We should try and shut down the FCC.I don't know about y'all but I'm sick & tired of hearing a million beeps when all I'm trying to do if watch tv.It's hippocritical because this stuff is apart of everyday life.now they are attacking the last place left we have to express ourselves.I can gaurantee this if they shut down the internet they will also shut down other forms of entertainment as well thus leading to the snowball effect.
first of all FCC IS VIOLATING ARTICLE 19 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS which is freedom of expression media or public broadcasting and the first Amendments of the U.S constitution FREEDOM OF SPEECH & THE PRESS.
The internet does not belong to America. The internet belongs to the world. How can a government agency run by a single country decide what should be allowed?
@Buffalo122333, Which is more likely? That Google employees are manually reading through hundreds of thousands of comments per hour and boosting their favorite comments without boosting those comments' stats, or, that the YouTube comment system is hopelessly broken, barely writable, and even less readable?
So many viewers of this video are profoundly Internet-illiterate. It's no wonder they confuse arguing against ISP abuses as arguing in favor of government control of network content.
Reading through the comments I see a preponderance of fucktards.
Nick Gillespie's initial comment should be a tipoff: "...to regulate ISPs the same way it regulates telephone companies." He can't even say the words "common carrier" because that might clue us in that FCC is not trying to censor the Internet, but rather to prevent censorship on the Internet.
Look up Wikipedia Common_carrier#Telecommunications.
The FCC regulates your phone company, NOT your phone calls, fucktards.
@ismeme: "Your first mistake is I don't see Net Neutrality as a power grab by the gov't" - haha, I'd call that your mistake, not mine ;) The FCC are not your friends. They promise to be helpful and lighthanded every time they stick their nose into something, then out come the favors, monopoly rights, and censorship. This will never change. Also, Reason is a Libertarian publication. They bitch about all government power grabs, and were happily bitching about Bush during his reign.
@Nphyx Nope, sorry, I'll take gov't regulation over unregulated capitalism any day of the week. We have no control over private entities, but we do still have some control over the gov't.
The Libertarian ranks have swelled with the Tea Party. Hard to know who's a real Libertarian and who's one by convenience anymore. The ones who never bitched about Bush's excesses but moan endlessly about Obama's are fakers when it comes to loving the Constitution, so I suspect everyone till I see their creds.
@ismeme Government is fundamentally weaker than private enterprise because its not a popularity contest. In private enterprise, because of investors protecting their assets, a board selects the most COMPETENT person, rather than the most handsome, best orator, or most politically connected. This is one of the fundamental reasons why capitalistic societies always progress faster than socialist ones.
"Our" lack of control over private entities is a good thing. Production isn't a popularity contest
@Jaspian Production isn't a popularity contest? You ought to tell that to all the corporations. They'd be grateful to know they could be saving millions in advertising.
@ismeme You just proved it. PRODUCTION is not a popularity contest. If person A makes 50% more of the product than person B, it doesn't matter how popular person B is, they still produce 50% less product than person A.
ADVERTISING is different. That's more of a popularity contest, but they don't actually produce anything, and if the product is good enough, its irrelevant anyway.
@ismeme "regulation" is just a euphemism for "forcing other people to do what YOU want them to do with threats of violence". Bottom line is, without getting into who paid for the infrastructure (a valid argument, since a lot of it was funded by money stolen from tax livestock), the telcos own the lines. You have no right to threaten to steal from them, cage them, or kill them if they don't let you use it how you wish. Your only ethical resort is to build something better or find someone who has.
@Nphyx Your theory about how to deal with the telcos is quaint, but it doesn't apply in the real world where most of us live and work. And your definition of regulation is pure theatrics. I own my car. That does not give me the right to use it however I wish.
@ismeme Yes, it does give you the right to use the car however you wish - restricted only by the rights of others: violate no person or their property. Obviously as soon as you enter a road, unless you own it, you are on someone else's property and you must observe their terms of service. As for pragmatism, it disgusts me. If the ends justify the means, just get it over with and steal whatever you want and shoot whomever tries to stop you. Don't pussyfoot around like a hypocritical coward.
@Nphyx "Yes, it does give you the right to use the car however you wish - restricted only by the rights of others: violate no person or their property."
Precisely. Which is also why we regulate business.
