# FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules



## sttubs (Sep 19, 2009)

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090919/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules

WASHINGTON - The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday.

The Washington Post and New York Times said the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announced the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The proposals would uphold a pledge Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign to support Internet neutrality and would bar companies like Verizon, Comcast or ATT&T, from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks.

The rules would apply to all ISPs, including wireless service providers.

Without strict rules ensuring Net neutrality, consumer watchdogs fear the communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as TV shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with services the ISPs offer, like cable television.

Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.

"We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy," Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at CTIA, a wireless trade group, told the Post.


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 19, 2009)

Coming from the guy who's avatar insults Obama... :-|


----------



## sttubs (Sep 19, 2009)

I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 19, 2009)

I agree with the FCC.


Great stuff.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 19, 2009)

I live in Canada. But this is a good thing. Why should a service you pay say what you can or cannot view. You should be able to do whatever you want on the internet as long as it follows the law.

I can see Sttubs point, but ISPs who offer cable and sattelite should switch up there services to maybe offer it online.


----------



## BlackOmega (Sep 19, 2009)

sttubs said:


> I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?



 Why not, do you want AT&T,Comcast,etc. censoring what you can and can't watch? I sure as hell don't. 
 Corporations are run like dictatorships and this is when the government intervenes. As it should.  

 To answer your question, no I would not like the government to tell me how to run my business. But the difference between me and a large corporation is that I have ethics and morals, whereas big companies do not. Most of them will rip the shirt off of your back just to turn a profit. 

 Watch The Corporation. Its 3 parts that are 1 hour long each. This is a VERY good program that I think everyone should see.


----------



## [Ion] (Sep 19, 2009)

I absolutely support the FCC on this, I think the ISPs should let you do whatever you want with the bandwidth you pay for, you are paying for it after all.


----------



## cyriene (Sep 19, 2009)

I don't want the government telling me how to run my business either.  But the difference here is that there is very little competition between ISPs here in the States.  The only provider I have in my area is Comcast so I am stuck with their crappy service.  ATT is supposed to be adding Uverse to my area sometime...but who knows when.
If there were actual competition between ISPs we wouldn't need this FCC ruling.


----------



## sttubs (Sep 20, 2009)

I do agree that competition is the best thing for the customers. Yes, corporations are all about profit. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when you own a business, make money? Just because a company makes a profit, it does not make them evil. Nothing in that article mentions censorship, which I do agree that there should be no censorship.


----------



## a111087 (Sep 20, 2009)

Thank god for FCC 
Hey, not everything government does is bad. FCC just saved internet for all of us!


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Sep 20, 2009)

God bless Obama


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 20, 2009)

sttubs said:


> I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?



So you support the ISP's RAPING we the people? So your saying you would like it to take 20mins to load techpowerup, google, any other site you goto? Just becasue those websites arnt bribing the provider for more bandwidth?


----------



## AsRock (Sep 20, 2009)

sttubs said:


> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090919/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules
> 
> WASHINGTON - The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday.
> 
> ...



Then they should not say for example you have a 10Mb connection if you cannot use it.  Simple to solve dont give the people hat much in the 1st place if your network cannot keep up with the demand as people get it because they want to use it not the other way around.

They can watch what i do all they like not ucked about it and when they stop me watching some thing i'l jump ISP uck'em.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2009)

I am happy, but I am also sad.  I am happy because net neutrality is important.  What Verizon, AT&T, etc. are doing is the equivalent to if Ford, GM, or Chrysler limited all their vehicles to a maximum speed of 55 MPH because "that's all you need."

At the same time, I am sad because Verizon, AT&T, etc. are businesses and they pay for all the infrastructure they install--it is their network, their rules.

[rant]I tend to side with net neutrality; however, because the Internet service provider's only job is to get the data to and from your residence--not to police it or otherwise discriminate against more needy users than others.  Like all investments, they must diversify their clientel.  Saying you're limited to x number of GB/month is too easy for them.  Technology must advance at a rapid pace to keep up with demand and those limitations are artificially restricting progress (e.g. of all the Amazons, Hulus, and other net-only businesses).  They shouldn't have to limit consumer's habits just because they want to line their fat wallets with another layer of protection.  That's no different than the complaints sent towards all forms of insurance.  ISPs are now insurance companies being allowed to discriminate, again, against the "needy" clients?  Just like insurance, I see their want to do this but letting the network run at its peak isn't costing them anything more than all the overhead introduced by restricting traffic.  No one's life, home, or car is on the line either so I call BS.[/rant]

The only excuse ISPs have for this practice is greed; it must stop.




AsRock said:


> Then they should not say for example you have a 10Mb connection if you cannot use it.  Simple to solve dont give the people hat much in the 1st place if your network cannot keep up with the demand as people get it because they want to use it not the other way around.
> 
> They can watch what i do all they like not ucked about it and when they stop me watching some thing i'l jump ISP uck'em.


The statement you highlighted is the problem with cable and other pooled Internet services.  The answer is DSL or other subscriber technologies which guarentee x amount of bandwidth all the time.


----------



## sttubs (Sep 20, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> So you support the ISP's RAPING we the people? So your saying you would like it to take 20mins to load techpowerup, google, any other site you goto?



If you don't like their terms, go elsewhere. You have the freedom to do that. If there is no other broadband source, and that is what you want then I guess you have to go with their terms.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2009)

In a lot of places, like where I live, there is no competition for phone, Internet, electric, and water services.  It is anti-competitive as-is so it is important that what services are offered don't amount to extortion.  I have no limit and at times, I get very frustrated with my ISP (lots of downtime) but at least I am not being told what I can and cannot do with my Internet.  They got their asking price; they ought to be happy.


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 20, 2009)

I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Sep 20, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.



Aw muffin. Your 50mbps connections are so bad  Canada just got to 10. The main reason Europe has more is because of population density. Fiber is insanely expensive to lay down and run to the home.


----------



## twilyth (Sep 20, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.


Except the EU is less than half the area of the US - and that includes countries where I'm sure internet service is sub-par.  But I agree that we should be making more of an effort.  The way we got telephone service in every home was by giving the phone company a monopoly and letting them use their rate structure to subsidize rural installations.  I don't think that is the best model but I would like to see some kind of subsidy for putting fiber in remote areas.  Hell, I'm in the NYC-Philly corridor and I'm still waiting for Fios.



sttubs said:


> I do agree that competition is the best thing for the customers. Yes, corporations are all about profit. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when you own a business, make money? Just because a company makes a profit, it does not make them evil. Nothing in that article mentions censorship, which I do agree that there should be no censorship.


What do you call it when an ISP throttles a specific site?  Maybe blocking Hulu doesn't target any particular political point of view, but I think it's still a form of censorship.

Letting an ISP pick and choose what they will allow or even 'favor' gives them an unfair competitive advantage.  Personally, I wouldn't have any problem getting around such limitations and neither would anyone else here, but I don't think that's true for the average user.  I think that it should be considered an act in restraint of trade and that therefore you shouldn't need any special regs or additional legislation, but it certainly can't hurt to have some.


----------



## From_Nowhere (Sep 20, 2009)

Interesting to say the least.

{personal rant} Unfortunately GCI, and this local company I know of will still suck regardless. 600ms+ ping For the LOSE! {end personal rant}


----------



## Wile E (Sep 20, 2009)

I hope it passes. ISPs in most areas are a monopoly as it already stands. they already limit how much content I can download in a month, despite me having signed up for "unlimited", I definitely do not want them limiting the speed of that content as well. Somebody has to pull the reigns on them.


----------



## hat (Sep 20, 2009)

Bittersweet bill. ISPs would no longer be able to monitor net traffic, but the government is stepping in the (supposedly) free market. But they're doing good...



Flyordie said:


> Coming from the guy who's avatar insults Obama... :-|



Yeah well, Obama is a crook, and there's no valid reason for anyone to not know it. There's been shit staked against him in the past, but nothing brings it out in broad daylight like Joe Wilson at Obama's healthcare speech. Obama claims that the proposed healthcare system would not benefit illegal citizens, yet it says right in the bill that healthcare would not be limited to permanent or temporary residents, or legal or illegal citizens.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 20, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I am happy, but I am also sad.  I am happy because net neutrality is important.  What Verizon, AT&T, etc. are doing is the equivalent to if Ford, GM, or Chrysler limited all their vehicles to a maximum speed of 55 MPH because "that's all you need."
> 
> At the same time, I am sad because Verizon, AT&T, etc. are businesses and they pay for all the infrastructure they install--it is their network, their rules.
> 
> ...


ALL true about at&T and verizon(to a point) but who paid for the fiber optic network and the cable infrastructure...WE THE TAX PAYERS DID...So companies like comcast and time warner can kiss my ass.....This is something the FCC should have done along time ago They legally have to collect fee's to maintain the network, yet they are allowed to keep 30% of those fee's as profit WTF!!! It's for "administrative fees" how about they just take the money they make and put towards administrative fees dirty fuckin crooks...That's the problem with deregulation, business will regulate themselves, like company zoning AKA you get this county we get that county..It stops competition ,lowers cost and halts progress, yeah lower cost to the company Yet Cable Internet prices are soaring for the consumer with little increase in service...Take my internet it's gone from 39.99-79.99 that's a 100% price increase in 4 years and my connection speeds are only 40% faster(on paper in real life maybe a 8% increase), But as of yet what, I don't really have a choice for my service, I cant get comcast, but if i lived 2 streets over i could..I thought was called something......hmmmmm...like PRICE FIXING
The goods news is, If this passes Internet HD wont be far behind-(but they can't there's not enough bandwidth-REALLY but they can send QAM over the Internet just fine)so don't even go there


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 20, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.


