The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom

you all know the FCC isnt even a federal entity. Its not apart of the executive branch, or the federal government. Just because it has federal in its name doesnt mean shit. Its almost a joke. Its best used as a trigger for the current president, almost like a buff or a perk. To censor what they, and their other like minded commissioners consider offensive (or what ever excuse they provide.)
The basic acts and laws that made up the foundation in which the fcc act was built on, where good logical laws. But because they were good and logical they were used to enforce an act which gives the president the right to pick a council of friends who tell us what racism is. The congressmen or whoever wrote or proposed it, either really hated the democratic electoral process, or just really loved the president of the time.


this whole thing is based on my definition of federal: National government, so to me, the FCC in order to be authentic, would have to be apart of the national government, which their not. Their an independent agency, directly controlled by the president. Which to me is a huge contradiction!

Read that, then look at the current chairmans history and connections ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski#Government_and_business_experience )
"§ 154. Federal Communications Commission
How Current is This?
(a) Number of commissioners; appointment
The Federal Communications Commission (in this chapter referred to as the “Commission”) shall be composed of five commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman.
(b) Qualifications
(1) Each member of the Commission shall be a citizen of the United States.
(2)
(A) No member of the Commission or person employed by the Commission shall—
(i) be financially interested in any company or other entity engaged in the manufacture or sale of telecommunications equipment which is subject to regulation by the Commission;
(ii) be financially interested in any company or other entity engaged in the business of communication by wire or radio or in the use of the electromagnetic spectrum;
(iii) be financially interested in any company or other entity which controls any company or other entity specified in clause (i) or clause (ii), or which derives a significant portion of its total income from ownership of stocks, bonds, or other securities of any such company or other entity; or
(iv) be employed by, hold any official relation to, or own any stocks, bonds, or other securities of, any person significantly regulated by the Commission under this chapter"




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski#Government_and_business_experience

I should probably take the time to ensure everyone understands what I mean by precedence. OK the FCC has essentially dared Congress to say no when they decided to ignore the court which decides how far their reach extends by saying to companies that they couldn't ask more money to access certain content over the internet by restricting their speed. Outwardly this isn't bad, it's actually a nice benefit for customers of ISPs. What's bad is that once you say it's OK for the FCC to stop one bad thing about the internet then the FCC and the people start going "Well why can't we stop the other bad things?" That's where the slope is, next people say "Well children can access porn too easily, you should stop that too!" And because even though 50% of all internet traffic is related to porn, most people can't argue that minors looking at porn is bad they concede. Most likely you implement such by saying all porn has to have a certain URL code in it which will require a proof of ID such as State ID or Driver's License number. OK inconvenience, but it does more good then harm right? Let it through. Next you get more complaints, "Racism is horrible, you shouldn't allow my children to see bad words!" Most of the people will see only the first three words and agree readily not realizing it will extend to saying any curse words at all as well. But some people realize this is violation of their free speech and cry foul. They get overruled, now you have censorship of words, but they're bad words right? So who cares? Then a couple months pass, people realize how far this extends and get put off by the restriction they start crying, "Well yeah I understand it's bad for kids but I'm an adult dammit!" So another special URL code gets created for adult stuff that again requires proof of age. A rather large inconvenience but most people can see where it comes from right? Then the minors adapt, figure out how to bypass the restriction and complain that they don't want this content in their homes at all, so the companies in their infinite wisdom go "They're right we're not racist! Anyone who wants uncensored content has to pay a fee!" And because the FCC has already created all these rules they bloody well can't argue with the companies now can they? They'll look like the bad guys trying to provide "bad things" to children. So they cave, and what's the end result of this? Well you have to pay to get unrestricted access to the internet. Not to mention the list of fines companies and individuals will get for posting "uncensored content" on a "public domain".

Yes that entire scenario is hypothetical, but look back over the past 10 years in America and see the same slope with Security taking the place of freedom. And if you really look, really put yourself in the shoes of the time, ask yourself if when you had gone into the new millennium thought that in the next 10 years we'd be allowing public strip searches of children to provide security? Or have an Act on record that allowed the Federal Government to invade your personal history without a warrant or probable cause?