@ismeme: lulz at the political false dichotomy. "He's against a power grab by a democratic government, he must support the republicans!" That's funny. I am against anything and everything the FCC does, whether it be forcing telcos to allow their fellow scum to spy on people or granting the same telcos monopoly rights (e.g. over huge chunks of radio bandwidth). I generally take a low view of all bottom-feeding scumbags who take what they want or solve their "problems" at gunpoint.
@Nphyx Your first mistake is I don't see Net Neutrality as a power grab by the gov't; I see it as a means of avoiding a power grab by the telcos. (Absent the actual bill, I'll reserve judgement and go with what's intended.) And I didn't accuse you of being a Repub so much as a small gov't conservative, a mindset hardly restricted to the GOBP. What perplexes me is the hue & cry about "gov't overreach" from everywhere on the right since Obama took office. It was absent under Bush.
1:35: "...all government agencies act like private businesses."
Yeah, Nick Gillespie, except that our government is nominally answerable to voters, while all private businesses actually ARE private businesses.
What a douchebag.
ISPs have been lobbying hard to be allowed to mess with my traffic. Fuck them. I want my government to keep the users free, not ISPs free to abuse users to the limits that the cornered market will bear.
Agreed. That's why I said "nominally answerable to voters".
The U.S. implementation of democracy is deeply wrong. Still, corporations are called "private" because they are not answerable to voters, only to their owners. Meanwhile, the U.S. does hold sham elections, which actually do occasionally change things.
This might be a bit too anti-government than pro-libertarian. I can't believe Reason has me thinking about defending the BS-filled FCC, but from what I understand, they're trying to make sure the Internet stays free through enforcing net neutrality standards. That would be pro-liberty. So...how is that a problem?
Unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something?
@HeffeLoco9 No you are not missing something. Comcast and AT&T are attempting to control the Internet, and Nick Gillespie is their tool.
He's trying to position the FCC as the big evil government agency that stops us from seeing boobies on TV, implying they're trying to censor the Internet. But in this case, they're trying to stop our ISPs from censoring the Internet.
Should we permit upstream nodes to diddle our packets, or should we prevent that?
@ortzinator Much of those billions came from taxpayers. The rest came from subscribers (the very selfsame people). $50/month buys hell of a lot of copper wire.
But it doesn't matter how much was paid by whom to build what. Should my ISP be allowed to mess with my data stream?
Yeah I agree. When it comes to anything business related, ReasonTV becomes a propaganda machine that flat out lies. The FCC is attempting to maintain freedom of speech on the web, not censor it.
I'm curious as to who's funding these cocksuckers at ReasonTV.
@loqiloqi “Should we permit upstream nodes to diddle our packets, or should we prevent that? Our choice.”
Who is going to enforce our choice? We the people as individuals, or is the will of the people going to be enforced vicariously though a Government Agency? I say we leave the government out of the internet. They may do one thing you like in the short term but they will screw it up more often in the long term.
@Yereviltwin2 "Who is going to enforce our choice? We the people as individuals, or ... a Government Agency?"
What do we do if a used car dealer rolls back an odometer? A restaurant sells tainted food? A construction company mixes excessive sand into the foundation of our house?
We could individually make sure not to give them repeat business and bad-mouth them to our friends -- that is, if we individually figure out what they did. Or we could yank their licenses for abusing the public trust.
You want the government to filter the internet by issuing licenses to websites for the public trust? Sorry, I don’t agree with that. I have a few websites and I dont want to adhere to some govt license regulation. The internet is doing fine w/out the intervention of govt oversight. If Im defrauded by a website there are already laws that I can use. If you get Govt involved then big company lobbyists will invade the govt officials that do the regulation, thus corrupting it
@Yereviltwin2 You run websites but you don't know an ISP from a packet?
This video is trying to trick unsophisticated viewers into thinking the FCC wants to censor your website. The FCC wants to make sure that what I see when I visit your website is actually what you put there, and not what Comcast injected along the way. Meanwhile, AT&T wants to charge your site money in order to allow THEIR customers to see your website with decent performance --that is, if they feel like serving it at all.
That sounds reasonable, but do we need the FCC to over see it? Is there not a reasonable to find a way to get the desired result without a government agency to regulate and punish offenders? Maybe a law? I just worry that their small intrusion now will lead to bigger intrusion later like most government agency regulations. Look at the train and trucking industries.