WE already pay for it!!!!!! But the Media companies put it in there pockets-(it's through Tax Loop holes that not only let them write off network expenses, but also lets them keep 30% for ADMINISTRATIVE FEE's....WTF)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> ALL true about at&T and verizon(to a point) but who paid for the fiber optic network and the cable infrastructure...WE THE TAX PAYERS DID...


Um?  Fiber optics/cables are being installed/maintained by ISPs/telecoms.


I hate myself for saying this but I really think that a federal reserve-like system needs to be established for telecommunications (including internet) and electricity networks.  That is, there are multiple private corporations that are overseen and controlled by a public board.  You have multiple corporations in order to insite competition for price-effectiveness and research.  It also means there is only one network covering the entire nation.

I feel it necessary for two reasons:
1) National security.  The industrial backbone of the nation is dependent upon electricity.  Many government agencies as well as the power system relies on the internet to transfer vital information.
2) Cost effectiveness.  You don't have to look far to find two or three cellphone towers built right next each other because competing wireless providers refuse to share towers.  This is wasteful in terms of materials and land.  It also doens't make sense to have electrcial/telecommunications cables criss cross each other just to reach the area they cover when there should be only one set providing coverage for all.

Ultimately, the current system is full of waste; hence, the high prices and limited expansion of service.  Just like the highway system, these services are essential to the economy and very costly to maintain.


----------



## Solaris17 (Sep 20, 2009)

hat said:


> Bittersweet bill. ISPs would no longer be able to monitor net traffic, but the government is stepping in the (supposedly) free market. But they're doing good...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, Obama is a crook, and there's no valid reason for anyone to not know it. There's been shit staked against him in the past, but nothing brings it out in broad daylight like Joe Wilson at Obama's healthcare speech. Obama claims that the proposed healthcare system would not benefit illegal citizens, yet it says right in the bill that healthcare would not be limited to permanent or temporary residents, or legal or illegal citizens.



This has absolutely nothing to do with this topic and should be brought else ware. If you want to troll go start your own thread about why the president is crap yadayada so that can start a huge argument and get shut down..until then...lets discuss this bill and not our personal opinions.

thank you.


I support this bill. I mean its hit or miss. Sure this might effect things in the long run such as slower speeds or maybe even game prices going up because all of a sudden the ISP's cant scare 15 year old kids with an e-mail saying stop...but im sure it will all work itself out..i mean if everyones internet starts getting slow then people will leave because they wont get what their paying for...at which point the ISP's will be forced to upgrade their networks in the regions this would be happening in and as such we the customers will in essance be forcing the advancment of technology


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 20, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Um?  Fiber optics/cables are being installed/maintained by ISPs/telecoms.
> 
> 
> I hate myself for saying this but I really think that a federal reserve-like system needs to be established for telecommunications (including internet) and electricity networks.  That is, there are multiple private corporations that are overseen and controlled by a public board.  You have multiple corporations in order to insite competition for price-effectiveness and research.  It also means there is only one network covering the entire nation.
> ...


They maintain with there own money yes, but then it's a tax write off...Steel mills don't get to write off raw materials they use to make steel, why should the media companies get to write off the cost of there networks...It's not right
I live in a community that has it's own Power Company...My electric bill is 1/3 that of Ohio edison's price's, and ya wanna know why, cause the city can't collect a profit, as the city charter reads the city can collect up to 35% extra, and they do, for repairs and fuel price hikes and it's better service at 1/3 the price...I just don't know why every community does not want public utilities, including internet


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2009)

You don't make money from the infrastructure itself--you only make money by data/power passing through the infrastructure.  As such, you're going to lose a lot of money to make any money at all.  The write off is an incentive to get people wired so the data/power can flow.

Just like roads--they don't make money unless vehicles are traveling on them carrying people to and from work, vacationers to places to spend money, or moving goods from A to B.

The alternative to the write off is as I said: socialize *cringes* it.


Edit: To the second part: there's a coop power line (RCA) running 900 ft away from me but, because I am not in their territory, they can't run it down here.  Instead, I have a corporation (Mid-American) which charges probably two to three times more for the same amount of electricity.

Again, the only way to really fix it is to socialize *cringes again* it.  That is, public ownership of the networks.

People do want it but because of existing laws, it is not possible.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 20, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You don't make money from the infrastructure itself--you only make money by data/power passing through the infrastructure.  As such, you're going to lose a lot of money to make any money at all.  The write off is an incentive to get people wired so the data/power can flow.
> 
> Just like roads--they don't make money unless vehicles are traveling on them carrying people to and from work, vacationers to places to spend money, or moving goods from A to B.
> 
> ...


Honestly I *cringe* to when I think of socializing stuff but it's the lesser of two evil's at the moment...
I agree with the write offs in principal, but these companies abuse em horribly horribly bad, so little money goes where it's supposed to, most is going to undeserved bonus's, I think there is enough public interest to change a few laws but i can't help but think about that dumb ass saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" It just seems like no matter which way we go it's corrupt...I just hope this bill leads us the right way


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 20, 2009)

It's a shame such a bill is even needed.  Not interfering with a customer's service should be "common sense" but, as we all know, common sense isn't all that common.


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Aw muffin. Your 50mbps connections are so bad  Canada just got to 10. The main reason Europe has more is because of population density. Fiber is insanely expensive to lay down and run to the home.



50mbps? thats a joke. Only business's get that for 200$ a month.

I have to pay 45$ a month for a 3MB down 1MB up connection.


----------



## KainXS (Sep 21, 2009)

if this dosen't get passed the situation will only get worst and worst and worst 

we will be heading towards a situation where, 

oh you have xbox live, gimme some money
oh you have netflixx, gimme some more money
or the good ol (your isp), dude microsoft payed us to block psn from you, hahahhahahahah, gimme some money to unblock it.

and its already started, some isp's are like this now.

god bless obama for doing this, I don't like him for always popping up on camera like kanye west but this is a step in the right direction.

now all those thousands of blowjobs Tania Derveaux gave out in the name of Net Neutrality can mean something


----------



## [Ion] (Sep 21, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's a shame such a bill is even needed.  Not interfering with a customer's service should be "common sense" but, as we all know, common sense isn't all that common.



Very true.  Sigged the last part


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

it is all in the terms of service agreement. the ISPs arent cheating you out of bandwidth, if anything they are making all website MORE accessible for everyone by allocating more bandwidth to sites that require it and less to those that dont. yes, ISPs could limit traffic to political sites and businesses that are competing but you dont have to pay for that service then. and if you dont have any other options for internet in your area look at your local govt by-laws. notice how your local government has created a monopoly for that business and is most likely receiving kick-backs from it. do you really want to open up the net to political corruption like opening up any industry becomes corrupt when the govt gets involved? and remember, you dont have a right to the internet. you cant demand that somebody give you a service that they provide.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> it is all in the terms of service agreement. the ISPs arent cheating you out of bandwidth, if anything they are making all website MORE accessible for everyone by allocating more bandwidth to sites that require it and less to those that dont. yes, ISPs could limit traffic to political sites and businesses that are competing but you dont have to pay for that service then. and if you dont have any other options for internet in your area look at your local govt by-laws. notice how your local government has created a monopoly for that business and is most likely receiving kick-backs from it. do you really want to open up the net to political corruption like opening up any industry becomes corrupt when the govt gets involved? and remember, you dont have a right to the internet. you cant demand that somebody give you a service that they provide.


well actually it is a right...Since public Library Funds are being diverted from text to web as a basis of media, thus actually making it a right ( I know that's not what you meant)...Now to your home that's something else...But the internet not being a right is not correct, as for everything else some yay some nay but basically right...But these companies are given massive tax write offs to repair maintain and upgrade these networks...Maybe we should just close that tax loop hole and give that money to somebody that will do with it, what they are supposed to..It just bothers me that someone would defend these turds...really..They are ripping us off..LITERALLY..And because it's so far out of control we may have the GOV come to the rescue..ARRR.. WHO THE EFF wants THAT, but the greed is so far spread most of us can't even tell...If these companies did what they were supposed to with those write offs  then the GOV would have no reason to step in, but instead "these companies are taking actions to prevent competition in a free market" with federal tax breaks AND WE CANNOT HAVE THAT, If they don't want THE GOV to interfere then they should not except those TAX INCENTIVES but since they do THE GOV does have a right to interfere TO PRESERVE A FREE MARKET


----------



## Wile E (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> it is all in the terms of service agreement. the ISPs arent cheating you out of bandwidth, if anything they are making all website MORE accessible for everyone by allocating more bandwidth to sites that require it and less to those that dont. yes, ISPs could limit traffic to political sites and businesses that are competing but you dont have to pay for that service then. and if you dont have any other options for internet in your area look at your local govt by-laws. notice how your local government has created a monopoly for that business and is most likely receiving kick-backs from it. do you really want to open up the net to political corruption like opening up any industry becomes corrupt when the govt gets involved? and remember, you dont have a right to the internet. you cant demand that somebody give you a service that they provide.



