egg scenario as i pointed out below or regulating the internet equivalent chocolate chip cookies in schools as I've mentioned before.
Cuban's point is not just about him
Seems like you are arguing for egalitarian concepts in the internet. Just because some equality is good doesn't mean more equality is betterr. One of the big faults with health care reform has been the laws pre-occuplation with equlality of care while sacrificing individual choice and autonomy. Equality is a seductive argument than can lead to a lot of unintended consequences. Equality is also a lazy way to regulate or deal with a problem. The one-size-fits-all approach is easy to design and administer, but it stifles a lot of individualism, innovation, and outside the box approaches to issues.
Don't have time to read the ACLU stuff now. Maybe more later.
Seems like you are arguing for egalitarian concepts in the internet. Just because some equality is good doesn't mean more equality is betterr. One of the big faults with health care reform has been the laws pre-occuplation with equlality of care while sacrificing individual choice and autonomy. Equality is a seductive argument than can lead to a lot of unintended consequences. Equality is also a lazy way to regulate or deal with a problem. The one-size-fits-all approach is easy to design and administer, but it stifles a lot of individualism, innovation, and outside the box approaches to issues.
Don't have time to read the ACLU stuff now. Maybe more later.
If Net Neutrality has
even the tiniest scintilia of consideration of the content of communication on the net, then its engaging in censorship and that is a reduction of freedom of speech.
Believe this - if Obama or any related entity is attempting to establish any regulation or control on the internet, it is not to enhance liberty. That's not what the left does.
even the tiniest scintilia of consideration of the content of communication on the net, then its engaging in censorship and that is a reduction of freedom of speech.
Believe this - if Obama or any related entity is attempting to establish any regulation or control on the internet, it is not to enhance liberty. That's not what the left does.
The difference between Iran and the rest of the world with nuclear bombs is that Iran would have no hesitancy to use to further religious purposes. They believe it is there destiny and this Administration is in the process of fulfilling that destiny.
The problem
is that our regulatory structure is the wrong model. Data, for the time being, requires large amounts of infrastructure. To encourage development we have allowed regulated monopolies. We do this with electricity, natural gas, water and previously phone service. (Still is for land lines to some extent.)
In these other regulated monopolies, the provider acts as a provider and conduit. In the case of media, we developed a hybrid model where the regulated monopoly is also a content provider. As an aside, this is also an issue with content. If you have Comcast, you may not get some items as Comcast works out a deal with TBS for example. The provider has a financial interest that may conflict with the consumer interest. (Although, in theory, but probably not always in reality, the lower negotiated rate shoould benefit the downstream customer also.)
With the traditional monopoly, the provider charges by usage and doesn't care what, how or why you use their service. With a traditional model, we would not be having this discussion. The discussion would be how much capital expense would be necessary to support the consumer demand and what is a reasonable return for investors of the monopoly.
is that our regulatory structure is the wrong model. Data, for the time being, requires large amounts of infrastructure. To encourage development we have allowed regulated monopolies. We do this with electricity, natural gas, water and previously phone service. (Still is for land lines to some extent.)
In these other regulated monopolies, the provider acts as a provider and conduit. In the case of media, we developed a hybrid model where the regulated monopoly is also a content provider. As an aside, this is also an issue with content. If you have Comcast, you may not get some items as Comcast works out a deal with TBS for example. The provider has a financial interest that may conflict with the consumer interest. (Although, in theory, but probably not always in reality, the lower negotiated rate shoould benefit the downstream customer also.)
With the traditional monopoly, the provider charges by usage and doesn't care what, how or why you use their service. With a traditional model, we would not be having this discussion. The discussion would be how much capital expense would be necessary to support the consumer demand and what is a reasonable return for investors of the monopoly.
Here's the problem with your misunderstanding. . .
You seem to have bought this idea that net neutrality is a bad thing and government is evil and all that. What you should be worried about is not having net neutrality. For example, let's say the CEO of Comcast has a "liberal" agenda. They could severely lessen the speed at which your "news" sites run at, making it almost impossible for you to use them. That's what could happen without net neutrality. Or, they could charge you more based on how much time you spend on conservative websites.