@Yereviltwin2 Such a law would be called "network neutrality" legislation. We've had network neutrality on the Internet for decades, but only because no Internet providers had been trying to mess with traffic. Times have changed. Many ISPs cannot be trusted anymore, and must be prevented from doing whatever they want to us.
Criticisms can be made of the FCC, but a law is only as good as its enforcement. Some law enforcement agency's gotta stop Internet providers from messing with our traffic.
@loqiloqi One of the great things about this country is the free-enterprise system, and if you find yourself with an ISP that deliberately slows down your traffic or tries to censor what you see, you can change ISPs. Did you know, for example, that televisions have more than one channel? So if you see something you don't like, you can switch to a different one. Radios too. There are also a number of magazines and newspapers published that cater to different audiences.
If your banker straight-up embezzles from your account, or your auto mechanic charges you for work not done, or your plumber instals plastic and charges your for copper, that's called fraud. Your repeat business has lower value than their repeated abuse of your neighbors.
Most Americans can choose from among zero, one, or two broadband providers depending on where they live. And who do you stop paying if your content is being adjusted by an ISP on the other side of the Internet?
@Nphyx The FCC was in "the server room" until 2005 when Bush had them abandon the guidelines that kept the telcos in check the previous two and a half decades. The internet you're used to is what Net Neutrality aims to preserve.
@ismeme For one, I think you should check your history. Second, an internet run by government scum is no internet worth having. If ISPs stop delivering the service we want, we'll build a new network. I'd take that any day over the situation in, say, China or Australia. Even if I allow for the moment the possibility that any government scum could implement sane regulation, the FCC has a track record of constant abuse, nepotism, censorship, and exploitation. If that is "neutral" screw neutrality.
@Nphyx I have no idea what you mean by an internet run by "gov't scum". The FCC had regulatory oversight when I first got onto the internet in 1990. The only things that have changed since then are the results of Bush decisions to let the NSA read our emails and giving telcos the power to monitor and turn over customer info to the gov't when requested, as well as loosening FCC control in 2005 which a couple of big ISPs have used to try and control customer access.
@ismeme an internet run by scum is what your'e going to get if you beg the scum to start interfering. Like all bloodsucking parasites, governments only expand over time and continue until they destroy the host body. I'll deal with my ISP - if it threatens to shit up my service, I'll find another one. If I can't find another one, I'll route around whatever problems they cause me. If the government starts screwing with my service, I have no alternative. I deal with it or get caged/killed. S.C.U.M.
@Nphyx Where was your concern about gov't scum interference when Bush was in office?
As I've repeatedly said, the FCC had oversight until 2005; re-adopting those guidelines means preventing ISPs from shitting with service. It's bad enough many of them run monopolies, making finding a comparable alternative an expensive if not impossible mission. The last thing telcos need is more power to extort their customers.
Give the FCC the power to regulate Internet access services and they will use it to control Internet content. There’s no place for the FCC in monitoring or administering speech controls, nor in controlling our communications infrastructure, the Internet. That is just fact.
@quizerry Your "fact" is crap. The FCC had guidelines in place until 2005. Net Neutrality means re-adopting those guidelines to preserve the internet we've had from the beginning. Oppose it and the telcos will monitor and control where you can go on the internet, how fast, and what it will cost to access certain sites - at their whim.
@gunguy54 You've been sucked in by misinformation. The FCC wants to leave things as they are: keep an open internet, where we all decide what succeeds and fails online. It's called net neutrality. What Reason.tv wants is to deregulate the telcos, who'll then wield control over your access to the internet, right down to taxing content providers and slowing down or stopping your access to sites of their choosing. Don't fall for the mumbo jumbo.
Are you going to have the FCC grant more democratic and less autocratic control to the rest of the media too? TV? Radio? The nanny state is crucial in supporting the collective efforts of PRIVATE hierarchies--but not PUBLIC horizontal institutions.
Libertarians and Repubs are cut from the same cloth when it comes to big business. Libertarians just dress it up as being about "freedom". What neither cares (or thinks) about is how this affects individual freedom and rights. Case in point: the SCOTUS ruling in January this year rejecting a ban on corporate contributions to US campaign funds as an abridgment of "free speech". Now big business can contribute as much as they like to pro-business candidates, even if the money comes from overseas.