Political corruption is already involved. At this point, the corruption does not benefit the consumer at all. This bill shifts the balance of that corruption more into the customer's favor.

And no, 9 out of 10 times, limits are not listed in the ToS. ISPs have been using silent limits for ages now.

No, there's just no defense for the behavior of the ISPs. I don't like govt intervention, but when entire industries are cheating people out of money with blatant lies and shadow games, it's like I said in my previous post, Somebody has to pull the reigns on them. They are out of control.

As far as rights, I absolutely have a right to receive what I legally paid for.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 21, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I hope it passes. ISPs in most areas are a monopoly as it already stands. *they already limit how much content I can download in a month, despite me having signed up for "unlimited",* I definitely do not want them limiting the speed of that content as well. Somebody has to pull the reigns on them.




They were going to try that via Time Warner in my area. We organized week long protests and then they backed off and said they were rethinking the concept to our local media. 

I think the service is bad enough.  We get 1.1mb down(when accurately recorded) with "extreme", which is the fastest speed available to us at $65USD a month. I am speaking megabyte and not megabit.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 21, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> They were going to try that via Time Warner in my area. We organized week long protests and then they backed off and said they were rethinking the concept to our local media.
> 
> I think the service is bad enough.  We get 1.1mb down(when accurately recorded) with "extreme", which is the fastest speed available to us at $65USD a month. I am speaking megabyte and not megabit.





Yeah that deserves protest man, that's the minimum broadband speed from my isp.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Sep 21, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Yeah that deserves protest man, that's the minimum broadband speed from my isp.



The reason why is that they cap our speeds. Latency is not that bad though.

I know somebody that receives 8-10mb because he removed his cap. But thats because he has the authority.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Aye they all have ways of holding people back, my isp is notorious for bandwidth throttling, most of the time I do download at a full 10megabits a second, but sometimes I get only about 2megabits.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

can somebody prove to me that the internet is a right? of course not, because it does not fall within the concept of life, liberty and property. ISPs are owners of their products and services. You are not an owner, you simply buy it from them. you do not have to buy it from them, you can go without. simple as that. and another point, internet service in this country has been improving at incredible speeds. companies are upgrading their services at record rates and are offering more tiers of service and more technologies like VoIP. WHY O WHY! would we want that to change? it comes down to whiney people who are mad that these companies make billions of dollars even tho they are not forcing anyone to buy their product. stop crying and grow up.


----------



## mrhuggles (Sep 21, 2009)

my thoughts are like this, if they are going to call themselves an "internet service provider" they should be providing internet not providing an in any way haxed internet. they should call it something else, that way us people who want normal internet will know the difference clearly.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> my thoughts are like this, if they are going to call themselves an "internet service provider" they should be providing internet not providing an in any way haxed internet. they should call it something else, that way us people who want normal internet will know the difference clearly.



what is "normal" internet? a pure connection with no throtteling or limits? then you would have to pay $1000 per month like businesses with T1/T3 connection do here in the US.


----------



## mrhuggles (Sep 21, 2009)

im ok with reasonable limits, thats all tho


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> can somebody prove to me that the internet is a right? of course not, because it does not fall within the concept of life, liberty and property. ISPs are owners of their products and services. You are not an owner, you simply buy it from them. you do not have to buy it from them, you can go without. simple as that. and another point, internet service in this country has been improving at incredible speeds. companies are upgrading their services at record rates and are offering more tiers of service and more technologies like VoIP. WHY O WHY! would we want that to change? it comes down to whiney people who are mad that these companies make billions of dollars even tho they are not forcing anyone to buy their product. stop crying and grow up.


Call your state Library OFFICE, cause every citizen has a right to internet access, since public records are now kept digitally, this of course does not "give the right to home access" of course, but yes every US citizen has a right to internet access as every citizen has a right to public documents..But that is not what this discussion is about...This discussion basically comes down to antitrust issues, and has less to do with speed of delivery..ISP's are to provide a neutral Bandwidth to it's consumers, they should not have the right to limit your bandwidth for select types of media...AND it's not so much against the ISP's as this bill would limit say SONY records from suing an ISP for the end user downloading illegal media..This bill would ensure that ISP's are simply providing the BANDWIDTH they advertise and ensure public funds (tax right offs) are being used correctly and should increase INTERNET speeds...So you think it's wrong for people who are contributing to a network (through tax write offs) to whine about poor coverage or no coverage REALLY....I would agree if it was privately funded, but since it's not, I say the PUBLIC has JUST CAUSE to be PISSED OFF, bro..Don't go thinking I don't understand what you are saying, cause i do and i also mostly agree with every point you have made, I just don't think you are seeing the other side of this issue, it's not just a "Lets go mess with the ISP's thing" this bill would also give the ISP's much needed protection from ridiculous litigation, How much money do ISP's waste year in and year out to protect themselves from Copyright litigation.That's got to stop, Why should an ISP have to worry about what it's consumers are downloading/uploading..If anything you should be more concerned with your privacy


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> im ok with reasonable limits, thats all tho



what do you consider reasonable?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Call your state Library OFFICE, cause every citizen has a right to internet access, since public records are now kept digitally, this of course does not "give the right to home access" of course, but yes every US citizen has a right to internet access as every citizen has a right to public documents..But that is not what this discussion is about...



just because there is internet in our libraries doesnt make internet access a right. if anything it makes it a privelege because it is provided through tax payer funding...



> This discussion basically comes down to antitrust issues, and has less to do with speed of delivery..ISP's are to provide a neutral Bandwidth to it's consumers, they should not have the right to limit your bandwidth for select types of media...AND it's not so much against the ISP's as this bill would limit say SONY records from suing an ISP for the end user downloading illegal media..This bill would ensure that ISP's are simply providing the BANDWIDTH they advertise



if ISPs were to provide a "neutral" bandwidth the cost would sky rocket and LESS people would be able to afford the service. bandwidth is metered and spread across the entire network or regions of the network to reduce bottlenecks and allocate packets to high demand sites when necessary. if you take that away you will see prices increase massively as ISPs are forced to readjust their entire physical operation. that means more cable and pipe, more expensive switches and routers, more labor to do all the work and less people actually able to afford the service.  



> and ensure public funds (tax right offs) are being used correctly and should increase INTERNET speeds...So you think it's wrong for people who are contributing to a network (through tax write offs) to whine about poor coverage or no coverage REALLY....I would agree if it was privately funded, but since it's not, I say the PUBLIC has JUST CAUSE to be PISSED OFF, bro..



im not sure what tax-rightoffs you are talking about, but all businesses right off some business expenses. that doesnt mean that public funds are going toward helping that business.



> Don't go thinking I don't understand what you are saying, cause i do and i also mostly agree with every point you have made, I just don't think you are seeing the other side of this issue, it's not just a "Lets go mess with the ISP's thing" this bill would also give the ISP's much needed protection from ridiculous litigation, How much money do ISP's waste year in and year out to protect themselves from Copyright litigation.That's got to stop, Why should an ISP have to worry about what it's consumers are downloading/uploading..If anything you should be more concerned with your privacy



then fix the laws revolving around piracy. it is that simple! you dont have to institute a system wide redistribution of bandwidth if you want to fix the piracy/copyright laws in this country.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> just because there is internet in our libraries doesnt make internet access a right. if anything it makes it a privelege because it is provided through tax payer funding...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 here are the laws that give us Internet http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/254.html and yes Those are specific TO NETWORK REPAIR MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE write offs. I do not think this will raise cost's at all, Been there done that it's a scare tactic that's always proven to be false in the end
AND here are the laws for upgrading/downgrading service and WHY ISP's GET WRITE OFFS..http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000214----000-.html
Here is my favorite part....
(3)  Designation of eligible telecommunications carriers for unserved areas
If no common carrier will provide the services that are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms under section 254 (c) of this title to an unserved community or any portion thereof that requests such service, the Commission, with respect to interstate services or an area served by a common carrier to which paragraph (6) applies, or a State commission, with respect to intrastate services, shall determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof. Any carrier or carriers ordered to provide such service under this paragraph shall meet the requirements of paragraph (1) and shall be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier for that community or portion thereof.

And as described must be done within reasonable affordable rates
Pay service yes...Right to access YES


----------



## Steevo (Sep 21, 2009)

sttubs said:


> I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?



Would you like to see the FCC support elemination of all torrents, downloads, streamed and public content that doesn't mee the ISP's approval. 

So lets say tonight I want to watch House, but I have decided that I don't like the idea of spending hundreds of dollars a year to support reruns and issues a cable and or sat company will provide, but it is available OTA, and across the internet, but Qwest decides to block all houses that don't use a partner corp to get their cable from being able to access or use the internet content freely available. Now I pay for internet with the idea that everything that I can access is considered available, and all Qwest does is provide the access to the internet. 


