If the FCC’s ‘Net Neutrality’ Plan is So Great, Why Can’t Anyone See It?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Skaendo, Feb 25, 2015.

  1. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    And why are liberals endorsing this huge threat to online freedom?

    If the FCC’s plan to “protect” net neutrality and reign in the power of greedy corporations is so fantastic, then why haven’t its 332 pages been released for public consumption?

    In a vote tomorrow, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

    Despite this mammoth change in the function of the web, no Congressional debate took place, no bills were introduced and no legislation was signed. The vast majority of Americans are unaware that this is even taking place since the news networks are offering scant coverage.​
    The change is being made under a form of “administrative law” in accordance with the Obama administration’s guidance, which claims it has the backing of millions of Americans.

    If that’s the case then why can’t we see this amazing plan for Internet utopia? Why has Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler refused to testify before Congress on the issue?

    Why has Wheeler failed to properly address concerns voiced by critics, including FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, one of the few Americans to have seen the 332 page document, that the new rules will hand the feds the power to micromanage, license and censor the Internet and that the plan is a “solution” to a problem that doesn’t exist?

    Why is Wheeler channeling Nancy Pelosi’s infamous, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it,” rhetoric in refusing to make the rules public?

    Why are the vast majority of liberals and tech enthusiasts, who expended enormous amounts of energy fighting against efforts to chill Internet freedoms via SOPA and PIPA, actually endorsing the implementation of the FCC’s regulatory framework without question?

    Do they think that an administration which has proven itself to be the most antagonistic in White House history when it comes to whistleblowing and the free flow of information has suddenly had a change of heart?

    Do they trust a President who told the nation, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan,” not to abuse these powers? ​
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. redroad

    redroad MDL Guru

    Dec 2, 2011
    5,346
    6,029
    180
    More Koch brother funded fabricated Right Wing BS brought to you by Fox news .. You must have lost your remote in the couch and can't change the channel .. Why don't you try having an original thought instead of linking to all this crap that's been served up to you by some Koch brother funded media outlet .. Your just a another right wing shill plain and simple .. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    #3 Skaendo, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    (OP)
    LOL, yet another thread that all you can do is bash, criticize and label me (very incorrectly I might add) without providing anything useful or technical argument in defense of the topic. I understand your uninformed state on the subject just because the new internet "bill" is not allowed to be seen by the public just like Obamacare was, and is going to be a big fraud just like Obamacare is. But I'm sure that you are a huge Obama supporter and haven't noticed the changes to your healthcare service prices and deductibles. Just remember this when the US internet goes to crap, "If you like your Internet plan, you can keep your Internet plan."


    Soros, Ford shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

    FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"

    FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

    Eleventh-hour drama for net neutrality
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    “Net Neutrality” is a trojan horse attack on free speech spearheaded by socialist activists who want to take control of the Internet out of private hands by declaring it a “public utility.”

    The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed “net neutrality” rules grew out of the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the socialist group Free Press in 2002, which receives funding from billionaire activist George Soros.

    “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

    Here’s more quotes from McChesney revealing the agenda behind “net neutrality:”

    “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility. We want an Internet where you don’t have to have a password and that you don’t pay a penny to use. It is your right to use the Internet.”

    (Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney – The Bullet Socialist Project, August 9, 2009)

    “Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications.”

    (Media Capitalism, the State, and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney – The Bullet Socialist Project, September 8, 2009)

    “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class.”

    (Journalism, Democracy, … and Class Struggle – Monthly Review, November 2000)

    “There is no real answer (to the U.S. economic crisis) but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

    (A New New Deal under Obama? (with John Bellamy Foster) – Monthly Review, December 21, 2008)

    “Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism.”

    (The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers – Nation, March 18, 2009)

    McChesney’s managing director at Free Press, Craig Aaron, had this to say:

    “We need a law that says, no matter what kind of network you’re on—wired, wireless, I forget, there’s some other network coming in the future—that net neutrality applies.”