@ismeme (cont'd) The opposition to Net Neutrality is no different. The conservative dream of doing away with the FCC's ability to regulate how telcos operate will lead to bigger monopolies, higher prices, and your ISP controlling what you have access to through "their" internet connection.
Don't let anyone tell you the "free market" is free.
@ismeme Like Obama, you do not understand (and probably didnt read) the law. I don't see you crying about the Unions and their rights to free speech. Not to mention the huge amount of donations they give to a particular party. Let's talk about Democrats are their lust for socialism and control. How do you feel about the individual mandate in ObamaCare? You think it affects an individuals freedoms and rights when the government mandates they must purchase a commercial product?
@NCMan28025 Truth is all political parties are corrupted by one thing, corporate interest. The only way to judge what decisions and policies are right for the people is to look at them on their own merit individually. Something most people in this thread have not done.
@NCMan28025 I don't give a fuck about the Dems. I'm a liberal and very few of them represent me. Unions aren't corporations; they actually represent people's interests and are nowhere near as influential as big business in gov't. I oppose the mandate in the healthcare bill and support a public option.
It doesn't matter either way... there is no fucking way on this earth the FCC has even the remotest power to silence, halt, or stop any true net junkie. It aint gonna happen... ever.
Truth is, if the fcc messes with the net... you can guarantee... the world of crackers will shit all over them... and take them off the net. The FBI has a hard enuf time monitoring the net... do you really think the fcc can get even close to what the fbi has. lol. It's a joke. Nothing but money.
From what I am able to gather it's the FCC who wants to keep the internet as is and cable companies like viacom and comcast that want to regulate internet subscriber activity from reading an article "Comcast Wins in Case on FCC Net Neutrality Powers (Update6)" from bloomberg businessweek written April 6. Is this the case reasontv is referring to or am I missing something?
@BubbaGumpShrimp33 Yes, the FCC wants to keep the internet as it is (Net Neutrality). OTOH, Reason.tv is part of the Ayn Rand "free market" club that wants to completely do away with government regulation, believing businesses will police themselves. We've had a taste of how well business polices itself with BP and the economic crisis caused by the banking/credit industry.
@ismeme Government regulation pushed BP into 5000 ft of water. Government regulation limited BP's liability. Govenment regulations prohibits most onland drilling. As for the economic crisis; Government regulations incouraged poor crediting through Freddie and Fanny, equal housing, and sub prime loans. These same "people" demanding more regulations, are the same poeple who created the regulations that that caused the problem. Now they cry for more power to solve more problems.
@TmanWdaPlan 1) The vast majority of remaining oil is in deep water; US shallow water and land wells have little capacity by comparison. 2) If Repubs had their way there would be NO liability. 3) See #1. Also, the Federal gov't has the right to say what happens on Federal land. 4) Bush demanded with his American Dream Act 2003 that Fannie & Freddie loosen restrictions to increase minority home-ownership. That combined with loosened banking regulations over the last 30 years = greed & crisis.
@ismeme You must take me for a "Repub". I care not about what party is in power. In fact, it was a republican congress and a democratic president (Clinton ) that put the liability limits on the oil companies. Pointing to a party does no good here and means nothing to me. I generaly lack faith in government. As for Bush/ Obama light, he can stick is American Dream act up is you know were. ( Something we probably agree on).
@TmanWdaPlan Actually, it was a democratic Congress and a Repub president (Bush Sr) that passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 with liability limits. And I don't care what you are: if you oppose net neutrality you're a fool for the devil in the form of "free market" proponents. There are plenty of them on both sides of the aisle, but it's conservatives who are pushing hardest for deregulation.
@ismeme Oh ya, I forgot what this video was about. Neutrality. Makes sence, and I would be for it if I had any trust in the FCC. Maybe if the bill is 10 pages long, and I can read the whole thing before its passed....I may be okay with it. But, im very skeptical, expecially since the abuses of providers is almost none existent. It has happened yes, but I don't want to fight fire with a possible bigger fire. You get me?
