FCC Commish Says It Should Have Power to Regulate Internet
Surprising
How shocking, the government thinks that the government should have more power.....never would have expected that
🙄
🙄
...
The internet brings about many problems. Much content comes from other countries and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the FCC.
I believe the network operators have the right and responsibility to protect their bandwidth against bandwidth hogs like Bit Torrent and others like it. Their responsibility is to provide a consistent internet experience to me and you.
Prioritizing traffic based on their own revenue should never be allowed.
I believe the network operators have the right and responsibility to protect their bandwidth against bandwidth hogs like Bit Torrent and others like it. Their responsibility is to provide a consistent internet experience to me and you.
Prioritizing traffic based on their own revenue should never be allowed.
...
The government wants to control everything. But if they control the internet that can shut down a heck of a lot of free speech.
Let's shut down part of government!
Let's shut down part of government!
...
The Government may not be the most trusted entity in many eyes, but I need to side with their view on this. I am not for controlling of the internet but when corporations speak on this nature, you can certainly bet that it is for thier own benefits.
The carriers have already proven that they control what we can and can't do with our devices. Even after they are paid for.
They have also admitted that data is a huge profit margin for them. Controlling what or how we access through the internet will further line thier pockets at our expense. Is this something you are ready to agree to?
I'm not for either of the two choices but feel the Government is the less of the two evils in this choice. Unfortunately these are the choices.
My p...
(continues)
The carriers have already proven that they control what we can and can't do with our devices. Even after they are paid for.
They have also admitted that data is a huge profit margin for them. Controlling what or how we access through the internet will further line thier pockets at our expense. Is this something you are ready to agree to?
I'm not for either of the two choices but feel the Government is the less of the two evils in this choice. Unfortunately these are the choices.
My p...
(continues)
...
Evil is STILL evil. I know what the Internet looks like now. I say keep the status quo. If the government gets involved they will screw it up just as they do EVERYTHING else.
...
I agree. The government is really no different from any other big corporation wanting to make money. The only difference is where the money comes from. Big corporations get their money from us consumers, governments get their money from the big corporations who need access to what they control. The FDA is a huge example of this with all the harmful things they allow to pass as not harmful.
Personally I feel the corporations invested the time and money to create what they did should be rewarded with power over what they created.
Personally I feel the corporations invested the time and money to create what they did should be rewarded with power over what they created.
...
The government is controlled by the people and oh ffs nevermind... I take it upon Sinclair is no longer taught in schools.
...
Here here! Original government was overthrown quite peacefully when this current Constitution went into effect. It is time for a peaceful correction. Vote!
...
"I believe the network operators have the right and responsibility to protect their bandwidth against bandwidth hogs like Bit Torrent [....]
Prioritizing traffic based on their own revenue should never be allowed."
The problem with your position is that limiting torrents IS prioritizing based on revenue. Massive downloaders/uploaders use more resources without providing any more revenue. The ISP can either block it or charge more for it. Either one is an act of prioritizing based on revenue.
Prioritizing traffic based on their own revenue should never be allowed."
The problem with your position is that limiting torrents IS prioritizing based on revenue. Massive downloaders/uploaders use more resources without providing any more revenue. The ISP can either block it or charge more for it. Either one is an act of prioritizing based on revenue.
...
you really think the government is doing this for you?
if the government could limit whats on the internet you really think it would make the world a better place? Don't get me wrong I am sure a lot of gambling websites get blocked and known phishing servers get blocked. But, what happens when the government wants to stop everyone from using Aliases when posting on blogs/forums so Phonescoop would be required to make your FULL name public so we can make sure you are "legitimate" source of information?
The government could use this legislation to block internet pr0n for causing moral degradation to the population and icanhazcheesburger by saying its a waste of valuable IP addresses.
The easiest way to create the internet you want i...