However Qwest has overstepped their bounds by disallowing access to items and content they feel competes with their market.



So how about shopping, what if you were looking to purchase computer hardware, and your ISP blocked newegg as they aren't gettign a kickback, and instead forces you to use Tigerdirect? 

Are you OK with that?

They are taking your freedom, and ability to choose your supplier, and forcing you to choose one that plays ball with them, thus costing you more.


Are you OK with that?


Why don't they just start getting copies of your TV, grocery, Liquor, and all other products that you buy, and adding a surcharge to your bill for everything.

same thing.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Sep 21, 2009)

If theyre going to filter anything filter virii and botnets


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Steevo said:


> Would you like to see the FCC support elemination of all torrents, downloads, streamed and public content that doesn't mee the ISP's approval.
> 
> So lets say tonight I want to watch House, but I have decided that I don't like the idea of spending hundreds of dollars a year to support reruns and issues a cable and or sat company will provide, but it is available OTA, and across the internet, but Qwest decides to block all houses that don't use a partner corp to get their cable from being able to access or use the internet content freely available. Now I pay for internet with the idea that everything that I can access is considered available, and all Qwest does is provide the access to the internet.
> 
> ...


It's called "ANTITRUST" and is illegal
Nicely put bro


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> here are the laws that give us Internet http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/254.html and yes Those are specific TO NETWORK REPAIR MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE write offs. I do not think this will raise cost's at all, Been there done that it's a scare tactic that's always proven to be false in the end
> AND here are the laws for upgrading/downgrading service and WHY ISP's GET WRITE OFFS..http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000214----000-.html
> Here is my favorite part....
> (3)  Designation of eligible telecommunications carriers for unserved areas
> ...



well there yea go. government regulation is already stifling innovation and creating a corrupt industry. you simply want to expand the corruption and slow innovation in the name of fairness. again, you do not have a right to the internet. that is like saying you have the right to what other people create and produce. in the land of the free what you are describing is considered theft.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

Steevo said:


> Would you like to see the FCC support elemination of all torrents, downloads, streamed and public content that doesn't mee the ISP's approval.
> 
> So lets say tonight I want to watch House, but I have decided that I don't like the idea of spending hundreds of dollars a year to support reruns and issues a cable and or sat company will provide, but it is available OTA, and across the internet, but Qwest decides to block all houses that don't use a partner corp to get their cable from being able to access or use the internet content freely available. Now I pay for internet with the idea that everything that I can access is considered available, and all Qwest does is provide the access to the internet.
> 
> ...




actually, the ISPs are providing a service that you choose to pay for. they are not denying you anything, they are actually supplying you with a product.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> well there yea go. government regulation is already stifling innovation and creating a corrupt industry. you simply want to expand the corruption and slow innovation in the name of fairness. again, you do not have a right to the internet. that is like saying you have the right to what other people create and produce. in the land of the free what you are describing is considered theft.


It's an extension on "The Freedom of Information ACT' and one of the founding principals of this nation!!! It's just changing format!! THE same laws we had for PRINT must be updated in order to protect the better interest of the public!! It's not more control being taken, It's more control being given back.


----------



## 3870x2 (Sep 21, 2009)

a111087 said:


> Thank god for FCC
> Hey, not everything government does is bad. FCC just saved internet for all of us!



+1

It is very important.  At some point in the future, not sure how long, cable television will be obsolete, and everything will be ran over ethernet V.6.  Corporations will do everything legally possible to turn a profit, and without government interference, it will get insanely fked up.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> actually, the ISPs are providing a service that you choose to pay for. they are not denying you anything, they are actually supplying you with a product.


The product they are "Legally Required to offer is BANDWIDTH" not content specific information


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> It's an extension on "The Freedom of Information ACT' and one of the founding principals of this nation!!! It's just changing format!! THE same laws we had for PRINT must be updated in order to protect the better interest of the public!! It's not more control being taken, It's more control being given back.



that is not what net neutrality is about though. you already have access whether at home or in a public library to every news source around the world via internet.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> The product they are "Legally Required to offer is BANDWIDTH" not content specific information



they are offering you bandwidth and not limiting your access in total to content...where is the problem?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> they are offering you bandwidth and not limiting your access in total to content...where is the problem?


The problem is other companies suing ISP's in order to get content blocked  per basis for content protection and because ISP's are using that as an excuse to throttle down speeds in order to profit on services in which they are supposed to be improving...It's a long list..I can pull up at least 1000 articles on this, it's corporate corruption at it's worst and the IDEA here is to put a monitor on this so the GOV can keep corruption down to reasonable levels, you know CHECKS AND BALANCES


ISP's must give service anywhere it is needed
ISP's must offer bandwidth
ISP's should be neutral from BANDWIDTH delivered content,whether it's XBOX LIVE or HULU or PTP
ISP's should not be sued for providing BANDWIDTH, due to it's contents
ISP's must use It's resources to improve and maintain it's networks
ISP's will be monitored by the same GOV branch that already does this, but must be more public about it.

What exactly is so bad about that?
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> The problem is other companies suing ISP's in order to get content blocked  per basis for content protection and because ISP's are using that as an excuse to throttle down speeds in order to profit on services in which they are supposed to be improving...It's a long list..I can pull up at least 1000 articles on this, it's corporate corruption at it's worst and the IDEA here is to put a monitor on this so the GOV can keep corruption down to reasonable levels, you know CHECKS AND BALANCES
> 
> 
> ISP's must give service anywhere it is needed
> ...



well this is my point. ISPs should not be regulated byt the govt in this way. they should provide what the market demands, not what the govt demands.


----------



## mrhuggles (Sep 21, 2009)

they SHOULD provide what the market demands, but what they want is like the music industry, they don't want to provide what we want, they want to provide the minimum they possibly can while making the most they possibly can, also some of them want to control how we can watch TV on the internet so that they can make money from internet content too

btw, what i consider to be a fair cap is about what most ISP's see as far, 250gb/month, i watch SOME internet TV but not nearly as much as i would watch if i had more like 1tb/month cap, it would be nice if downstream was unmetered but upstream was capped, its already like that in a lot of places


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> well this is my point. ISPs should not be regulated byt the govt in this way. they should provide what the market demands, not what the govt demands.



I'm confused your trolling right? 

I don't know why anyone would willingly want to be screwed over by the ISP's like Easy Rhino here. I understand what you're saying but I don't understand why



mrhuggles said:


> they SHOULD provide what the market demands, but what they want is like the music industry, they don't want to provide what we want, they want to provide the minimum they possibly can while making the most they possibly can, also some of them want to control how we can watch TV on the internet so that they can make money from internet content too
> 
> btw, what i consider to be a fair cap is about what most ISP's see as far, 250gb/month, i watch SOME internet TV but not nearly as much as i would watch if i had more like 1tb/month cap, it would be nice if downstream was unmetered but upstream was capped, its already like that in a lot of places



What I was thinking. ^


----------



## mrhuggles (Sep 21, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I'm confused your trolling right?
> 
> I don't know why anyone would willingly want to be screwed over by the ISP's like Easy Rhino here. He must work for the ISP's.



nah, hes just trying to make a point, they are a business
i think its just that their business is giving us the business.


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 21, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> nah, hes just trying to make a point, they are a business
> i think its just that their business is giving us the business.



The ISP's don't care about "us". They want to F*** us in every possible way for money.


----------



## mrhuggles (Sep 21, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> The ISP's don't care about "us". They want to F*** us in every possible way for money.



yep, which is why we need to push back... altho im not sure at all how to go about that, im sure eventually someone will come up with something for us to get behind and then everything will be ok :\


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> well this is my point. ISPs should not be regulated byt the govt in this way. they should provide what the market demands, not what the govt demands.



Market demands unlimited badwith which they have been sold at all times !


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> well this is my point. ISPs should not be regulated byt the govt in this way. they should provide what the market demands, not what the govt demands.


But they have to, like it or not, we depend on the internet to keep things going. Our system simply depends on an internet, which is why it is also a national security issue, We need our ISP's to simply be ISP's and nothing else, just a utility like the gas company, the electric company etc... They need to remain a separate a entity..With one Goal to provide Internet.. And these companies knew this going into this deal WHEN they invested in a US INTERNET LICENSE, but they have run a muck and NOW big brothers got to step in to fix it...
It's in fact a loose loose situation now But now were gonna get less screwed at least initially


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 21, 2009)

I think the ISPs are run by evil groundhogs! DEATH TO GROUNDHOGS!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> The ISP's don't care about "us". They want to F*** us in every possible way for money.



of course they dont care about you, they care about your money. they would be a losey business if they cared about you. of course, you dont have to care about them. you can not give them a dime and they would be screwed!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 22, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> But they have to, like it or not, we depend on the internet to keep things going. Our system simply depends on an internet, which is why it is also a national security issue, We need our ISP's to simply be ISP's and nothing else, just a utility like the gas company, the electric company etc... They need to remain a separate a entity..With one Goal to provide Internet.. And these companies knew this going into this deal WHEN they invested in a US INTERNET LICENSE, but they have run a muck and NOW big brothers got to step in to fix it...
> It's in fact a loose loose situation now But now were gonna get less screwed at least initially



dont get me started on an "internet license." the internet the govt created was hardly an internet. it barely resembles anything we have today. private companies have invested hundreds of millions over the decades in R&D to bring us what we have today. they have invested hundreds of millions in labor and in equipment to bring us what we have today. now they are allocating their bandwidth (something that belongs to them which they sell on their terms to us) to bring us a better service for less money (if you dont believe that then you havnt been living for more than 10 years) and people are pissed about it? the internet doesnt belong to YOU. it doesnt belong to EVERYBODY. it is a collection of labor and products that create the internet. NOBODY owns it, but companies do PROVIDE it at a cost. why is this concept so hard to grasp? think about it this way, when you pay your monthly internet bill you are paying for R&D, equipment and labor, not for the actual bandwidth. That is free.