    (Interview with Robert McChesney – Media Matters Public Radio show, March 22, 2009)

    And McChesney’s former policy director at Free Press, Ben Scott, also said:

    “Increasingly the Internet is no longer a commercial service, it’s an infrastructure…What we’re witnessing at the FCC now is the logical next step which is we are going to create a regulatory framework for the Internet which recognizes it is an infrastructure now and not a commercial service.”

    (C-SPAN: The Communicators – C-Span, September 25, 2009)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
    :eek:Ok socialist what ? Have you lost the plot or did your tin foil hat fall off ? :confused:
     
  6. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    Those are quotes from Robert McChesney.

    "The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney."
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
    Net neutrality: Five myths, and the real facts

    Regardless of where you stand on the net neutrality debate, one thing doesn’t help: misleading or confusing statements. Unfortunately there are plenty of them.
    Net neutrality is an Internet ideal that will become possible If the Federal Communications Commission decides to reclassify Internet service providers from information services to telecommunications services. If the FCC reclassifies ISPs, it will be able to regulate them—and that could affect a push by ISPs to provide faster Internet service to Web companies willing to pay for the privilege.
    Data-hungry Web companies like Netflix want the speed, and the ISPs want the money. Others, however, fear a pay-to-play scheme could put cash-strapped startup sites at a disadvantage.
    Add the pro- and anti-regulation forces to this mix, and the rhetoric's flying in all directions on social media as well as in the news. We’ve teased out the facts behind five net neutrality myths. It won’t resolve the debate, but it’ll help you understand what’s really going on.
    Myth #1: Net neutrality is ‘Obamacare for the Internet’

    Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s recent tweet making this comparison is more convenient than accurate. Obamacare is about access (to health care), while net neutrality is aboutquality (think speed) of access to the Internet. More to the point, it's about how to manage just the ISPs, not the Internet as a whole—no matter what conservatives say.
    Myth #2: An 'open' and 'neutral' Internet are the same thing

    Listen carefully to the use of "open" or "neutral" in this debate. The Internet has always been “open,” because anyone can use it for any application. The ISPs are the Internet gatekeepers facing possible regulation, and that's about remaining "neutral."
    The term “network neutrality” was coined by Columbia law professor Tim Wu in 2003. The basic concept was that all Internet traffic should be allowed to flow freely regardless of what it is or where it comes from.
    The Internet was a simpler place a decade ago, however. Now, in an age when consumers surf the web, Skype and watch Netflix simultaneously, ISPs face a demand for more bandwidth—and naturally, they want to be paid for providing it. Net neutrality proponents say a pay-to-play fast lane won't be neutral, and may be considered less open, because it will hamper companies that can't afford faster service.
    Myth #3: Regulating ISPs is good (or bad) for users

    Net neutrality advocates think regulating ISPs will level the playing field for Web entrepreneurs. On the other hand, ISPs and other critics are concerned that regulating the market would discourage future investments in Internet infrastructure.
    AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said recently that his company will “pause” investments in fiber networks until the net neutrality debate is over. In a less dramatic announcement, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said his company agrees with Obama in principle but that “the unfortunate reality is the uncertainty it creates, investment uncertainty.”
    There's no myth here. We simply don't know what ISPs will end up doing if they face regulation.
    Myth #4: Without net neutrality, some Internet users will experience slower service

    This isn't a myth either, but two different positions around the same fact. This is the fact: If ISPs offer faster service for some Web companies, the service for other companies will be slower by comparison.
    The argument centers around a perception: Is slower bad, or just not as good as faster? Net neutrality advocates warn that if ISPs give some websites a fast lane for an extra fee, that's essentially downgrading service for all other websites. Opponents contend that service to all wouldn’t be downgraded, but those who paid extra would get better (faster) service.
    Myth #5: President Obama has the final word on net neutrality

    While the President’s opinion might hold more weight than yours or mine, it’s not binding. Since President Obama issued his statement supporting reclassification, the White House has reiterated that the ultimate decision will be in the hands of the independent FCC.
    That means FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is under a lot of pressure. His only official statement reflects that the commission is trying its best to end the years-long quest for net neutrality rules: “We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online.” A decision is expected in the near future.

