The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom

OK so the FCC In its INFINITE wisdom, is going against Government recommendations and the rule of law to regulate the internet.

Read here, what do you think? does the internet NEED regulating? There are some interesting and important things going on while the American public is distracted. We should be paying attention.

This is what happens when you say "OH, WE SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD FOR OUR KIDS FOR US",or
"OH, WE SHOULD TRY AND TAKE OVER FREE SPEECH SO WE CAN BE 100% SAFE FROM EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, EVEN THOU ITS IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE TERRORISTS DONT GET OUT OF THE MOUNTAINS",or
"OH, YOU KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO NEXT? CHARGE PEOPLE FOR BREATHING, AND ALSO MAKE THEM PAY FEES FOR BEING ASMATICS, AND ALSO BE INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE WHEN WE TRY NOT TO BE OFFENSIVE"

Why, i must ask, why do you allow this FCC to exist? I have not seen a single event where they have actually improved your lives.

Oh SWAT guys, I've got a door for you to bust down. Seriously, they have no legal right whatsoever to do anything when Congress has already ruled AGAINST them. This is why Commissions by nature are a danger to the government, they are given broad powers and are responsible to no one.

FUCK THAT REGULATION SHIT. FUCK YOU FCC. FUCK OBAMA I JUST WROTE HIS NAME HERE SO THE GOV READS THIS THREAD AND PASSES THIS MESSAGE TO THE FCC : FUCK YOU.

Hey man, id do like the british students did when they tripled their university fees, and id set the nation on fire for this.

nono a fire will never solve the problem, a tactical nuke is in order for this, TAC NUKE

Sinusoidal wrote:TAC NUKE D.C.

Fix'd.

Sinusoidal wrote:TAC NUKE, MOSKOW

There fixed it RIGHT. Also the CIA has "rights" to shoot you if u give out their info. Man i wish i had somthin to say c how those asshats like it.

We seem to have a blind patriot in our hands.

Hmm, since he seems to dislike a Communist country I think I should explain something to him. A government with complete control over every aspect of their citizen's lives is a Communist government for if the government controls everything then money becomes useless. A blind patriot believes that the government knows best and shouldn't be questioned, in other words their believe the government should have complete control over every aspect of their citizen's lives, which means they themselves have the mentality of a Communist.

I wonder what he'll think of that....

This will make his mind explode because of the paradox you've created for him.

Aardvark wrote:Hmm, since he seems to dislike a Communist country I think I should explain something to him. A government with complete control over every aspect of their citizen's lives is a Communist government for if the government controls everything then money becomes useless. A blind patriot believes that the government knows best and shouldn't be questioned, in other words their believe the government should have complete control over every aspect of their citizen's lives, which means they themselves have the mentality of a Communist.

I wonder what he'll think of that....

WRONG. communism pertains to equality in power and wealth to everyone in a nation. what you described is the so far attempts of countries to become communists, by actually going against the principle of communism, when they give power to a select few. there is no communism in this world, only people saying they are communists, when they are not.

On a note, i think you should point to thefact that Russia was a dictatorship, and use that argumet instead, since it also involves blind following and passiveness AND is always negative and against the freedom principles of america.

actually Communism is the form of government. Socialism is the form of Economic control.

Cuba is a communist dictatorship using strict socialist economic controls. where the power is focused in the hands of a central council but the dictator has the ultimate say in what goes on.

Communism is only possible when a government has 100% control over every aspect of life, that is the only way in which you can eliminate money and the exchange of goods from the lives of citizens. Likewise this works in reverse, having the government control everything eliminates the need for money and the exchange of goods among the citizenry. This is the logical conclusion to the issue.

The reason the Cold War existed was not because the idea of a Communist society is bad in theory, everyone being equal and eliminating poverty and want is a good thing. The reason it started is because of the form of government it produces where the only people allowed "freedom"(not being put in jail for disagreeing) are those that blindly follow the leaders of that country. When you have a country of blind patriots it is very easy to convince them to go to war, and in such a case the people of that nation could mobilize into a "people's army" much greater then the standing military force. Blind Anarchy works much the same way. Capitalist nations recognized that a united nation is a dangerous nation in the sense that it's military is much greater then those nation's of diverse opinions.

In short the Cold War existed not because we were fighting for people's freedom, but because we recognized that any nation or group of nations with a completely common ideal is a threat to those without a common ideal.

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a stateless and classless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. It is not a government type, it is not a economical type, it is a nation ideal stage. THEORIZED that it can be put into effect if the government controlls evth aard, but that cannot be verified, for now. socialism has some points in common with communism, hence why people associate the two.

Socialism is different, but the only way to ENFORCE Communism is by total government control because people are naturally greedy little hoarders.

my god you people change the subject so freakin much O_o

certainly there are horrible parts to this, but net neutrality is ideal because allows me to access this site with the same speed as any other site.

Also, the internet probably does need regulating, regulation as in, domains that actively organize and discuss militant movements against lawful governments in a contract with the people, should be brought down swiftly.

Besides, the internet may tell someone how to build some kind of personalized weapon for terror, people probably also use the internet for premeditated murder.

oh you are just a fool. how the fuck is that gonna help your internet speed? you ACTUALLY believe they care whatsoever by the qualityof your connection and confort? they care not. Only to monitorize and control the one thing in this world that must never be cntrolled.

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve none.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:oh you are just a fool. how the fuck is that gonna help your internet speed? you ACTUALLY believe they care whatsoever by the qualityof your connection and confort? they care not. Only to monitorize and control the one thing in this world that must never be cntrolled.

Those who sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve none.