You seem to have bought this idea that net neutrality is a bad thing and government is evil and all that. What you should be worried about is not having net neutrality. For example, let's say the CEO of Comcast has a "liberal" agenda. They could severely lessen the speed at which your "news" sites run at, making it almost impossible for you to use them. That's what could happen without net neutrality. Or, they could charge you more based on how much time you spend on conservative websites.
Ok, we'll see if you're singing the same song if net neutrality is. . .
Blown up and then your ISP is taken over by a left winger who decides you can't look at conservative websites with their service or decide to charge you by the minute when accessing those sites. Free market baby.
Blown up and then your ISP is taken over by a left winger who decides you can't look at conservative websites with their service or decide to charge you by the minute when accessing those sites. Free market baby.
I am sure they comprehend the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction
and that if Israel is hit with anything even resembling a nuke regardless of it's origin.... that Iran and possibly many other middle eastern countries would immediately become green glass zones... no questions asked... no justifications needed... I am not sure of the true reason Iran wants nuclear weapons... maybe to defend itself from it's neighbors more so than to annihilate the country of Israel... The people of Iran need to make sure who is going to be in control of these weapons... the religious leaders... or the government leaders... I fear more about Pakistan having/distributing nuclear weapons... you know the same country who supposedly allowed OBL to reside less than a mile from their largest military installations...
If Iran chooses to pursue nuclear weaponry, they need to fully comprehend the responsibilities and consequences of losing control of those same weapons... the survival of their entire population (77.5 million) demands it...
and that if Israel is hit with anything even resembling a nuke regardless of it's origin.... that Iran and possibly many other middle eastern countries would immediately become green glass zones... no questions asked... no justifications needed... I am not sure of the true reason Iran wants nuclear weapons... maybe to defend itself from it's neighbors more so than to annihilate the country of Israel... The people of Iran need to make sure who is going to be in control of these weapons... the religious leaders... or the government leaders... I fear more about Pakistan having/distributing nuclear weapons... you know the same country who supposedly allowed OBL to reside less than a mile from their largest military installations...
If Iran chooses to pursue nuclear weaponry, they need to fully comprehend the responsibilities and consequences of losing control of those same weapons... the survival of their entire population (77.5 million) demands it...
Why do you think
Rush Limbaugh is a gazillionaire and Fox News dominates cable news?
Free market baby!
Rush Limbaugh is a gazillionaire and Fox News dominates cable news?
Free market baby!
Gotcha.
Fell for the old trick of thinking I was more important than I am. Topic view can't get here fast enough!
Fell for the old trick of thinking I was more important than I am. Topic view can't get here fast enough!
Or you could respond to the issue. . .
Instead of playing the jackass. We'll see how much longer Limbaugh's reign will last. All his fans are in nursing homes and clear channel is about to hit an insurmountable debt wall.
Instead of playing the jackass. We'll see how much longer Limbaugh's reign will last. All his fans are in nursing homes and clear channel is about to hit an insurmountable debt wall.
Whatever makes you feel better. . .
Limbaugh's ratings are dropping like a rock and the only reason he is on more stations is because clear channel signed him to a $400 million dollar contract back in '08 and now they are super saturating the markets with his drivel hoping they don't go broke in the next year or two.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but clear channel is owned by a little company called Bain Capital. Bain bought them in '08, the same year they signed Rush to that nearly half a billion dollar contract. Of course they are pushing him onto every station they own. They are also one of three companies that own pretty much every single radio station in the U.S.
Limbaugh's ratings are dropping like a rock and the only reason he is on more stations is because clear channel signed him to a $400 million dollar contract back in '08 and now they are super saturating the markets with his drivel hoping they don't go broke in the next year or two.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but clear channel is owned by a little company called Bain Capital. Bain bought them in '08, the same year they signed Rush to that nearly half a billion dollar contract. Of course they are pushing him onto every station they own. They are also one of three companies that own pretty much every single radio station in the U.S.
I've heard that claim for over a decade now.
I don't listen to him, except on rare occasions - mostly if I go out to lunch with a specific coworker that listens to him religiously. However, I looked it up and he's still number one in the ratings, a million listerners ahead of Hannity. Then I did a quick search to see how he's done historically and can't find any time when he hasn't been number one in the ratings, though I guess it might have happened occasionallly. Also his ratings have been pretty consistent so if his ratings are "dropping like a rock" that must mean something to you that doesn't match what it means to most people.