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 22, 2009)

sttubs said:


> I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?



Lol, they aren't telling them how to run a business.. You are thinking from a non-objective standpoint... My ISP has a net neutrality clause in their ToS now, (updated 8-1-09) to reflect changes in their pipes.  

Essentially, what you are saying is that what Apple did to Google was right... and should be encouraged.



Easy Rhino said:


> dont get me started on an "internet license." the internet the govt created was hardly an internet. it barely resembles anything we have today. private companies have invested hundreds of millions over the decades in R&D to bring us what we have today. they have invested hundreds of millions in labor and in equipment to bring us what we have today. now they are allocating their bandwidth (something that belongs to them which they sell on their terms to us) to bring us a better service for less money (if you dont believe that then you havnt been living for more than 10 years) and people are pissed about it? the internet doesnt belong to YOU. it doesnt belong to EVERYBODY. it is a collection of labor and products that create the internet. NOBODY owns it, but companies do PROVIDE it at a cost. why is this concept so hard to grasp? think about it this way, when you pay your monthly internet bill you are paying for R&D, equipment and labor, not for the actual bandwidth. That is free.



LOL- My ISP uses a Govt Operated Fibre Optics line...  Its laid right down the street from me... (about 200ft away from where I am sitting)
Its speed is rated as 39,813,120 Kbit/s.  In about a week the other 4 Fibre Lines they laid earlier this year go online which will kick it up to OC-3072 standards.
EDIT-ALSO
MANY ISPs take GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.  If they do, they are SoL. I know for a fact AT&T and SPRINT took Govt Subsidies...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> It's called "ANTITRUST" and is illegal
> Nicely put bro


Not always.  In order for anti-trust to even come up, you have to have a dominent position in the market.




jmcslob said:


> It's an extension on "The Freedom of Information ACT' and one of the founding principals of this nation!!! It's just changing format!! THE same laws we had for PRINT must be updated in order to protect the better interest of the public!! It's not more control being taken, It's more control being given back.


I believe this is the underlying issue.  The government, so far, has done a very poor job at defining the legalities of the Internet from anonymity to sharing to if the Internet is infrastructure or private enterprise.


This net neutrality issue stems from the last point: is the Internet infrastructure or private enterprise.  If it is private enterprise, net neutrality doesn't make sense.  If it is infrastructure, it does.

My position is that the Internet should be considered infrastructure.  Businesses rely heavily on email communications as well as websites for advertising and commerce.  If the Internet were to disappear tomorrow, the USA would be in a world of hurt.  Even power stations use the Internet to manage power production across the grid.

That said, I believe the Internet is infrastructure and the FCC and FTC have a right to impose restrictions and regulations that would hamper the free flow of data over the network just as the DOT can issue a citation for driving too slow on an interstate or blocking lanes of traffic (among other things).  An ISPs job is to provide bandwidth via a connection--not police it or exercise any other means of monitoring/manipulating packets beyond routing duties.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 22, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> dont get me started on an "internet license." the internet the govt created was hardly an internet. it barely resembles anything we have today. private companies have invested hundreds of millions over the decades in R&D to bring us what we have today. they have invested hundreds of millions in labor and in equipment to bring us what we have today. now they are allocating their bandwidth (something that belongs to them which they sell on their terms to us) to bring us a better service for less money (if you dont believe that then you havnt been living for more than 10 years) and people are pissed about it? the internet doesnt belong to YOU. it doesnt belong to EVERYBODY. it is a collection of labor and products that create the internet. NOBODY owns it, but companies do PROVIDE it at a cost. why is this concept so hard to grasp? think about it this way, when you pay your monthly internet bill you are paying for R&D, equipment and labor, not for the actual bandwidth. That is free.


And they did it to achieve profit which is fine, I have no argument with that, but they did under restrictions and conditions under the authority of the GOV while being given nice Tax incentives to build an internet structure to provide bandwidth to the masses, not so they could pick and choose what content could or could not be provided, that's like saying you can't use an AC adapter in your home for a DC product IT's just plain rubbish, If they provided the funding themselves to build this network then ALL that would be fine but they didn't They used Telephone and Cable Lines which were also paid for by taxes and GOV fees And i do believe Harvard,MIT,UCLA and the military provided just about all the R&D needed to get the internet up and going, these companies were given a cash cow for a small fee and agreement of obligation to provide Bandwidth to the masses as of NOW not everybody has Internet, I think this bill will remind these companies of there priorities


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not always.  In order for anti-trust to even come up, you have to have a dominent position in the market.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## hat (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:
			
		

> If the Internet were to disappear tomorrow, the USA would be in a world of hurt



Yep. I couldn't imagine life totally without internet. Every time I lose internet for some reason, my train of thought goes like this... "I want to... crap, I don't have internet. Well what about... crap, need internet for that too. How about thi... crap, no internet."


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 22, 2009)

I couldn't even pay my bills without the internet lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

hat said:


> Yep. I couldn't imagine life totally without internet. Every time I lose internet for some reason, my train of thought goes like this... "I want to... crap, I don't have internet. Well what about... crap, need internet for that too. How about thi... crap, no internet."


I have that same problem. 




jmcslob said:


> I couldn't even pay my bills without the internet lol


Me too.  Greater than 80% of my transactions are online.


----------



## Binge (Sep 22, 2009)

I've been reading a lot of posts in this thread that argue the right of the business to dictate the content which may flow through their lines of service.  It should be clear that I understand, and agree to an extent with the statement above.  However the internet is not the USPS.  You are not getting physical packages which should be designated as liquid, fragile, or perishable.  The physical connection over which signal is carried happens to be the service I'm paying for.  I'm not paying for a packet of information be it for a download or streaming content.  I am paying for the bridge between two servers.  If I were paying for the packet that means that the host of the information would also be owned by the ISP.  The ISP owning the host of my ftp/htp/http access is rarely the scenario with any internet use.  For an ISP to dictate my access may be a service.  If they decide to make where I can access what they sell, and maybe if, in the history of service providers, that sort of groundwork was in place there wouldn't be so much debate.

  The FCC is a form of government control over communication regulations.  Some government control is usually in place to allow freedoms where bodies would impose regulations to restrict certain freedoms.  The lack of net neutrality would mean that while business has more freedoms of their connections they would be removing freedoms from the people who pay to maintain their connections.  There is nothing the user is doing to screw the ISP out of the money they want for their bandwidth, so why should the ISP do anything to screw the customer out of access?  If anything the internet as a model resembles a privatized road system.  This would be extremely interesting model as you (the driver of your browser) would go from place to place as you pleased aware of the dangers and obstructions at or on the way to your destination.  The road way was already set up in a way that any driver can leave their home while also remaining at home.  The house of the driver can be accessed by other drivers, and likewise for the driver access someone else's house.  This is the case unless the house does not want visiters.  The home owner has a right to privacy.  So far the model of our highway/road system is looking pretty accurate.  Accept that the internet is not a monopoly and is regulated by a set of basic traffic rules already agreed upon by some standards which apply to all parties supplying this service for which people pay.  The company doesn't own the driver of any vehicle on the road, and they also have no control over the homes connected to the road on frontiers owned by other companies.  To restrict the traffic to one avenue of the internet forcefully would be a violation of the structure itself.  In a sense it would ideal of which the service is to be given.

Some guy: _So what?_

The traffic on the road should be able to be controlled by the owner of the road!  The people who own the road should be aware that there are areas which can't recieve their service, and being no competition it would render that service to be monopolizing.  

Guy: _They just want to change standards!_

Well then it wouldn't be the world wide web, would it?  It would be a different product, and forcing people to pay for something they didn't buy.

Guy: _Well other countries restrict the traffic inside their country!_

Honestly??  Be glad you live in the United States.

Guy: _I still stand by the fact that government control is bad for business!_

What about this is changing the way your business operates???  They could always change their business plan to offer something other than the world wide web, but then I hope they paid everyone to which they are connecting for hosting information.  It's a sh*tty double standard that a company would restrict a part of the internet in order to make more money somehow, and they then wouldn't be willing to pay the websites they did allow for the content the hosts make available on the internet.

RANT OVER.  k-thanx guys


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

The vote will come in October. 

Here's the four exisiting rules in addition to the two new rules:

*1. Accessing content.* The first rule states that consumers should not be limited in the content they choose to view online, as long as it's legal.

