Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 127
  1. #76
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,730
    "I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power"

    I have no doubt that you are wrong. The FCC move was defensive, to preempt any "pay to play" bull . I'm pretty sure FCC will not use their power.

    I would like them to force BigISP/BigNetwork to allow compe ors (gogole fiber, etc) on their utility poles, echoing the Carterfone decision.


    Defensive? Hardly. I havent thought about the waves in a long time, but IIRC, the FCC traditionally only regulates our finite "public domain" communications resources. The internet is effectively infinite. Classifying an infinite information source as a telecom service rather than an information service seems awfully counter intuitive, at least, in a vacuum. This issue of whether or not the FCC possesses regulatory ability already had its day in court, anyway. It is pretty cut and dry that the internet, accurately defined as an information medium, does not fall under FCC regs. This "reclassification" gambit may work as intended, may very well be needed, but for all intents and purposes, it is the exploitation of a loophole.

  2. #77
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Defensive? Hardly. I havent thought about the waves in a long time, but IIRC, the FCC traditionally only regulates our finite "public domain" communications resources. The internet is effectively infinite. Classifying an infinite information source as a telecom service rather than an information service seems awfully counter intuitive, at least, in a vacuum. This issue of whether or not the FCC possesses regulatory ability already had its day in court, anyway. It is pretty cut and dry that the internet, accurately defined as an information medium, does not fall under FCC regs. This "reclassification" gambit may work as intended, may very well be needed, but for all intents and purposes, it is the exploitation of a loophole.
    internet carries more that "information", it carries video, voice (VOIP), etc, etc. It is the basis of 1000s of businesses, and a tremendous economic stimulus SO FAR. They BigISPs screwed themselves by saying they would turn Internet into a toll road service, forcing non-toll payers into ty performance, and precluding new businesses that can't afford to pay the tolls.

    FCC said no, you won't.

    All y'all anti-government haters will be PROVED WRONG AGAIN and AS ALWAYS.

    If BigISP want a toll service, they can build toll networks in parallel with non-toll networks.

  3. #78
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,176
    Boutons, just because you think legislation does something, doesn't mean that's all it does.

    But that's because you're stupid.

  4. #79
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,730
    FCC saying no you wont is the same as saying the FCC exploited a loophole. For good or ill, that is the reality. Now, you can make it sound like they are some white knight coming to save the little people's internet, but in reality, the average consumer is secondary to accrung dollar bills on the one hand and establishing the first toehold of an immense regulatory power on the other.

  5. #80
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    It would seem the FCC's hand was forced by the providers when they began offering super high speed internet to the select few who could afford it. I have no doubt in my mind the FCC will choose the broadest possible parameters so as to increase the government's own power. Likewise, I fully expect continued massive sustained propaganda campaigns and lobbying efforts on the part of the big corps in an attempt to thwart regulation.

    no signs of a struggle are readily apparent to the incredibly vast majority of us flesh and blood non corporations, so I feel mostly indifference. I could see the big corporations using this as an excuse to penny pinch as much as possible on expanding their highest speed infrastructure, but as the saying goes, you dont miss what you never had.
    Pretty much in agreement, this is basically a boxing match between corps. It does, however, rattles the nest of status quo somewhat, which probably will cause some changes. I suspect the changes will be good or bad depending on the interests of whoever corp is doing a better job lining up the pockets of government officials. Which really is business as usual.

  6. #81
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Defensive? Hardly. I havent thought about the waves in a long time, but IIRC, the FCC traditionally only regulates our finite "public domain" communications resources. The internet is effectively infinite. Classifying an infinite information source as a telecom service rather than an information service seems awfully counter intuitive, at least, in a vacuum. This issue of whether or not the FCC possesses regulatory ability already had its day in court, anyway. It is pretty cut and dry that the internet, accurately defined as an information medium, does not fall under FCC regs. This "reclassification" gambit may work as intended, may very well be needed, but for all intents and purposes, it is the exploitation of a loophole.
    Technically speaking, this is not true. What you're calling "infinite" in that instance is the content. Under that construction, telephone lines are "infinite" too, since their content is continuous and ever changing. The reality is that the internet, wired or wireless is simply another network, much like the phone network, the power grid, etc. As a matter of fact, vast parts of the internet network itself was afforded the same regulatory benefits of the phone network (natural monopolies, government subsidies, etc).