@TmanWdaPlan The abuses of providers is almost non-existent because the FCC guidelines that kept them in check for the past three decades were only stripped away in 2005. We've seen plenty of evidence of what corporations do when there's little oversight of them; the idea of losing the internet we have to telco market forces ought to scare anyone who's been paying attention. We should support the re-adoption of previous FCC guidelines, with a wary eye.
@ismeme Revisionist history? Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. Then Democrats threatened banks with penalties if they did not give loans to individuals who had no jobs, income, credit or means to pay back these loans. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. In 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, Republicans sounded the alarm about the two GSEs named Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank, and a number of other Dems said there was no crisis. Frank was in a love affair with a executive.
@NCMan28025 Please go read up on Bush's "American Dream Act 2003" and how it pushed Fannie and Freddie to relax rules for less than creditworthy borrowers, then go kill yourself.
@ismeme You should read up on what started the mess and stop blaming Bush. You sound like the typical Obama zombie. Point fingers without pointing to the real issues that caused the mess. Barney Frank and the Dems pushed for lower lending standards. It's documented and you can find the video right here on youtube. Rahm Emanuel is tied to this scam as well. Read Jane Hamsher's investigative report about it @ firedoglake. Obama refuses to appoint an Inspector General to oversee Freddie/Fannie. Why
@NCMan28025 I'm not a Dem, and you're the one who refuses to see the whole picture - dare I say like the typical conservative, always pointing fingers at the Dems and Obama. BOTH parties had a hand in creating the mess we're in. BOTH parties have been chipping away at regulations for 30 years. And Bush's "American Dream Act 2003" had as much to do with facilitating the economic crisis as anything else. Try learning outside your comfort zone.
@ismeme If you look above, you will see the one who has pointed the finger. It's you. I simply debated against your claims while you only pointed out conservative, Republicans and George Bush. Maybe you need to look outside your own biased opinions before giving advice for someone else to do so. Typical liberal bullshit. Who started the Community Reinvestment Act. Who stands behind Freddie and Fannie. Who is tied up in these GSE scandals? Truth hurts doesn't it.
@NCMan28025 If you could read you'd find that I also said the loosening of banking regulations has been going on for 30 years. Were only the Repubs in charge the last 30 years? That's news to me. I'm not surprised that you can't see beyond the tip of your big conservative nose - the same one that's happy sticking itself into everybody's business until Dems are in charge. Then it gets bent out of joint. Your type is never interested in the truth, just in deflecting blame.
@ismeme Every single statement you have made, you referenced Conservative and Republicans and blamed them. I've pointed out several questions, which you continue to fail at answering. Typical liberal attempting to dodge questions due to a lack of knowledge about the subject. I jumped into the coversation because you were pointing blame at one group. I showed you it is both political parties. However, it was Democrats who pushed for deregulation time-and-time again.
@NCMan28025 You either need glasses or a refresher course in reading comprehension. Oh, or you could just take the blinders off. I'm sure they're comfy but they're making you look foolish.
The Government is here to protect our Freedom and liberty. So it is in our Constitution. The FCC should protect our freedom not try and limit it or sell it to the Highest bidder. The internet should be no exception freedom of the press freedom of speech. NO CENSORSHIP !!!
No, it's not voluntary to the people outside of it who are affected by it. It has the rights and power of citizens, but large corporations control media, control most of what we consume, and dominate most of the space and by and large finance every single major candidate at the federal and state levels as well as both major political parties. Internally, it is the 3 musketeers all for one and one for all. You can leave a corporation. And you can leave a country.
@Catalonia No, it's not. A corporation is a voluntary organization the goal of which is to produce a desired effect, be that earning money or promoting research or whatever. A corporation is a "paper person," in that it is a private enterprise that may own and sell property as a real citizen might, except it cannot vote. Collectives are organizations where everyone is forced to share what they create and, invariably, are not allowed to leave.
Big Brother (New World Order) is getting worried. Most folks dont trust the MSM and go on the internet for the truth. Senator Rockefeller is trying to pass a bill to filter the web; just like they do in China. Well its too late for that now; us serfs have awakened!
Maybe the way to go at this is to go after the FCC. Make an example of them and any other agency that tries to follow. Freedom of thought is everything.