*2. Using applications.* Internet users should be able to run any application they want as long as they don't exceed service plan limitations or harm the provider's network.

*3. Attaching personal devices.* Consumers should be permitted to connect products they buy to their Internet connection, as long as the devices operate within the service plan and do not harm the network or enable theft of service.

*4. Obtaining service plan information.* Customers should be able to easily review their options when buying Internet service plans and learn about how those plans protect against spyware and other invasions of privacy.

*5. New rule: Non-discrimination.* Internet providers would be prohibited from selectively blocking or slowing Web content or applications. 

*6. New rule: Transparency.* Providers would be required to make their network management practices clear and available to consumers.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2009)

It unanimously passed but now there are legal hurdles.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 25, 2009)

*Good!!*



FordGT90Concept said:


> It unanimously passed but now there are legal hurdles.


HOPE IT BRINGS PROGRESS


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 25, 2009)

I am glad to see congress can agree on something and act like its not completely bought out by special interests.


----------



## MK4512 (Oct 25, 2009)

So... When can I get my Fiber Optics in Canada?

You guys don't know how lucky you are... I have a 60GB monthly limit!

Stupid Rogers...

EDIT: Whoa the page went down...


----------



## mrhuggles (Oct 25, 2009)

hey Ive got an idea, if were going to filter the internet why not filter electricity, lets give priority to the rich people and having rolling blackouts for "lesser" citizens


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> hey Ive got an idea, if were going to filter the internet why not filter electricity, lets give priority to the rich people and having rolling blackouts for "lesser" citizens


It could happen.  They want to "digitize" the power grid which means they could route electricity, on the fly, to more "deserving" clients.


----------



## mrhuggles (Oct 25, 2009)

yeah how would you like the government telling you how to run your business?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 25, 2009)

They already do.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

You have to Buy a License from the GOVT in order to Run this type of Busness..so before you even begin you are already under control...You simply agree to collect profit to provide a simple service..not so you get to decide how that service will be implemented


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 26, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> hey Ive got an idea, if were going to filter the internet why not filter electricity, lets give priority to the rich people and having rolling blackouts for "lesser" citizens



Enron did it to whole sections of the power grid to give them an excuse to charge more..... they called it driving up demand. When you become detached from reality because you answer to nobody but yourself, that results in some people starting to take things too far with the power.

Regulation could have busted them before it was taken too far. We wouldn't have even had the recession we have today without our loose regulations on the financial sector. 

Regulation as a whole is not good or bad. There is good regulation, and there is bad regulation. Just like any legislation.


----------



## Nick89 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It could happen.  They want to "digitize" the power grid which means they could route electricity, on the fly, to more "deserving" clients.



I support the smart grid its great innovation, I don't think in any way they would do that.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Regulation as a whole is not good or bad. There is good regulation, and there is bad regulation. Just like any legislation.



agreed, however we are talking about washington politicians making these regulations through legislation. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 26, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I support the smart grid its great innovation, I don't think in any way they would do that.



Its is a great idea. I wonder what energy savings a city could see from putting solar panels on its telephone/power poles. They are already there, so couldn't we put them to use???

Although solar cells are ancient tech.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I support the smart grid its great innovation, I don't think in any way they would do that.


That's exactly what the "smart grid" is designed to do.  They will short change consumers for businesses and they will short change small businesses for large businesses.

There is more energy cost with the smart grid (all the monitoring equipment), not less.  The only way you get "less" is to, you guessed it, short change customers (as Enron put it, "driving up demand" artificially).




DaedalusHelios said:


> Its is a great idea. I wonder what energy savings a city could see from putting solar panels on its telephone/power poles. They are already there, so couldn't we put them to use???
> 
> Although solar cells are ancient tech.


Solar panels are low voltage DC current.  Your average power pole is carrying over 1000 volts AC.  The solar power stations don't even use solar cells to produce electricity.  They just direct the heat towards either a center mast or a pipe which generates steam and in turn, generates electricity.  Solar cells are only good for local power supply (a single structure) because of their DC nature.



I think regulation is bad.  The only reason why it exists is because the legal system makes it virtual impossible for Joe Schmoe to take on Wal-Mart for making it impossible for him to compete.  Joe Schmoe goes out of business and Wal-Mart creates another monopoly.  If Joe Schmoe could take Wal-Mart to court with a good chance at winning without incuring a huge debt for lawyers and legal fees, the market would self-regulate (people getting stepped on would in turn step on those doing the stepping on).

The only reason why regulations have to exist is because it is fiscally impossible for small businesses to defend their position from big businesses so government has to create more regulations (that don't work) trying to constrain big business.  I can't name one company in the last decade that is new to the "big player" scene.  In this country, little players don't become big players--only big players die (like Enron and Merrill Lynch) being replaced by little players (e.g. power co-ops) or consumed by even bigger players (e.g. Bank of America).

Fundamentally, this country is backwards in every way and has been for several decades.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In a lot of places, like where I live, there is no competition for phone, Internet, electric, and water services.  It is anti-competitive as-is so it is important that what services are offered don't amount to extortion.  I have no limit and at times, I get very frustrated with my ISP (lots of downtime) but at least I am not being told what I can and cannot do with my Internet.  They got their asking price; they ought to be happy.



I agree. Pre-2006, the only cable TV (and cable internet) provider in Sarasota, FL was Comcast and the only phone/DSL company was Verizon. When Verizon FiOS came, it was practically a miracle because Comcast was charging about 60 dollars for BASIC cable, and Verizon FiOS had much better phone, internet and television service. Comcast had to scramble to get their act together, and in 2007, they were losing about 200 customers per week.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Serves them right.  Monopolies/big business tactics suck.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's exactly what the "smart grid" is designed to do.  They will short change consumers for businesses and they will short change small businesses for large businesses.
> 
> There is more energy cost with the smart grid (all the monitoring equipment), not less.  The only way you get "less" is to, you guessed it, short change customers (as Enron put it, "driving up demand" artificially).
> 
> ...


Uhm I dunno,, Actually we didn't have these problems until deregulation started to take Place ( referring To the 1930's Regulations which if stood in place today would require more solar , wind and Hydroelectric Power) It's the Selective Deregulation That's BS..Big business got to choose what to Regulate to bring us to where we are Now...and that's the problem (Corruption) Now what we have to do is Regulate How a Business can operate to ensure it's a positive Entity for the whole community and Not for a spoiled few


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Now what we have to do is Regulate How a Business can operate to ensure it's a positive Entity for the whole community and Not for a spoiled few



how do you do that and who gets to decide what is considered positive?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

Oh man I don't care what they vote on as long as I can keep my porn.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> how do you do that and who gets to decide what is considered positive?


You look at the needs of the people are, add where there are deficiencies, which will be determined by use and then set up a Contract system for licenses and let business determins how to get it done within the regulations set forth


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> You look at the needs of the people are, add where there are deficiencies, which will be determined by use and then set up a Contract system for licenses and let business determins how to get it done within the regulations set forth



who looks at the needs of the people? who decides what is a deficiency?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> who looks at the needs of the people? who decides what is a deficiency?



Our always fair and caring government silly.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> who looks at the needs of the people? who decides what is a deficiency?


The department of Energy


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> The department of Energy



Have you ever read 1984?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Have you ever read 1984?


Yes and big brother already watches everything you do LOL


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> The department of Energy



so government bureaucrats...the people who look the other way when given enough money...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Yes and big brother already watches everything you do LOL



And here you are welcoming him into your world even more. Big government = Bad.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> so government bureaucrats...the people who look the other way when given enough money...


Yes but that's why the people have to demand REGULATION


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Yes but that's why the people have to demand REGULATION


REGULATION by goverment has another name you know.....


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> REGULATION by goverment has another name you know.....


Socialism....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Socialism....


 Welcome to the machine my son.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution...
I'm not suggesting total GOVT control BUT i am suggesting more control of the people


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Yes but that's why the people have to demand REGULATION



you are against big business and their attempts to make a profit yet you think government politicians are somehow more noble and less selfish?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Have you ever read the Preamble to the Constitution...
> I'm not suggesting total GOVT control BUT i am suggesting more control of the people



The people have not been in control since before the great depression. Getting the people back into control would take nothing short of a full on revolution. If no one is willing to fight against these bastards then the least we can do is make it difficult for them. 

This goes for both the Republicans and the Democrats. They bicker between each other and cause division among the people. You know why? A people divided is a conquered culture. Its like they are playing good cop, bad cop with the whole damn nation.



Easy Rhino said:


> you are against big business and their attempts to make a profit yet you think government politicians are somehow more noble and less selfish?



Hes a socialist in denial.