    The truth of the matter is that the concept of "information services" as a separate regulatory en y was only created in 1996. The premise was likely to reduce regulatory burden in order to build out the network. The actual reason is probably closely tied to lobbying and $$$.

  7. #82
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,730
    PS... id wager the big corps will still get their fast lane subscription "toll" later on down the line. In fact, i foresee the FCC at some point reversing their direction, until they are first sanctioning, then requiring a separate faster internet prioritization, for all their friends with the dough that want them now.

    Only difference will be the FCC getting their cut, along with certain special interest groups good for propaganda purposes, such as the disabled vet with an at home heart rate monitor. Wheeler already mentioned a similar example in defense of paid prioritization, though he hardened on the issue... for the moment.
    Last edited by z0sa; 02-26-2015 at 07:01 PM.

  8. #83
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,730
    Technically speaking, this is not true. What you're calling "infinite" in that instance is the content. Under that construction, telephone lines are "infinite" too, since their content is continuous and ever changing. The reality is that the internet, wired or wireless is simply another network, much like the phone network, the power grid, etc. As a matter of fact, vast parts of the internet network itself was afforded the same regulatory benefits of the phone network (natural monopolies, government subsidies, etc).

    The truth of the matter is that the concept of "information services" as a separate regulatory en y was only created in 1996. The premise was likely to reduce regulatory burden in order to build out the network. The actual reason is probably closely tied to lobbying and $$$.
    Thanks for clarifying... in all honesty, after spending some time on the FCC website and wikipedia, I find it hard understanding why the government needs to be jumping through hoops at all. From my (apparently) layman's perspective, it looks like the FCC has been empowered with regulating any and all types of communications. I guess that's why my ass aint a lawyer. Gonna do more reading on this when I have time.

    Which really is business as usual.
    Business as usual certainly fits the bill, but I cant help wondering about the many different possible courses an FCC regulated internet will have taken 30, 50, 100 years from now. Perhaps it will amount to nothing at all because their gambit doesnt stand up in court. Who knows. Fascinating to think about though.
    Last edited by z0sa; 02-26-2015 at 06:59 PM.

  9. #84
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013

  10. #85
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Thanks for clarifying... in all honesty, after spending some time on the FCC website and wikipedia, I find it hard understanding why the government needs to be jumping through hoops at all. From my (apparently) layman's perspective, it looks like the FCC has been empowered with regulating any and all types of communications. I guess that's why my ass aint a lawyer. Gonna do more reading on this when I have time.
    Correct. The FCC function actually *is* to regulate communications like the internet and has done so for many, many years. There was never a time where the FCC, Congress or both did not regulate the internet.

  11. #86
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Reminds me of those tea bags holding up the signs telling the federal government to keep its hands off of medicare. He's a wildly misinformed old kook.

  12. #87
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    Reminds me of those tea bags holding up the signs telling the federal government to keep its hands off of medicare. He's a wildly misinformed old kook.
    which part of that statement was misinformed?

  13. #88
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    which part of that statement was misinformed?
    - "... federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet"
    - "... largest regulatory power grab in recent history" (unless recent history doesn't include Barrycare)
    - "... the federal government should keep its hands off the Internet"

    I left out the disingenuous parts, there's one or two of those there too, but mostly based off the misinformed parts.

    FWIW, I think Ron Paul is a standup guy. I think his actual solution to this would be complete deregulation and abolish of the FCC. Certainly a debatable point, but not what was at issue here.

  14. #89
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    which part of that statement was misinformed?
    As EN has pointed out multiple times in this thread theRe has never been a time when the federal government did not regulate the Internet. His statement about the fed keeping its hands off the internet implies that they don't already have their hands on it. That is inaccurate and he is spreading misinformation.