Via Dye Solar Cell as paint an RF transmitter could be embed into wireless keyboards and chips embed into children so the FCC can track what is typed and discover what is viewed by these American, over protected and worshiped, children whose best parent is the FCC. According to the FCC. Solved it! Such a soft touch. Ease in like a Trojan, kill like a Trojan. Failed Cokewold Community.
Umm... I don't want to be touched at all!?! Especially not by t/ FCC, ever, period. The internet is t/ "brave new frontier" of communication. For politics it's t/ great equalizer in an already unequal relationship- those with money lined pockets can buy media airtime... the internet makes t/ quality of t/ candidates' ideas, rather than the size of their wallets, t/ determining factor on whether or not they gain popularity. Never give FCC control... even a "light touch", is an unacceptable one.
There is no hope. Once the ability to profit from the Internet was established, it was destined that the Internet would be taken away from the people who created it and from the people that it was created for. The Internet will either be regulated or it will be divvied up by stagnant, bloated corporations. This is the mentality that wrecked our economy, this will just be more of the same "too big to fail" that we still haven't found a reasonable solution for.
Julius said at the beginning that "we need to do this in a way that reflects an appropriate view of the roll of government" Well good Sir (Julius you busy body ass hole), the roll of government is very simple secure the borders, insure domestic tranquility, and protect our rights, nothing more everything else is just well, in the words of Penn and Teller, Bull Shit!!!!
@standj21 i would add to that and take it down to, protect the borders from outside forces (meaning armies).. they should be open but cannot be because of the nanny state. Enforce contracts between two parties. Police force to enforce simple laws. and that's about it. nothing else should be done... bringing the "protect our rights" thing into it leads to all types of backdoor's for people that like to rule over others.
@daPlumber702 Yeah I should have been more specific about what rights to protect it is my belief that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what should be protected and those in the Bill of rights, the rest is up to us... And you're right, no more is required, we should be left alone to control our own destiny.
I do understand that the word "Rights" is becoming an all encompassing word, and now the nanny Gov. thinks it grants rights, nothing could be more fallacious.
Not only do I believe that there is no way in hell that the FCC should regulate the Internet, I also think the FCC is obsolete, and they should be done away with. The Internet is the first generation of Interactive media every created, people find the content they want because they went looking for it, that's the reason the Internet works, we don't need some idiot bureaucrat deciding what content we can and can't access.
the internet is a great example of the free market at work... i think it's inevitable that the internet (as we know it) will be destroyed, but i'm confident that people will use technology to fight back.. maybe create a 'new' internet, one that is impossible for the government to control. the P2P fight is evidence of this...
The oligopoly which currently controls our telecommunication industries in the United States isn't any better than the proposed government regulations. In either case, my choices are and would be limited by individuals beyond my influence.
@KyleOutrage It's only an oligopoly because of the FCC since they regulate telecommunication lines. It's a gov't created oligopoly. You're only proving more that gov't shouldn't get involved.
@goingalt Opponents of Net Neutrality have only offered the status quo as an alternative to enhanced regulation. Only fools believe we currently have a true "free market" in the United States. The only place a real "free market" exists is in Economic textbooks. Local, State, and the Federal Governments already control our market choices. I'd like to see a real push to end those restrictions rather than concentrating on straw man attacks on the FCC. We must fix the underlying issues first.
@KyleOutrage the "straw man" argument is used far to often by those that have mouths full of shit.
You're arguing against the regulation of it... and then saying that people need to stop complaining about it. The FCC has done 10xs more to hurt the average american then it will EVER do to help them.
@KyleOutrage Once again you have proved my point. I said that the FCC is a problem because the gov't limited our choices. I never said I want the status quo (though more power grabbing is the status quo). I would like to get rid of the FCC, or at least get them to their original task of regulating frequency bands (since that is a limited resource that does interfere with third parties), Please stop proving my position and come up with something of substance.
@goingalt What I'm saying is that most people attacking Net Neutrality sound more like corporate lobbyists than they do Libertarians. It's easy to claim we should "have more choice" but it's much more difficult to reshape the market to actually allow those new choices. My question is this: What comes next after stopping the FCC's regulation? Do we sit back and allow the recasting of the internet in the image of the Government-backed oligopoly?