I don't listen to him, except on rare occasions - mostly if I go out to lunch with a specific coworker that listens to him religiously. However, I looked it up and he's still number one in the ratings, a million listerners ahead of Hannity. Then I did a quick search to see how he's done historically and can't find any time when he hasn't been number one in the ratings, though I guess it might have happened occasionallly. Also his ratings have been pretty consistent so if his ratings are "dropping like a rock" that must mean something to you that doesn't match what it means to most people.
For a poster who
said a few hours ago that they didn't know anything about that net stuff, you've certainly become expert in a hurry. Read about it. Its all over the net and the administrations appointees on the FCC are beginning to figure out they are playing with fire.
Time for you to figure that out, too.
said a few hours ago that they didn't know anything about that net stuff, you've certainly become expert in a hurry. Read about it. Its all over the net and the administrations appointees on the FCC are beginning to figure out they are playing with fire.
Time for you to figure that out, too.
What?
You're confusing me with someone else. And you're confusing yourself with someone who knows what he's talking about.
Net Neutrality is a complex issue that has a lot of moving parts. There are arguments both for and against it. COH has a decent handle on some of the con arguments below.
Accusing the government of trying to control content on the net is absurd because that is entirely unrelated to what net neutrality is. Further defending such an unjustified statement with, essentially, "because that's what liberals do" is doubly stupid.
I like talking to you about political procedure and polling. Even when your arrogant, at least you know your stuff. On this topic, you clearly don't know anything, and that makes your standard arrogance just plain annoying.
goat
You're confusing me with someone else. And you're confusing yourself with someone who knows what he's talking about.
Net Neutrality is a complex issue that has a lot of moving parts. There are arguments both for and against it. COH has a decent handle on some of the con arguments below.
Accusing the government of trying to control content on the net is absurd because that is entirely unrelated to what net neutrality is. Further defending such an unjustified statement with, essentially, "because that's what liberals do" is doubly stupid.
I like talking to you about political procedure and polling. Even when your arrogant, at least you know your stuff. On this topic, you clearly don't know anything, and that makes your standard arrogance just plain annoying.
goat
I did respond to the issue.
I would have explained the point but for your dumbass jackass remark.
I would have explained the point but for your dumbass jackass remark.
Cuban has a good point. The flip side...
...of course is that in a world of limited bandwidth, "fast lanes" can only exist alongside "slow lanes." This will become more apparent as we move forward without doing something about aging internet backbone infrastructure. What happens when the major content providers all pay for "fast lane" status, but the cost is prohibitive for small start-ups to do the same? In that case, fast lanes can become a choke on innovation, rather than a boon to it.
I don't think anyone will deny that the internet's move to a neutral model in the mid-90s was good. That doesn't mean that an entirely neutral net is the right model moving forward, and it's certainly possible that the internet will always work best - neutral or not - when it is relatively unregulated.
I think one of the main problems with this debate is that we often speak about two different issues as though they are one in the same. Many large telecoms own both part of the internet backbone and direct-to-consumer ISPs. Data transit on the internet backbone is already subject to myriad agreements between companies regarding transfer allowances, cost sharing, peering, etc. This is a good thing, so long as no one entity (or small number of them) own a majority of the backbone infrastructure, similar to how the rail system used to work. Although some proponents of net neutrality would want an entirely blind network, this isn't really where the debate exists for most consumers and content providers.
The real debate has to do with last-mile neutrality, with ISPs limiting bandwidth usage at the consumer's point-of-connection based on protocol, source, content type, whatever. This worries people because it reminds them of the days when AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe controlled what content could even reach consumers. I was watching old NCAA highlights last night, and during the 2002 Tournament, CBS was promoting "AOL Keyword: CBSSports," or whatever it was. Some 7 or 8 years after AOL opened up sockets to 3rd party browsers, and the very definition of the World Wide Web was still shaped by that company's dominance and restricted-channel model of content provision. This is the real battle, because there is no legitimate reason for ISPs to choke bandwidth at the end-point. Users already pay a monthly fee based on a maximum bandwidth allowance; they should be able to use that bandwidth for whatever content they see fit (provided it's legal, of course). If ISPs can't afford for consumers to actually use the bandwidth they are already paying for, then there is a problem with the pricing structure itself.
goat
...of course is that in a world of limited bandwidth, "fast lanes" can only exist alongside "slow lanes." This will become more apparent as we move forward without doing something about aging internet backbone infrastructure. What happens when the major content providers all pay for "fast lane" status, but the cost is prohibitive for small start-ups to do the same? In that case, fast lanes can become a choke on innovation, rather than a boon to it.