----------



## stevednmc (Oct 26, 2009)

the more accurate term would be fascism. Govt controls the business with the illusion that the businesses control their own business. We are there already. Gm, govt owened, chrysler the same. and if they take over healthcare the govt will own 58% of the national economy. So what, we will be 42% free? Great! Some regulation is necessary, Some, common sense rules. We are beyond common sense now, we are headed toward total control. Any body know what the fine print of this bill will be? what else is attached to it that has nothing to do with internet neutrality? I bet if you look they have something in there that will leave a door open for the govt to be ABLE to control what you can and cannot view on the internet down the road..maybe not immediatly but down the road. I cant back that up atm, but it is a tactic they have used time and time again. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions..not to mention the law of unintended consequences. 
Dont get me wrong, there are many companies out there that are despicable, and in a just world we would see that, and they would fail on their own. but the world is not just, and if the legislation were merely to say, hey...you cannot limit content, then i would be all for it. I just have a feeling there is more to it than that, that we dont know.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 26, 2009)

communism


----------



## stevednmc (Oct 26, 2009)

wasnt it george carlin that said communism will come to us wih a smiley face?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> You look at the needs of the people are, add where there are deficiencies, which will be determined by use and then set up a Contract system for licenses and let business determins how to get it done within the regulations set forth


There's no better regulator of greed than greed.  This is why I think the judicial system is the answer, not Congress.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> you are against big business and their attempts to make a profit yet you think government politicians are somehow more noble and less selfish?


I think the point you are trying to suggest is the problem You have a Fear of your GOVT because Money has conditioned you to have that Fear, so They can Control you, They did this to stop you from making the best choice for yourself, They want you to make the choice that keeps Rolling in Profit. Look around BRO Look where we are.. You think giving even more control to the Corporations is the answer? Seriously


----------



## stevednmc (Oct 26, 2009)

unfortunately the judicial system has a habit of legislating as well. the separation of powers has been quite blurred.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Only the Supreme Court has the capability to "clarify" legislation.  They can't author new legislation or blatantly change the meaning of existing legislation.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's no better regulator of greed than greed.  This is why I think the judicial system is the answer, not Congress.


There's no good place in Greed:shadedshu I understand the Principle...It just does not work like that...You have to accept greed for what it is, since it can be a driving  for innovation, It can also deprive us of innovation..You must have a system of checks and balances such as (GREED/Best Public interest)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Big business wants to get bigger.  Little business wants to get bigger.  Both are motivated by greed.  May the man with the lesser claim to power come out on top.

When two greedy parties direct their greed at each other, the common folk gain by greater quality and service at a lesser price.  Currently, greed is focused like a laser on the people not in a position to end it (the common folk and worker).  As a result, the structure is a vacuum making the greedy more powerful with nothing to regulate it (government is and has been doing a horrible job).  It is akin to a nuclear meltdown.  The more powerful the reaction gets, the more difficult it is to stop.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Big business wants to get bigger.  Little business wants to get bigger.  Both are motivated by greed.  May the man with the lesser claim to power come out on top.
> 
> When two greedy parties direct their greed at each other, the common folk gain by greater quality and service at a lesser price.  Currently, greed is focused like a laser on the people not in a position to end it (the common folk and worker).  As a result, the structure is a vacuum making the greedy more powerful with nothing to regulate it (government is and has been doing a horrible job).


No then They outsource to China and we loose more jobs...
EDIT:Right you find a slow controlled way to separate the two..Nuclear thing..


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Because there's no one to claim it "my product costs the same and it is made in the USA!"  Only the businesses that are big enough to deal internationally are big enough to be "untouchable," or as the White House put it, "too big to fail."


@your edit: Reduce the costs of a court case to allow small businesses to take on big.  It will sort itself out in a matter of years.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because there's no one to claim it "my product costs the same and it is made in the USA!"  Only the businesses that are big enough to deal internationally are big enough to be "untouchable," or as the White House put it, "too big to fail."



And deregulation got us There....Not Regulation...It did not become THE PROBLEM until Key Regulations were removed


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> And deregulation got us There....Not Regulation...It did not become THE PROBLEM until Key Regulations were removed



And the "problem" is a big scary monster no one understands. Except the goverment who created it to control us more. Ever read "Lord of the flies"?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Why do I have the feeling we are arguing the same point at different ENDS..You think business needs less laws in the way to serve the public and i think business needs Laws to force them to act in the consumers best interest


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Why do I have the feeling we are arguing the same point at different ENDS..You think business needs less laws in the way to serve the public and i think business needs Laws to force them to act in the consumers best interest



They don't need laws for that. A smart consumer doesn't buy a sub-par over priced product and if they do the government is the least of their problems.

We need less laws and more balls.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

What was removed in the mid/late 1800's is big business got so much bigger than than small businesses, small businesses could no longer fight the big business's position.  The government had to intervene with Standard Oil and a few other cases because the meltdown had already run away.  Instead of allowing small businesses to knock down a big business down a few pegs, they responded (and still do) with regulations.  Regulations have never worked--only physically breaking the business down works (as demonstrated with Standard Oil).

The problem with regulations is someone still has to raise a flag and the only way to do that is with a very public (expensive) election.  The issue becomes politically charged and government moves like a snail, if at all.  The last financial collapses is a perfect demonstration of this: the government completely and utterly failed to act.  Even if a few people saw it coming, there needs to be a complete meltdown has to occur before enough will move to act.

Capitalism moves at the speed of light while government moves at the speed of sound.  Bubble after bubble, after bubble will burst until capitalism can regulate itself.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And the "problem" is a big scary monster no one understands. Except the goverment who created it to control us more. Ever read "Lord of the flies"?


Yes I have, that shows what ignorance in the belief you should fear the Unknown and the very real fear you have of those in charge who seek power.. I feel Knowledge is the easy answer there...Just stand up or yourself for what you know is right at the very basic of your core


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Remember, there was very few business regulations before Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil.


The only regulations were, for instance, not placing a tittie bar next to a playground.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Yes I have, that shows what ignorance in the belief you should fear the Unknown and the very real fear you have of those in charge who seek power.. I feel Knowledge is the easy answer there...Just stand up or yourself for what you you know is right at the very basic of your core



YES but I do not want the goverment to tell me whats right in THEIR eyes.



FordGT90Concept said:


> The only regulations were, for instance, not placing a tittie bar next to a playground.


 And because of that regulation we got reality TV and metro sexuals.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And because of that regulation we got reality TV and metro sexuals.


The point is that they were local and usually zoning or social related (e.g. dry city/state).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The point is that they were local and usually zoning or social related (e.g. dry city/state).



The joke. You missed it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Oh, I saw it but I felt more compelled to clarify than laugh. 

Your Steve Balmer pic is funny though.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

*There it is...*



FordGT90Concept said:


> What was removed in the mid/late 1800's is big business got so much bigger than than small businesses, small businesses could no longer fight the big business's position.  The government had to intervene with Standard Oil and a few other cases because the meltdown had already run away.  Instead of allowing small businesses to knock down a big business down a few pegs, they responded (and still do) with regulations.  Regulations have never worked--only physically breaking the business down works (as demonstrated with Standard Oil).
> 
> The problem with regulations is someone still has to raise a flag and the only way to do that is with a very public (expensive) election.  The issue becomes politically charged and government moves like a snail, if at all.  The last financial collapses is a perfect demonstration of this: the government completely and utterly failed to act.  Even if a few people saw it coming, there needs to be a complete meltdown has to occur before enough will move to act.
> 
> Capitalism moves at the speed of light while government moves at the speed of sound.  Bubble after bubble, after bubble will burst until capitalism can regulate itself.


So you think money will have your best interest...We already learned this..GREAT DEPRESSION come to mind...If what you suggest is true Where would the World be...It was the already set Regulations that allowed the U.S. to stock up so quickly to prepare for WWII, Yes Regulated Controlled Capitalism Brought the world bank from the BRINK..And capitalism spread Under Controlled conditions that we set forth on the world and while kept under control look where other countries are at and look what happened here...WE out Spent the Soviet Union with Capitalism then we Out spent ourselves under Capitalism...BTW we out spent the Soviet's VIA GOVT controlled spending


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> YES but I do not want the goverment to tell me whats right in THEIR eyes.
> 
> And because of that regulation we got reality TV and metro sexuals.


WE are supposed to be the GOVT it should be determined by us...without fear under 10 conditions


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> So you think money will have your best interest...We already learned this..GREAT DEPRESSION come to mind...If what you suggest is true Where would the World be...It was the already set Regulations that allowed the U.S. to stock up so quickly to prepare for WWII, Yes Regulated Controlled Capitalism Brought the world bank from the BRINK..And capitalism spread Under Controlled conditions that we set forth on the world and while kept under control look where other countries are at and look what happened here...WE out Spent the Soviet Union with Capitalism then we Out spent ourselves under Capitalism...BTW we out spent the Soviet's VIA GOVT controlled spending


Uh?  US was preparing for WWII since FDR started his second term (he knew Europe was about to explode and made prepartions for it knowing the USA would eventually have to get involved).  Additionally, a lot of people were out of work so putting them to work to supply the allies in Europe (1939) made sense.  All that has nothing to do with regulations except in the form of wartime rationing.

Other than that, I can't make much sense of what you are saying.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh?  US was preparing for WWII since FDR started his second term (he knew Europe was about to explode and made prepartions for it knowing the USA would eventually have to get involved).  Additionally, a lot of people were out of work so putting them to work to supply the allies in Europe (1939) made sense.  All that has nothing to do with regulations except in the form of wartime rationing.
> 
> Other than that, I can't make much sense of what you are saying.