I'm not quite sure you understand...

http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/

This is basically the position I'm coming from, I think we can agree. The internet, is both a vehicle for the consumption of goods and a tool for intellectual or recreational pleasure. Slowing down connection to major sites because of profit concern creates a quasi-monopoly where competitors are quickly shut out and the internet becomes limited.

I could go into some more detail, but, really, that is what it boils down to, the crux of the matter.


Also paraphrasing an old dead man does not make you right.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Ben Franklin

safety is always temporary and it is never 100% worthy. It should never be a factor into any achievements we make, well, it should never be a priority factor. The most we can do is take ammends to ensure that probable dangerous events dont occur, but beyond that it is almost irrelevant. and thats whats happening here.

Net Neutrality sounds good, but you need to remember the downside that comes with it, and that is, government filters on your Internet and all the complications that come with it. For 10 years the web 2.0 has remained somewhat neutral, because it is unwise to cater to only a few here. True that Google holds the most users, but Bing and Yahoo still pull up a few billion searches. Thats a lot of searches, wich is what makes the Internet market different, that there is never an overwhelming procure of one companies service. The search engines are just an example, you can apply this to almost every type of site. There is simply too much variety. Perhaps if i saw these events of over-catering to a select few sites, i would pitch in with this idea, but i have not seen this threat, and do not see it coming in the near future at least.

Oh and, we have multiple ISPs here, so we have market competition yay. MAYBE you guys should worry about bringing some more ISP companies into America?

It's not unusual for them to try and get more money out of your pocket for certain content, look at TV, I only get 5 channels without basic cable, then after basic cable you have expanded basic cable and premium cable. I don't see the FCC going, "Oh no no you have to broadcast to everyone!" they just interfere with the content that can be aired by even privately held corporations. Same with phones and radios. Give FCC control over the internet and you won't stop corporations from charging for certain sites, a few quick under the table payments and the FCC will support this, no instead all you'll get is censored content.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:safety is always temporary and it is never 100% worthy. It should never be a factor into any achievements we make, well, it should never be a priority factor. The most we can do is take ammends to ensure that probable dangerous events dont occur, but beyond that it is almost irrelevant. and thats whats happening here.

Net Neutrality sounds good, but you need to remember the downside that comes with it, and that is, government filters on your Internet and all the complications that come with it. For 10 years the web 2.0 has remained somewhat neutral, because it is unwise to cater to only a few here. True that Google holds the most users, but Bing and Yahoo still pull up a few billion searches. Thats a lot of searches, wich is what makes the Internet market different, that there is never an overwhelming procure of one companies service. The search engines are just an example, you can apply this to almost every type of site. There is simply too much variety. Perhaps if i saw these events of over-catering to a select few sites, i would pitch in with this idea, but i have not seen this threat, and do not see it coming in the near future at least.

Oh and, we have multiple ISPs here, so we have market competition yay. MAYBE you guys should worry about bringing some more ISP companies into America?

Mmmm... ya, just because it hasn't happened YET, doesn't mean that it won't. Besides, google and verizon were already talking about their own preferential access plan, and many different service providers are forming cliques with different companies. Also, it doesn't imply internet regulation, as the internet is regulated already as it is. Net Neutrality, is in effect, keeping the internet as it is. If you want to change the internet's egalitarian, very public, very modern form, you can choose to do away with the public structure and turn it into, like I said, a quasi-monopoly. Again, there would not be a filter in place more so than there is now, if there even is one now. For instance, shouldn't we filter cites that instruct people how to construct bombs?

The only censorship really possible would be by the internet providers themselves as explained

"consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, network providers, consistent with federal policy, may block transmissions of illegal content (e.g., child pornography) or transmissions that violate copyright law."

also, this is about internet providers, not google, I'm not sure how we got into that, my mistake?, google makes a deal with verizon, a provider, and then the magic happens. Its all about the money.

Aardvark wrote:It's not unusual for them to try and get more money out of your pocket for certain content, look at TV, I only get 5 channels without basic cable, then after basic cable you have expanded basic cable and premium cable. I don't see the FCC going, "Oh no no you have to broadcast to everyone!" they just interfere with the content that can be aired by even privately held corporations. Same with phones and radios. Give FCC control over the internet and you won't stop corporations from charging for certain sites, a few quick under the table payments and the FCC will support this, no instead all you'll get is censored content.

TV isn't as much a marketplace as the internet is. The premise, as it is, of the internet is free access to information. The information world. Wikipedia might not be free anymore because it relies upon donations and has no real "budget".

Since it is a marketplace, all the other companies will have a monopoly by undercutting the innovation processes of new websites, like youtube, by corporate money grants and such. You are promoting a system where we might have to pay extra to even access this site, or any other site, which slows the speed of information transfer, decreases the free information process of the internet and creates a monopoly on one of the LARGEST CONSUMER SPENDING AVENUES! O.o

I see a big lot of IFs in this. In fact, since you are on a premise guessing situation based on knowledge you have now, if you are predicting events that might happen based on common and speculative knowledge, why dont you predict that the FCC will utterly fuck this up, seeing how they have in the past, negatively messed with TV (and radio if i remember it right) on many occasions. You see Google talk to Verizon, :O omg we must get control of the internetz before it becomes a monopoly.

Nihil wrote:
Since it is a marketplace, all the other companies will have a monopoly by undercutting the innovation processes of new websites, like youtube, by corporate money grants and such. You are promoting a system where we might have to pay extra to even access this site, or any other site, which slows the speed of information transfer, decreases the free information process of the internet and creates a monopoly on one of the LARGEST CONSUMER SPENDING AVENUES! O.o

This is more farfetched than that radio channel with the conspiracy theories.

EDIT: Actualy, is not THAT farfetched, but it is a bit farfetched.