Aardvark wrote:I should probably take the time to ensure everyone understands what I mean by precedence. OK the FCC has essentially dared Congress to say no when they decided to ignore the court which decides how far their reach extends by saying to companies that they couldn't ask more money to access certain content over the internet by restricting their speed. Outwardly this isn't bad, it's actually a nice benefit for customers of ISPs. What's bad is that once you say it's OK for the FCC to stop one bad thing about the internet then the FCC and the people start going "Well why can't we stop the other bad things?" That's where the slope is, next people say "Well children can access porn too easily, you should stop that too!" And because even though 50% of all internet traffic is related to porn, most people can't argue that minors looking at porn is bad they concede. Most likely you implement such by saying all porn has to have a certain URL code in it which will require a proof of ID such as State ID or Driver's License number. OK inconvenience, but it does more good then harm right? Let it through. Next you get more complaints, "Racism is horrible, you shouldn't allow my children to see bad words!" Most of the people will see only the first three words and agree readily not realizing it will extend to saying any curse words at all as well. But some people realize this is violation of their free speech and cry foul. They get overruled, now you have censorship of words, but they're bad words right? So who cares? Then a couple months pass, people realize how far this extends and get put off by the restriction they start crying, "Well yeah I understand it's bad for kids but I'm an adult dammit!" So another special URL code gets created for adult stuff that again requires proof of age. A rather large inconvenience but most people can see where it comes from right? Then the minors adapt, figure out how to bypass the restriction and complain that they don't want this content in their homes at all, so the companies in their infinite wisdom go "They're right we're not racist! Anyone who wants uncensored content has to pay a fee!" And because the FCC has already created all these rules they bloody well can't argue with the companies now can they? They'll look like the bad guys trying to provide "bad things" to children. So they cave, and what's the end result of this? Well you have to pay to get unrestricted access to the internet. Not to mention the list of fines companies and individuals will get for posting "uncensored content" on a "public domain".

Yes that entire scenario is hypothetical, but look back over the past 10 years in America and see the same slope with Security taking the place of freedom. And if you really look, really put yourself in the shoes of the time, ask yourself if when you had gone into the new millennium thought that in the next 10 years we'd be allowing public strip searches of children to provide security? Or have an Act on record that allowed the Federal Government to invade your personal history without a warrant or probable cause?

i read the whole thing and it makes sense to me, the major point that caught me was the money connection. It makes me think... if they had control of what clothes we have to wear, what they would pick for us. Would they ever allow it to come off?

Aardvark wrote:I should probably take the time to ensure everyone understands what I mean by precedence. OK the FCC has essentially dared Congress to say no when they decided to ignore the court which decides how far their reach extends by saying to companies that they couldn't ask more money to access certain content over the internet by restricting their speed. Outwardly this isn't bad, it's actually a nice benefit for customers of ISPs. What's bad is that once you say it's OK for the FCC to stop one bad thing about the internet then the FCC and the people start going "Well why can't we stop the other bad things?" That's where the slope is, next people say "Well children can access porn too easily, you should stop that too!" And because even though 50% of all internet traffic is related to porn, most people can't argue that minors looking at porn is bad they concede. Most likely you implement such by saying all porn has to have a certain URL code in it which will require a proof of ID such as State ID or Driver's License number. OK inconvenience, but it does more good then harm right? Let it through. Next you get more complaints, "Racism is horrible, you shouldn't allow my children to see bad words!" Most of the people will see only the first three words and agree readily not realizing it will extend to saying any curse words at all as well. But some people realize this is violation of their free speech and cry foul. They get overruled, now you have censorship of words, but they're bad words right? So who cares? Then a couple months pass, people realize how far this extends and get put off by the restriction they start crying, "Well yeah I understand it's bad for kids but I'm an adult dammit!" So another special URL code gets created for adult stuff that again requires proof of age. A rather large inconvenience but most people can see where it comes from right? Then the minors adapt, figure out how to bypass the restriction and complain that they don't want this content in their homes at all, so the companies in their infinite wisdom go "They're right we're not racist! Anyone who wants uncensored content has to pay a fee!" And because the FCC has already created all these rules they bloody well can't argue with the companies now can they? They'll look like the bad guys trying to provide "bad things" to children. So they cave, and what's the end result of this? Well you have to pay to get unrestricted access to the internet. Not to mention the list of fines companies and individuals will get for posting "uncensored content" on a "public domain".