I don't think anyone will deny that the internet's move to a neutral model in the mid-90s was good. That doesn't mean that an entirely neutral net is the right model moving forward, and it's certainly possible that the internet will always work best - neutral or not - when it is relatively unregulated.
I think one of the main problems with this debate is that we often speak about two different issues as though they are one in the same. Many large telecoms own both part of the internet backbone and direct-to-consumer ISPs. Data transit on the internet backbone is already subject to myriad agreements between companies regarding transfer allowances, cost sharing, peering, etc. This is a good thing, so long as no one entity (or small number of them) own a majority of the backbone infrastructure, similar to how the rail system used to work. Although some proponents of net neutrality would want an entirely blind network, this isn't really where the debate exists for most consumers and content providers.
The real debate has to do with last-mile neutrality, with ISPs limiting bandwidth usage at the consumer's point-of-connection based on protocol, source, content type, whatever. This worries people because it reminds them of the days when AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe controlled what content could even reach consumers. I was watching old NCAA highlights last night, and during the 2002 Tournament, CBS was promoting "AOL Keyword: CBSSports," or whatever it was. Some 7 or 8 years after AOL opened up sockets to 3rd party browsers, and the very definition of the World Wide Web was still shaped by that company's dominance and restricted-channel model of content provision. This is the real battle, because there is no legitimate reason for ISPs to choke bandwidth at the end-point. Users already pay a monthly fee based on a maximum bandwidth allowance; they should be able to use that bandwidth for whatever content they see fit (provided it's legal, of course). If ISPs can't afford for consumers to actually use the bandwidth they are already paying for, then there is a problem with the pricing structure itself.
goat
All anyone needs to know about net neutrality . . .
Is that the two most hated corporations in America want to kill it. Based on the brainless argument that "government = bad," conservatives would empower cable monopolists to further entrench themselves between us and content providers, so they can provide lousier service and charge us higher rents. Because free markets!
I think you're giving way too much credit to the arguments against net neutrality.
Is that the two most hated corporations in America want to kill it. Based on the brainless argument that "government = bad," conservatives would empower cable monopolists to further entrench themselves between us and content providers, so they can provide lousier service and charge us higher rents. Because free markets!
I think you're giving way too much credit to the arguments against net neutrality.
Re: "Obamanet"
Great read on the successes and/or failures of Obamacare by Forbes.
Is Obamacare Working
Great read on the successes and/or failures of Obamacare by Forbes.
Is Obamacare Working
Comcast, sponsored by Apple
Sorry PC and Android users, slow lane for you.
Let's add in, what are providers legally required to tell you? I don't think anything. I know when throttling became a big deal it was because consumers found out and reported it, not because our corporate overlords gave us information. This matters because if a consumer is going to make an informed decision, they need to know what the product is. If Comcast is going to throttle or in some way slow down certain information I should have a right to know that from them in advance. And if I have a contract with them, any material changes should allow me to opt out without fees. So if Comcast wants to push Pizza Hut over Dominos, I should have the right to leave without penalty.
Of course that implies I have choices. There are not a lot of players in this game. In addition, a lot of America's fiber is owned by the giants, others may lease it and resell, but it is owned by an AT&T or other such corp. So when I read a website hosted in California from Indiana, my packets make that journey along a lot of wire and routers.I just did a trace route to google, it took 9 routers to get my packets there. I don't know who owned them, but it is conceivable AT&T did own at least one. So in theory, if AT&T routers were doing something to packets to/from Google (slowing them down for example), it is impacting me even if I am not an AT&T consumer.
Sorry PC and Android users, slow lane for you.
Let's add in, what are providers legally required to tell you? I don't think anything. I know when throttling became a big deal it was because consumers found out and reported it, not because our corporate overlords gave us information. This matters because if a consumer is going to make an informed decision, they need to know what the product is. If Comcast is going to throttle or in some way slow down certain information I should have a right to know that from them in advance. And if I have a contract with them, any material changes should allow me to opt out without fees. So if Comcast wants to push Pizza Hut over Dominos, I should have the right to leave without penalty.