    Source
     
  8. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    #8 Skaendo, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    (OP)
    Myth #1
    Just a term to state that Obama wants to take over the Internet just like he is trying to do with healthcare.

    Myth #2
    The internet "flow" is regulated by ISPs, and if you want faster speeds then you can pay more to get it. Unless you live here by me where everyone is capped at 1MB (733KB actual), and they have the nerve to charge $40 a month for it, and is limited because of the hardware in place. (I doubt it but possible. Cheap-A$$ ISP)

    Myth #3
    Even they don't know what to say about, so is it still a myth?

    Myth #4
    (I retract my previous statement after reading more on the subject)
    "The FCC already has sufficient authority under Section 706 to adopt rules that address any practices that threaten harm to consumers or competition, including authority to prohibit ‘paid prioritization.’ For effective, enforceable, legally sustainable net neutrality rules, the Commission should look to Section 706.”

    Myth #5
    I know, I never stated that. (Same as Myth #1)

    But why cant we know what they are pushing for here that is so secret that we are not allowed to see before it is "law"?
    Because if we did then we would never accept it, or there is something in there about government agencies being able to spy on everyone in order to use the Internet.

    Tom Wheeler tweaks net neutrality plan after Google push

    A left view from the EFF:
    Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule

    The bottom line is that only a handful of people know what is actually in the "net neutrality" document. If there wasn't anything to hide they would have made it public, not “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". (Most transparent government my butt) And when the FCC Commissioner says that it is a overreach by the government, something is wrong here, and the red lights are blinking.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. redroad

    redroad MDL Guru

    Dec 2, 2011
    5,346
    6,029
    180
    Well today's the day :)

    @Skaendo Your bandwidth problem is a result of a regional monopoly plain and simple ..

    Last election we had roughly 1/3 of the eligible voting public turn out to vote .. So the government you/we have is a direct consequence of that .. With those kind of turnouts we have handed over our government to special interest money .. For a long time now tel com companies have had a strangle hold on policy makers in Washington as a result of their collective lobby .. Without government regulation our society/democracy would be put exclusively in the hands of big corporations .. There are some that would argue including myself that has happened already .. Like it or not we need a government regulatory authority over free market capitalism because left to those that see only profit over a healthy society would leave us in dire times .. I could give you literally hundreds of examples where this scenario already played out has resulted in nothing but wreckage .. I choose not to give you these examples because a man/woman with his/her eyes open would have already seen them 1st hand .. The profiteers will always profit at the expense of the common man/woman and their society .. That being said discretion is needed when reading news because now more then ever the corporate word smiths are shaping public opinion because their profits are at stake ..

    If you continue posting these threads which have a clear agenda I am left only with questions about your intentions .. Many good forums have been over run by people such as yourself where later it has been made clear their interest was something other than honest public discourse .. I stand by this statement "Your just a another right wing shill plain and simple" ..
     
  10. redroad

    redroad MDL Guru

    Dec 2, 2011
    5,346
    6,029
    180
    #10 redroad, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    [​IMG]

    Source



    Some important background reading


     
  11. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    #11 Skaendo, Feb 26, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    (OP)
    I will reply to you when you can show me the 300+ page "net neutrality" document, and how it's going to make things better. Since they have made it "law", now they have decided that they still wont release it to the public, not "we have to vote it in to see what's in it" (like Obamacare). Our new BDFL. Welcome to socialism!
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. redroad

    redroad MDL Guru

    Dec 2, 2011
    5,346
    6,029
    180
    Do you live in one of the 20 states that already have laws on the books ?

    Source
     
  13. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
    What kinda crazy country is that where there are state laws that restrict internet access? :eek:
    Is there thinking behind that or lack of .. ?
     