 Give me 45 minutes I need to go Take My medicine 
To Start with... No we were not originally Building up for war We were rebuilding our Nation which Was done under The GOVT's control using CORPORATIONS Ability to innovate and complete GOVT goals, which also gave us the ability To outbuild the entire world (except the soviet union) which helped the entire world...Thank you MR.Kaiser, His innovations built liberty ships faster than they could be Sunk and OH yeah Kaiser wanted Universal Health care for U.S. citizens.. All that is left today is a greedy insurance company named after his good deeds..See the thing is the NAZI party was actually pretty big here in the U.S. and the Japanese were playing buddy buddy We Knew the Japanese were up to no good but not so much Germany..That is until Poland..Then yes we Started to build a war machine....
ALL DONE UNDER GOVT control not business...THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE..Tennessee Valley Authority...HOOVER DAM....Social Security...WAR TIME READINESS ACT....
THESE GOVT controlled projects brought new forms of Business...It was only after the GOVT REGULATIONS that most business is even possible...
If we went the speed of Greed you would be speaking German or Russian...only after the GOVT forcefull hand moved them did business put us in the right place


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The joke. You missed it.



I got it, and i hate it

edit:hate the two things mentioned


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> I think the point you are trying to suggest is the problem You have a Fear of your GOVT because Money has conditioned you to have that Fear, so They can Control you, They did this to stop you from making the best choice for yourself, They want you to make the choice that keeps Rolling in Profit. Look around BRO Look where we are.. You think giving even more control to the Corporations is the answer? Seriously



that is nonsense. we are in a recession today because socialists in the 90s pushed for legislation that awarded home loans to people who were unable to pay for them. that same legislation grew in scope by forcing banks to grant loans over almost an entire decade and in doing so the banks created risky securities and other funds to hedge against the potential of a massive loan default. if corporations, and banks for that matter, had their way this recession would be a slight bump in the road rather and a dragged out mess with analysists forecasting 10% unemployment for the next 12 months. 

the mindset that government bureaucrats have your best interest at heart is naive. the founders of the constitution specifically pointed out that larger govts will eventually abuse their power and become corrupt. THAT is what we have today. A government hell bent on keeping us in line with our hands out begging for the government to solve all our problems. a people reliant on their government is a people voluntarily enslaved.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 26, 2009)

I vote lock political discussion has absolutely nothing to do with

*FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules*

nothing about netnutrality what it is what it does..or what its going to do in 4 pages. seriously are we children or something? one person cant handle themselves says the word govt and derails an entire thread. good game guys GG


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> WE are supposed to be the GOVT it should be determined by us...without fear under 10 conditions



you misunderstand the role of government in a free society. first, know that we are a republic. the idea of a democracy scared the founders of this country because they knew it was simply mob rule. the majority can not vote away the rights of the minority. for instance, you cannot vote to take away somebodies property on the basis that you need it more than the landowner does. you cant walk into somebodies house and take their PC because you believe that person already has 2 PCs and why should he have 2 when you have none. we consider that a crime because we believe in property rights as a fundemental tenant to living in a free society. in that vein of thought, you cannot claim a right to somebodies paycheck, or portion thereof. you cannot claim that you have a right to cheap electricity simply because you need it to have hot water or power your PC. somebody discovered electricity and someone else invented a way to harness it and make it useful. and someone else created an infrastructure to transfer that energy to every house. and someone else put up money for the investment. and someone else labored to drive poles into the ground so the wires could run for miles and miles. and someone else learned how to install electric outlets and fuse boxes and safety mechanisms to prevent fires. what did you do in this process? you paid for it because somebody else provided it to you as a service. now you claim that you have a right to this service. same goes with the internet. so who is a the greedy one now?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> I vote lock political discussion has absolutely nothing to do with
> 
> *FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules*
> 
> nothing about netnutrality what it is what it does..or what its going to do in 4 pages. seriously are we children or something? one person cant handle themselves says the word govt and derails an entire thread. good game guys GG



thankfully you are free to not participate in this conversation. which is civil, btw.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> thankfully you are free to not participate in this conversation. which is civil, btw.



well good sir ill take your curt response to heart and take my leave. Just thought you ought to know that the thread is derailed off topic will probably go up in smoke and on top of that as logical and correct as your arguments may be simply do not help the forsaid situations at all...good day.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> well good sir ill take your curt response to heart and take my leave. Just thought you ought to know that the thread is derailed off topic will probably go up in smoke and on top of that as logical and correct as your arguments may be simply do not help the forsaid situations at all...good day.



if people start mud slinging ill lock it down.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

Yeah I think this goes to GN...LETS start a thread there...I think we need to go a lot further than some of the rules at this Forum....that's sounds worse then i meant it


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Yeah I think this goes to GN...LETS start a thread there...I think we need to go a lot further than some of the rules at this Forum....that's sounds worse then i meant it



OOO LA LA


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 26, 2009)

here (i'll delete this later unless you don't mind)
http://www.generalnonsense.net/showthread.php?p=14265#post14265


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Moved.




Solaris17 said:


> *FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules*


Net neutrality is a topic of governmental regulation.  Government has a right to regulate infrastructure (used by all like telecommunications, airways, roads, etc.), not businesses.  That is the discussion over the last page and a half.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 26, 2009)

The only rule we need is that providers shouldn't be allowed to limit content. The market will drive everything else.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> so government bureaucrats...the people who look the other way when given enough money...



If they get caught they are fired.... Companies receive payoffs in the open and clear(they call it a deal, contract, incentive, or just profit)

Business in a capitalism uses greed as a motivator which encourages corruption the strongest. Government in a democracy uses the public's perception and unified views in the form of voting in the best candidate. Both are flawed but I would rather the people as a whole decide how they are treated and whats fair rather than an out-of-touch, selfish, rich guy.




Wile E said:


> The only rule we need is that providers shouldn't be allowed to limit content. The market will drive everything else.



Bandwidth caps can be used to make their own media delivery systems on their network not counted in the total bandwidth. Forcing the competition out of the market so they cannot compete. It uses the same network infastructure for digital cable content delivery as the internet.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Business in a capitalism uses greed as a motivator which encourages corruption the strongest. Government in a democracy uses the public's perception and unified views in the form of voting in the best candidate. Both are flawed but I would rather the people as a whole decide how they are treated and whats fair rather than an out-of-touch, selfish, rich guy.



but you are deciding using your hard earned money. you vote for the best product for you whenever you make a purchase. you have far more control as a consumer over the selfish rich guy than you do over a politician who only has to run for reelection once every 4 years. why use the govt as a middle man between you and corporations when you directly impact their profits!


----------



## Wile E (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> but you are deciding using your hard earned money. you vote for the best product for you whenever you make a purchase. you have far more control as a consumer over the selfish rich guy than you do over a politician who only has to run for reelection once every 4 years. why use the govt as a middle man between you and corporations when you directly impact their profits!



With broadband ISP's, there are countless markets that have little to no options. There's generally 1 or 2 available. That doesn't give some of us the power to vote with our wallet. It's a choice between Comcast or Dial up for me.

Yes, in an ideal world, a 100% free market would be best. But we do not live in an ideal world, and therefore do need some regulations to control businesses.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> With broadband ISP's, there are countless markets that have little to no options. There's generally 1 or 2 available. That doesn't give some of us the power to vote with our wallet. It's a choice between Comcast or Dial up for me.
> 
> Yes, in an ideal world, a 100% free market would be best. But we do not live in an ideal world, and therefore do need some regulations to control businesses.



in most states local municipalities have jurisdiction over which cable,internet,phone providers are allowed to do business in that area. so if you have only 1 option in your area it is most likely because your local govt signed an exclusive contract with that provider. go to one of your city hall meetings and ask them about it. it is just 1 of hundreds of examples of govts preventing the free market to operate.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Oct 26, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> in most states local municipalities have jurisdiction over which cable,internet,phone providers are allowed to do business in that area. so if you have only 1 option in your area it is most likely because your local govt signed an exclusive contract with that provider. go to one of your city hall meetings and ask them about it. it is just 1 of hundreds of examples of govts preventing the free market to operate.



Which means *federal* anti-trust laws come into effect. And where anti-trust laws are not specific enough you create regulation. Thats how we make sure companies cannot hold markets captive.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It's a choice between Comcast or Dial up for me.


That's the boat I'm in too (Frontier DSL or 56K). 




DaedalusHelios said:


> Which means *federal* anti-trust laws come into effect. And where anti-trust laws are not specific enough you create regulation. Thats how we make sure companies cannot hold markets captive.


They're too expensive costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and can drag on for years.  The larger of the two parties know that and will try to make it drag on long enough for the smaller party to give up.  Very few anti-trust cases go to court and those that do almost always favor the side with the most resources.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 27, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Which means *federal* anti-trust laws come into effect. And where anti-trust laws are not specific enough you create regulation. Thats how we make sure companies cannot hold markets captive.



yea sure if you believe that politicians are nobler than corporate execs...


----------



## YinYang.ERROR (Oct 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's the boat I'm in too (Frontier DSL or 56K).



+1

Verizon DSL or 56k


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 27, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> yea sure if you believe that politicians are nobler than corporate execs...


They are!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 27, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> They are!



Thats a troll.


----------