Yes that entire scenario is hypothetical, but look back over the past 10 years in America and see the same slope with Security taking the place of freedom. And if you really look, really put yourself in the shoes of the time, ask yourself if when you had gone into the new millennium thought that in the next 10 years we'd be allowing public strip searches of children to provide security? Or have an Act on record that allowed the Federal Government to invade your personal history without a warrant or probable cause?

In putting network neutrality into place, it already raises more court cases, if you look, both sides are packing up lawyers for the ensuing internet fight

Besides, the compromise actually doesn't ignore the court ruling, it basically circumvented it by not arguing in this case that the internet could be regulated as broadband, which is regulated under Title II of the telecommunications act.

you can see here http://www.pcworld.com/article/195772/fccs_broadband_reclassification_whats_next.html

that the court decided that they couldn't reclassify it as broadband.

Basically, its in their lawful capabilities.

Furthermore, has anything changed on the internet???

I rest my case.

BTW, I've been really busy lately with swimming.

I knew major corporations would find a way legally to get internet users by the balls, the same way they do with TV, Radio and every medium of entertainment and information before that. So fucking tired of these big businesses raping the community and the nation and not giving shit back except a large cock up the ass like this.

And you ignored the entire point of my post, bye bye.

the problem of the FCC having nobody to answer to is the same problem we have with all american commison and companies, you want to regulate them, but that violates their constitutional rights, its a never ending problem, when u try and regulate one, you have to regulate all, and if you even have a modem of success doing that, ull find yourrself in constitutional lawsuits till u die, thats the big problem, that will probably haunt us as a country till kingdom come

they should have porn site that put a specific code on the URL then you like maybe have to pay to get that code. idk jus my 2 cents

Aardvark wrote:And you ignored the entire point of my post, bye bye.

Maybe if the entire point of your post wasn't already listed in the list of logical fallacies:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

I could treat it seriously. >.>

GG gentlemen.

Wich fallacy in particular are you mentioning? Also, dont think youre the person to speak on logistic terms. Ive seen you do it a dozen times. You simply cannot argue logistically in a subjective matter, unless it is at the core structure, since most data will be biased anyway.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Wich fallacy in particular are you mentioning? Also, dont think youre the person to speak on logistic terms. Ive seen you do it a dozen times. You simply cannot argue logistically in a subjective matter, unless it is at the core structure, since most data will be biased anyway.

slippery slope, also, please pick out one of the logical fallacies I've made.

I didnt ask you to tell me the type, i asked you to show me what Aard said. Most of these explanations arent even supposed to be called fallacies. Fallacies are pure logic mathematical. But i get that they were dumbing it down for easy comprehension-

Dray The Fingerless wrote:I didnt ask you to tell me the type, i asked you to show me what Aard said. Most of these explanations arent even supposed to be called fallacies. Fallacies are pure logic mathematical. But i get that they were dumbing it down for easy comprehension-

Sure then, here it is, and some context, here is me:

Nihil wrote:

Aardvark wrote:The bill itself isn't bad, but it sets a precedent, now the FCC has domain over the internet and they can regulate whatever they like without reporting to anyone. So if you have anti-government feelings, well you're a terrorist spreading dissension and we can't have that now can we?

Click the video, it will take you to the exact point, don't worry. You'll have your point basically refuted. If you are lazy, skip to 4:00, otherwise, play the clip and it will take you to the desired point I think you should start at.