  14. Michaela Joy

    Michaela Joy MDL Crazy Lady

    Jul 26, 2012
    3,502
    3,685
    120
    @R29k: You should see the Affordable Care Act (If you could read it).:eek:

    Normally, I'm for less government controls and less government meddling (something ran by the government is never ran well)
    But this is a case where the FCC -needs- to be given more power and control. There has to be some regulation as to what the internet companies can and can not do.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  15. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    Every one who has an opinion on the subject I'm afraid is pure speculation and is null and void. Even mine. Only a handful of people actually know what is in the actual document, oh wait, they let Google in on it in the last hours. Why do they get to see it and we don't? Oh that's right, because they work for the NSA.

    So until the actual document is released no one can say that it is a good thing or a bad one. Which brings me back to, If "net neutrality" is so great why don't we get to know what it is?

    The only bit of information that has been released about it is that there wont be any throttling going on, and local governments are going to be able to set up servers. Well it takes 300+ pages to say that? I think not. Something shady is going on and as an American citizen I have the right to know what it is. I'm sure that if it is ever released to the public that it will be heavily redacted in the name of "National Security". Now take into account a small town that doesn't have the resources that say LA or Chicago has. Do you think that small rural towns are going to be able to set up servers, maintain, purchace new hardware, employ people for this endeavor? How about adding new taxes on top of already ridiculous prices in said small towns for inferior service. (The no tax bill ends in October) My service like I said is $40 a month for a 1MB download connection. (733KB actual)

    While were at it, how about digital TV. Where I live we had 2 "free" channels, government came in and said everyone switch to digital, now I get none. I am forced to either pay for cable/satellite or nothing. Great job Obama! I know this is not the same thing, I'm just illustrating how great our government is when they take things over.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  16. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
  17. redroad

    redroad MDL Guru

    Dec 2, 2011
    5,346
    6,029
    180
    The one thing that you did not mention and really is the most important for rural folks like you and I is the FCC's Section 706 Advanced Services Inquiry .. What was up for a vote until today was what powers the FCC had to regulate the internet .. What was proposed by Republicans and the telcom lobby was this .. These lines would have stripped the FCC's powers under Section 706 and any hopes of better internet service where you and I live (rural america) ..


    • Classify broadband Internet access as an information service under the Communications Act
    • Clarify that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act may not be used as a grant of regulatory authority
    The main reason any more for such documents/legislation to be so lengthy is so they can stand up to legal challenge ..

    Blaming Obama for the loss of your two free TV channels had me rolling :laie: ..
     
  18. Michaela Joy

    Michaela Joy MDL Crazy Lady

    Jul 26, 2012
    3,502
    3,685
    120
    "The devil is in the details"

    It seems to me that what's going on here is along the same lines as to what happened to the FDA. Big pharmaceutical companies basically stripped the teeth from it by lobbying and throwing -huge- amounts of money so that they can bring drugs to market much more quickly. Sometimes, the test data is "fudged" or enhanced to make the drug appear safe.

    Case in point: Fen-phen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine Big money pushed this drug through the FDA, and it ended up causing heart valve problems.
    Now I know that there's a big difference in terms of one being life threatening and the other being loss of services / poor services, but the ultimate end is the same;
    Profits being put before the people and John Q. Public ends up being skrewed. :(

    I blame Obama 'cause my 'Bama Phone got no good games. :rolleyes:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. Skaendo

    Skaendo MDL Addicted

    Sep 23, 2014
    888
    523
    30
    #19 Skaendo, Feb 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
    (OP)
    Amazing, this man predicted the affairs of the US today in 1958.

    "6. Greatly increased socialistic controls over every operation of our economy and every activity of our daily lives, this is to be accompanied naturally and automatically by a correspondingly huge increase in the size of our bureaucracy and in both the cost and in reach of our domestic government."

    Sounds exactly like what is happening with "net neutrality".

     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    4,668
    4,254
    150
    Pity he didn't predict that the Republicans would move from people like Lincoln and end up with this bunch of greedy, backward morons you have now.