Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Dec 2010 23:10 UTC, submitted by brewmastre
Internet & Networking "A divided Federal Communications Commission has approved new rules meant to prohibit broadband companies from interfering with Internet traffic flowing to their customers. The 3-2 vote Tuesday marks a major victory for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who has spent more than a year trying to craft a compromise. The FCC's three Democrats voted to pass the rules, while the two Republicans opposed them, calling them unnecessary regulation. The new rules are likely to face intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill once Republicans take over the House. Meanwhile, public interest groups decried the regulations as too weak, particularly for wireless systems."
Thread beginning with comment 454420
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: pandoras box?
by jjmckay on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE: pandoras box?"
jjmckay
Member since:
2005-11-11

Pick your poison. As it is, a handful of businesses can do whatever they want to the internet.


That's not true. The Internet has private-sector standards bodies and all ISP's. Also all ISP's are subject to market forces and can't do 'anything' they want to.

Imagine if the government mandated every web site used standard HTML so that everyone had equal access. What a nightmare. How could we progress? What about freedom? What regulations will follow under such a guise of equal access?

It is their internet because they own the wires and the servers.


False. They own their own properties, sure. But the Internet isn't just physical hardware. No one owns the Internet so far, but the governments of the world are working to control it under the self-serving dogma of 'equality and guaranteeing freedom.'


Meanwhile the FCC acts for the President, who was elected by the people.


Our elections have been manipulated. Obama was noone four years ago. Now all of a sudden he's president. He was deliberately advertised by the media, lied profusely during the campaign, and now services the globalists and the central bankers. He's a corporatist.

Someone is going to control the internet. Who do you think it should be?


No one. No government. Especially no government that has a worldwide empire, engages in never-ending wars based on lies, persecutes those who divulge the systematic lies, and terrorizes its own public under the guise of homeland defense.

It is my hope the Internet continues to be a place of voluntary participation, not government coercion and mandated equality.

Freedom is about choice, not equality. Net Neutrality is not about freedom, no. It is an entitlement. Net Neutrality is Marxist. Evil can dress itself up in such beautiful sounding words and that's what I think Net Neutrality is. It sounds so wonderful and Utopian. The devil is in the details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag8_23xgbu0

Watch this video to see how corporations use government regulation, just like Net Neutrality, to gain an advantage in the market. Big Content (ie Netflix,Google,Facebook and many others) want Net Neutrality laws and this is the truer intent behind why the government is supporting it. That's just a part of the series, I suggest you watch the whole segment (can't find it now on YT).

Edited 2010-12-22 07:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: pandoras box?
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 08:39 in reply to "RE[2]: pandoras box?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You're going a bit far by calling it Marxism (Marx theory was not exactly advertising Soviet Russia), but you're right in that these days, we're heading towards something close to the USSR.

Utopic communism and capitalism are based on the belief that mankind is able to self-organize itself in an optimal way and thus that states and regulations are unnecessary. That by giving individuals maximal freedom, the group benefits in the end.

Other, imo more reasonable theories, believe that without a strong body of laws, we'll only face insecurity and individualism without a collective result (ie each one starts to cultivate potatoes in a field, people fight for a yard of cultivable field, and things like medicine and computers disappear). They also question the inertia of individualistic systems, where once someone got big enough, he can crush any form of dawning competition. Regulations are thus necessary, in their system, if we want mankind to prosper in an optimal way.

Today, what we have is a monster which uses laws to help individual interests, and not mankind as a whole. Banks are free to do what they want with people's money, AND if they fail, as they deserve to, they know that the state is going to save them. The best of both worlds, isn't it ?

Edited 2010-12-22 08:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: pandoras box?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 11:25 in reply to "RE[2]: pandoras box?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There is nothing Marxist about net neutrality. Marxism is rather the opposite of net neutrality. Net neutrality simply means the ISP's are to keep their hands of the traffic and let the Individual control its own traffic. Quite the opposite of Marxism.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: pandoras box?
by Priest on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 02:24 in reply to "RE[3]: pandoras box?"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

In theory and an oversimplification. The ISP's can't simply keep their "hands off" the traffic, they must deliver and manage it, and avoid stepping on legal landmines in the process. It will create another layer of bureaucracy for the companies that still have more engineers than lawyers.

Edited 2010-12-23 02:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2