So new rules have been adopted, rules that are distinctly unpopular to techies and liberals, from what I’ve read.
What, exactly, will be the practical effect of all this (realistically, please), both in terms of the rules and reaction to them?
Seems the first stop will be with the courts…again.
Hasn’t the FCC already been told last April by a Federal Court that they do not have the right for this type of ruling?
I know that there are liberals and then there are liberals…but in fact the democrats on the FCC pushed this.
As for how they did it in response to Flickster, I believe that they took a different approach and decided to regulate a different telecommunications law to get around that minor detail. Activist much?
They didn’t “regulate a different telecommunications law”, whatever that means. They simply reclassified broadband providers into the same category as telephone network operators, which is within their authority. That means the broadband providers have to adhere to the common carriage rules which apply to telcos.
The Republicans and assorted other types opposed to net neutrality ought to welcome this move, frankly. It ensures a certain minimal level of access (providers can’t block sites) but severely limits the FCC’s ability to do much else to ensure neutral treatment.
There’s a very good reason Al Franken is just as unhappy about the move as AT&T.
That’s not what we’re concerned with. Not at all.
Limiting the power of the FCC is not what you’re concerned with?
What is the conservative position on net neutrality? I have heard some conservative commentors suggest it is a way for the government to control the internet and censor content and force websites to carry additional information to create balance. Is there any basis to these allegations? Why do conservatives oppose net neutrality?
While Net Neutrality a a whole is a complicated issue, this might start on you at least some udnerstanding of why. The short version is that the FCC has no business getting involved. There is absolutely no reason for it to even touch the internet: it’s basic purpose is irrelevant to the internet.
The short version: there is no way we can see that this would actually help anybody except people who don’t like the internet or want to control it.
Wikipedia has an overly-long but good examination of the issue.
My own thoughts are that (A) the FCC shouldn’t even exist in this day and age. It is completely obsolete and has effectively no purpose anymore, and (B) if Net Neutrality is ever actually required, it isn’t required right now. That said, theya re two seperate issues.
From the various debates with conservatives on this board, I can only conclude that they oppose Net Neutrality because the Democrats support it. They don’t seem to actually understand what it does or what it means, or why it would be desirable. I /wish/ it were otherwise, but the sheer amount of ignorance concerning it is staggering. I gave a more lengthy explanation on an earlier thread, but the conservatives we were debating never came back after it was fully detailed.
Frankly, I can’t think of good reason NOT to support Net Neutrality, and I’m usually pretty good about seeing the conservative side of things.
Best I can gather is that there is a great deal of paranoia regarding where this could lead as opposed to where it is.
The other major complaint is that this is unnecessary in respect to curing a problem that doesn’t exist.
So really, is seems the both the rules and opposition are based on paranoia of what could be…
But the problem does exist. Comcast resets packet traffic of certain types, various other ISPs will do some odd things. Just earlier today I typed in the correct web address for a site and my mother’s ISP sent me to their custom search page instead. Letting the various cable and internet companies do this sort of thing unregulated pretty much breaks the internet. They wouldn’t even be able to sell the internet without the government to back them up, so I don’t see why they shouldn’t accept a few rules on behavior. Otherwise they’re just robbing the taxpayers.
The FCC’s “basic purpose” is regulating non-Federal interstate telecommunications. Unless you actually believe the Internet is a series of tubes, or that it works by magic, your statement makes no sense at all.
??? I didn’t realize an ISP was taking taxpayer money in order to “sell the internet”
The Internet as We Know it Is Still at Risk | HuffPost Impact Al Franken has been vigorous in trying to protect the internet. There is a fear the providers will charge more for faster internet access for corporations and big users. But how slow is slow ,for those who can not afford the top access.? If the providers are in charge of making the determinations, what will be their rating system. Will they slow down access for competitors? The providers are parts of huge conglomerates with varied interests. Will Comcast charge more for those who are in competition with their other companies? Will they just screw up their connections?
The internet has been an engine creating companies and jobs. Will this threaten it? Will Comcast allow a company that might have a better idea an open chance, or will they stop them?
There is plenty to worry about here.
Would not the free market cure most of those fears? If Comcast starts screwing people, they’re not the only ISP provider by any means…
That’s going way to far. The FCC absolutely still has a real role today in regulating and managing radio communications. It would be absolute chaos if the FCC were disbanded or whatever, or if there was no organization at the national level to coordinate public radio frequencies and make sure organizations (even Government organizations) toed the line.
It is not obsolete and it certainly does have a purpose. I don’t believe it needed to get involved in the internet in this way, and I disagree with the concepts being put forth in the whole Net Neutrality thingy, but you are simply incorrect to say the FCC serves no purpose or that it’s obsolete.
-XT
In many areas… yes, they are. Unless you seriously consider dialup to be the same class of product.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to set up an ISP? There can’t be a free market in internet service because the barriers to entry are immense.
nvm
They are here. I doubt I’m the only one that lives in an area with only one ISP option.
But I don’t think thats the main concern, to repost what I said in an earlier thread on the topic:
"I think the risk of not having net neutrality is the same as the risk allowing any other verticle monopoly, that ISPs that are also content providers will favor their own content, hurting comeptition and making breaking into certain areas (streaming video, for example) without owning your own ISP very difficult. Plus it could make choosing an ISP kind of a minefield for consumers, since you wouldn’t just be choosing based on price and speed, but have to factor in whatever crazy content specific throttling scheme the different providers have to favor their own traffic. "