(continues)
if the government could limit whats on the internet you really think it would make the world a better place? Don't get me wrong I am sure a lot of gambling websites get blocked and known phishing servers get blocked. But, what happens when the government wants to stop everyone from using Aliases when posting on blogs/forums so Phonescoop would be required to make your FULL name public so we can make sure you are "legitimate" source of information?
The government could use this legislation to block internet pr0n for causing moral degradation to the population and icanhazcheesburger by saying its a waste of valuable IP addresses.
The easiest way to create the internet you want i...
(continues)
...
I say no regulation of the Internet other than preventing people from posting, say, child pr0n or offering hitman services on Craigslist.
...
I agree with the first part, but I think criminals SHOULD be offering their services on Craigslist. How much easier could it possibly be for the police? Instead of having to run around looking for criminals, just answer the ads and arrest them when they show up.
...
Im not so sure anyone even read the article! This is not about the government controlling the INTERNET. Its about net net neutrality! Preventing Internet providers and big companies from limiting our Internet bandwidth.
Next thing you know we will be putting our credit card info into our home WiFi routers to pay for additional wireless traffic usage. Internet is the Internet, and these cellular companies need to know they are not just a phone company anymore, they are mainly Internet providers.
Next thing you know we will be putting our credit card info into our home WiFi routers to pay for additional wireless traffic usage. Internet is the Internet, and these cellular companies need to know they are not just a phone company anymore, they are mainly Internet providers.
...
I am one hundred percent positive no one read this article. Plus the title is misleading. The fcc wants the power to regulate isp's. This is a subtle but important distinction.
...
Net Neutrality!!??
For who? They say that for every search for, say abortion you pull up, there must be one pro and one con. Fine. What happens if you pull up something on Unions or taxes or big government. Are we so stupid to believe that they will have an anti position. Or at least a creditable one!
So who wants to be "un biased"? Just like the "fairness" issue on radio and tv. Want to bet that fairness is gone with a liberal program? Or let's have different views on PBS.
Do not be fooled here!
For who? They say that for every search for, say abortion you pull up, there must be one pro and one con. Fine. What happens if you pull up something on Unions or taxes or big government. Are we so stupid to believe that they will have an anti position. Or at least a creditable one!
So who wants to be "un biased"? Just like the "fairness" issue on radio and tv. Want to bet that fairness is gone with a liberal program? Or let's have different views on PBS.
Do not be fooled here!
...
you misunderstood what Net Neutrality means. It doesn't mean the internet has to be unbiased, or evenly split on controversial issues. It just means that no website gets preferential treatment.
If the web is not neutral, it becomes like television; you have to pay for certain 'packages' and the content is censored to a large degree. Corporations control every aspect of programming. It would not be good for any regular citizen.
If the web is not neutral, it becomes like television; you have to pay for certain 'packages' and the content is censored to a large degree. Corporations control every aspect of programming. It would not be good for any regular citizen.
...
"If the web is not neutral, it becomes like television; you have to pay for certain 'packages' and the content is censored to a large degree. "
Wow. You blame "corporations" for censorship on television? Try a google search for "FCC fine".
Wow. You blame "corporations" for censorship on television? Try a google search for "FCC fine".
...
"This is not about the government controlling the INTERNET. Its about net net neutrality! "
In case you are confused, the "net" part of "net neutrality" refers to the Internet. "Net neutrality" is indeed about whether or not the government can control how Internet services are provided.
You are seeing the word "Internet" and thinking it only means content. The specific content is not up for regulation here, the question is whether or not the government can dictate Internet services.
And if you are some kind of socialist, you may need further correction. When the government dictates that sellers cannot sell different services for different prices, that is government control.
In case you are confused, the "net" part of "net neutrality" refers to the Internet. "Net neutrality" is indeed about whether or not the government can control how Internet services are provided.
You are seeing the word "Internet" and thinking it only means content. The specific content is not up for regulation here, the question is whether or not the government can dictate Internet services.
And if you are some kind of socialist, you may need further correction. When the government dictates that sellers cannot sell different services for different prices, that is government control.
...
This forum is closed.