Of course that implies I have choices. There are not a lot of players in this game. In addition, a lot of America's fiber is owned by the giants, others may lease it and resell, but it is owned by an AT&T or other such corp. So when I read a website hosted in California from Indiana, my packets make that journey along a lot of wire and routers.I just did a trace route to google, it took 9 routers to get my packets there. I don't know who owned them, but it is conceivable AT&T did own at least one. So in theory, if AT&T routers were doing something to packets to/from Google (slowing them down for example), it is impacting me even if I am not an AT&T consumer.
Brief article - commissioner knows what the reg says,
FCC Commissioner: Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Free Speech
12:39 PM 02/23/2015
Giuseppe Macri
Tech Editor
Giuseppe Macri
An FCC commissioner strongly opposed to the agency's new net neutrality proposal partnered with an FEC commissioner Monday to warn that new Internet regulations could influence political free speech online.
In Monday op-ed published in Politico Magazine, Commissioners Ajit Pai and Lee Goodman of the FCC and FEC joined forces to criticize FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's recent proposal to regulate Internet service providers as public utilities, which, among other things, mandate companies comply with government standards for speed and price.
Pai, who partnered with an FTC commissioner last week to warn that the plan limits the FTC's ability to protect Internet consumers, said the new regulations could push the delicate regulatory balance the FEC has maintained over political free speech online. (RELATED: FCC/FTC Commissioners: 'The Internet Isn't Broken, And We Don't Need The President's Plan To 'Fix' It)
"While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online," the commissioners wrote.
After attempting to regulate political speech spending online in the 90s, the FEC voted unanimously in 2006 to exempt political content posted online for free from federal regulation.
FCC Commissioner: Net Neutrality Is A Threat To Free Speech
12:39 PM 02/23/2015
Giuseppe Macri
Tech Editor
Giuseppe Macri
An FCC commissioner strongly opposed to the agency's new net neutrality proposal partnered with an FEC commissioner Monday to warn that new Internet regulations could influence political free speech online.
In Monday op-ed published in Politico Magazine, Commissioners Ajit Pai and Lee Goodman of the FCC and FEC joined forces to criticize FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's recent proposal to regulate Internet service providers as public utilities, which, among other things, mandate companies comply with government standards for speed and price.
Pai, who partnered with an FTC commissioner last week to warn that the plan limits the FTC's ability to protect Internet consumers, said the new regulations could push the delicate regulatory balance the FEC has maintained over political free speech online. (RELATED: FCC/FTC Commissioners: 'The Internet Isn't Broken, And We Don't Need The President's Plan To 'Fix' It)
"While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online," the commissioners wrote.
After attempting to regulate political speech spending online in the 90s, the FEC voted unanimously in 2006 to exempt political content posted online for free from federal regulation.
Utter nonsense.
Whether or not neutrality is enshrined in regulation by the FCC has (should have) no bearing on how the FEC views online political speech.
Neutrality is a simple concept: access providers cannot discriminate among content. If anything, neutrality is a boon to free speech, not a hindrance.
Whether or not neutrality is enshrined in regulation by the FCC has (should have) no bearing on how the FEC views online political speech.
Neutrality is a simple concept: access providers cannot discriminate among content. If anything, neutrality is a boon to free speech, not a hindrance.
A strong argument can be made...
...that society might benefit from "fast lane" technology. As I point out to COH below, my problem is that, in a world with limited bandwidth, "fast lanes" cannot exist without "slow lanes."
goat
...that society might benefit from "fast lane" technology. As I point out to COH below, my problem is that, in a world with limited bandwidth, "fast lanes" cannot exist without "slow lanes."
goat
Re: What a crock
Or maybe the truth is it's misinformation, lies, and distortions like those that keep Democrat's misinformed. It is amazing to me that this is ALL one sided. Those who constantly claim the high ground never make mistakes or are wrong on anything it is the 70% + of America that is always wrong and misinformed.
Or maybe the truth is it's misinformation, lies, and distortions like those that keep Democrat's misinformed. It is amazing to me that this is ALL one sided. Those who constantly claim the high ground never make mistakes or are wrong on anything it is the 70% + of America that is always wrong and misinformed.