  15. #90
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Business as usual certainly fits the bill, but I cant help wondering about the many different possible courses an FCC regulated internet will have taken 30, 50, 100 years from now. Perhaps it will amount to nothing at all because their gambit doesnt stand up in court. Who knows. Fascinating to think about though.
    I actually missed this post, but you probably get the gist by now. The internet you're surfing now is what the "FCC regulated internet" looks like. There was never a time where the FCC didn't regulate the internet. Now they might get bigger tools (depending on the upcoming lawsuits, I suppose). The reason is simple: the network isn't what it used to be in it's infancy anymore. All those monopolies and subsidies that they handed to build it out now are being used to control the monster. If you're truly interested, as scott pointed out in the other thread, google "Natural Monopolies" and read up. That's how the "public" internet was built.

  16. #91
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Boutons, just because you think legislation does something, doesn't mean that's all it does.

    But that's because you're stupid.
    it's not legislation, they are administrative rules.

    what are these secret FCC "doings" you speak of?

  17. #92
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    personally, im a fan of the bandwidth requirement though

  18. #93
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    One proof that the FCC has done something fantastic for the country is that Glenn Beck, Krazy Assed Canadian Anchor Baby Kruz, the Repugs, the BigISPs are vehementaly against the FCC rulings, because those assholes NEVER do anything FOR the country.

  19. #94
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Love how the re ed techies who are so afraid of verizon and comcast ruining the internet that they have cried out for government to ruin the internet.

    The irony of course is that once regulatory capture occurs, as it always does, only verizon and comcast will exist anyway.

    "Net neutrality" is a trojan horse. Lol @ thinking government cares about your internet experience.
    you say that as if monopolies extracting as much money as possible from their products is good for the free market.

  20. #95
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,730
    I actually missed this post, but you probably get the gist by now. The internet you're surfing now is what the "FCC regulated internet" looks like. There was never a time where the FCC didn't regulate the internet. Now they might get bigger tools (depending on the upcoming lawsuits, I suppose). The reason is simple: the network isn't what it used to be in it's infancy anymore. All those monopolies and subsidies that they handed to build it out now are being used to control the monster. If you're truly interested, as scott pointed out in the other thread, google "Natural Monopolies" and read up. That's how the "public" internet was built.
    actually I got lost in the world of imagination and simply didnt apply the information you related to me at all. Thanks for all your wisdom shared on this subject thus far, Professor Nono.

  21. #96
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    The Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality decision opens the FCC to “boundless authority to regulate the internet for whatever it sees fit,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation is warning.

    The civil rights group says the FCC’s action in December, which was based on shaky legal authority, creates a paradox of epic proportions. The EFF favors net neutrality but worries whether the means justify the ends.


    “We’re wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags and indecency campaigns,” Abigail Phillips, an EFF staff attorney, wrote on the group’s blog Thursday.
    http://www.wired.com/2011/02/fcc-trojan-horse/

  22. #97
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Nobody ever is going to be happy about this. The EFF wanted le II regulation, and they received their wish. But now they complain about the strings attached. ISPs want something else. Tech companies want something else...

  23. #98
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    regulatory solutions to lack of access and throttling are bound to create new problems. it's hard to do the cost benefit analysis before the paradoxes of regulation have arrived.

  24. #99
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,176
    you say that as if monopolies extracting as much money as possible from their products is good for the free market.
    No, but it's predictable they'll try. How effective they are depends on how easy it is for them.

    The point is centralizing power isn't the way to stop a monopoly. It's the way to ensure one.

    The big companies are going to use these new regulatory rules as a hammer against smaller ISPs. That is as predictable as the sun coming up.

  25. #100
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    regulatory solutions to lack of access and throttling are bound to create new problems. it's hard to do the cost benefit analysis before the paradoxes of regulation have arrived.
    There's certainly more "free market" solutions to this, including winding down monopoly power in what are now seemingly compe ive areas.

    But no party in this brouhaha is looking for a "free market" solution, they want to tailor regulation to their wants and needs (and arguably there some reasons that are good. You mentioned access, which is good).

    Unfortunately, this is a fight that has moved to lobbyists desks a long time ago, well before this new orders took shape. The new orders will intensify that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •