News FCC Formally Proposes Net Neutrality Rules

cnet - The case against the FCC's Net neutrality plan

" no one really believes that the lack of competition has created true market failures. At least not the kind of failure severe enough to justify the intensive federal regulation visited, with mixed results, on U.S. railroads a century ago or of the telephone monopoly from 1913 until 1982. Pro-regulation advocates, including Chairman Genachowski and Google Vice President Vint Cerf, speak in the conditional tense. The word "could" appears 55 times in the FCC proposal.

Regulating ahead of a market failure makes little sense when, as everyone acknowledges, the underlying technology for access is evolving rapidly and models for making money in Internet provisioning are still in the early stages of development. The risk of non-neutral behavior is significant, but the cost of regulation and the potential for unintended consequences may be higher. "Have we correctly identified the costs and benefits of the alternative approaches?" the commission asks. The answer is that it hasn't even begun to identify either, correctly or otherwise. "

The case against the FCC's Net neutrality plan | Wireless - CNET News


this is of course what i have been saying all along.

bros, when the hyper-freedom internet force the EFF is on my side, your case for neutrality regulation must be damn weak.

 

I change my mind. Apparently some super secret copyright treaty document has leaked. Like the title says, it's bad. Very bad.

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad. - Boing Boing

Google the story. There are thousands of articles out there about this, pretty much every one I have read so far has information that the others don't. This is incredibly alarming.

 

that certainly is terrible,and obama is a terrible president, and the copyright system is really miserable, but is it related to net neutrality? at the very least it demonstrates why government should have as little to do with management of the internet as possible.

 

No, it's pretty much outside the scope of net neutrality. As I said many times in this thread though, although I don't mind the net neutrality rules from the FCC, I don't care at all for government involvement in anything that doesn't need it. This story just pushed me over the edge. I can deal with terrible bandwidth from ISP jerks if it saves the internet from this administration.

It's funny that it says the reason this was such a huge secret was an issue of national security. As much of a copout as that seems, it's true. If they destroy the internet, the general population is going to flip, myself included.

 

agreed. this or any administration should have almost no power to regulate the internet.

i seriously doubt you will be squeezed by your internet provider.

i look at my phone, and how things have gotten better and better to the point now where i have virtually unlimited everything for far less than i would have paid a year ago. i dont imagine the internet wont be similar, speeds constantly improving, services getting cheaper, decent competition between providers, no real restriction (unless we ask for it).

some people live in the sticks, and may not have it as easy with less choices. well too bad. you also get to have a backyard, so stop yer bitchin.

 

It really bothers me that people believe these "leaked stories" about top secret laws.

 

Regardless of its legitimacy, it got me thinking about how destructive the government could be of anything it sinks its teeth into. Aside from my personal love of the internet, it is also my job. I love my job. The thought of the government having the legal power necessary to ruin that infuriates me.

The possibility of them screwing stuff up threatens me personally. I don't trust anyone, not even some of my closest friends. What makes you think I trust the government to do what is best for me? I do what's best for me. I don't need the government or anyone else to take care of me. You can reference the original health care plan thread as I believe it relates to SF similarly.

 

now youa re talking. the private sector is always going to treat you better. they like to take advantage on occasion, but they simply dont weild the power the government has, so the amount they can abuse you is limited. plus they like to make you happy, so you pay them. i think the internet providers are going to try to give us what we want.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

- adam smith

 

The FCC lost their case with Comcast today. Basically, the court said that the FCC cannot regulate private networks...for now...

FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality' - Yahoo! Finance

 

of course i support this ruling, even though i am a huge fan of bittorrent, because i think comcast deserves the right to manage itself. i think their motivation was not to be money-grubbing consumer abusers, but to just keep the network running quick and smooth.

as always i think the thing that protects the consumer from abuse is choice, not the goverment. and i understand that sometimes choice is limited by technology. but lets be careful and let the tech settle before we bring in the hamfisted government management.

agreed?