@KyleOutrage It's only difficult to reshape the market because of the FCC. It's hard to make an argument saying that opening the market will lead to an oligopoly when we already have one. Opening the markets creates more opportunities for entrepreneurs. One example is the FAA & removing airline restrictions and price restrictions. It created JetBlue and many other airlines. Though many people said it would lead to an oligopoly or a monopoly, it was false.
Any allotment of regulatory powers to the FCC will ultimately result in censorship, albeit poorly and ineptly implemented censorship. It may take a decade or two to happen, but it will happen.
OTOH, something like this could be a crusading hacker's wet dream.
@MrYoober you're the dumb fuck for thinking it's the government's place to say anything about any of that. It's not. It's the place of the person that has been wronged. Child porn will end up there one way or another just like everything else bad, but you propose punishing the whole for the mistakes of the few, and that is simply immoral.
@cloudberry121 since you were so smart as to not give any idea of what comment you're talking about I'll just say that you should look in the mirror when searching for a failure.
This is a joke. This guy either has underlying reasoning that helps him justify overlooking the truth and lie about the the facts of the issue or he knows nothing about the issues at hand. If any of his previous videos are to go by I'd say its the underlying issues, he's got an agenda.
@omababy sorta like you with this reply. Government intervention in most everything is bad, and when it comes to the internet its downright horrible. They have no claim to it. NOBODY does
@daPlumber702 The FCC is doing what it is doing at the behest of bloggers and people who actually enjoy the internet. They are not trying (and should not try, and I hope they pass a bill making sure they cannot try) to regulate content. But I'm fine with them ensuring that access is available to all.
I'd rather not have comcast, or time warner decide which sites I can access and which ones I can't.
@shalcall well then whatever bloggers and people that are asking for it should just shut their damn mouths. You see that's the whole beauty of the free market, and the entire reason the internet has come as far as it has. Anything government gets it's hands on will grow, because that's the only way for them to justify taking our money to pay for it.
When individual companies block what they wish to block, you have the opportunity to vote with your wallet by switching your subscription to another provider. When the government does it, EVERYONE gets screwed.
@daPlumber702 you're working under the assumption that there is competition that gives people choices. Where I live I have a choice of dial up (trying watching youtube on that) or cablevision. When I was in the military I had a choice of Comcast or Comcast. In most regions people have only one or two ISP's to choose from. So in essence, they CAN'T vote with their wallet.
@shalcall You're working under the assumption that that won't change. Where there is a demand, there will be suppliers(hence the drug trade) Right now there are many more than that even in your area. Verizon has the style I'm speaking of right now. Whats wrong with regulating? These new inventions that spread out the supply of internet won't get made, because they'll cost too much too put into effect. and what incentive will any of the places already doing it have to make new stuff?
@daPlumber702 It might change, maybe 100 years from now. But that doesn't help me, or my children and only gives hope to my grandkids and great grandkids. Start up costs are already too high for any real competition to enter the ISP market. That's why ISPs have grown on the backs of existing cable providers and phone companies.
It's like you took economics and only learned about perfectly competitive markets and never studied the real world.
@shalcall you would have a point if you weren't entirely wrong. You nor your children, nor their children, are ENTITLED to internet service that is cheap and readily available. It's just not true, so throw that in the trash right now.
second, where i live 5 years ago you had the choice of dial up, dsl, or cox communications cable connection. Now we have clear, verizon, kricket, embarq, and so on. Things change when you leave them alone, which up till now has been done with the internet.
@daPlumber702 "Now we have clear, verizon, kricket, embarq, and so on."
Clear is wifi, Kricket is satellite, Embarq is dsl. What Verizon service do you get, dsl? Or is it wifi like Clear? What I'm looking for is how many ISP choices you have within a particular internet access scheme like dsl or cable.
@daPlumber702 Where did I say I was entitled to anything? Nice strawman. My argument is about competition. If you do not have adequate competition in a market, that market will be inefficient, this is econ 101. You said that if we don't like our ISP we can vote with our wallets. The fact is that the vast majority of people in this county cannot do so because the ISP market is not sufficiently competitive.
That's part of the reasoning behind the regulation.
@shalcall Although i never said that you feel that way, ( I merely stated it as a fact. you aren't entitled to anything.) It is immediately implied. You were taken care of. and you feel happy about it.. because you think the government did it. When in fact it was the money stolen from people by way of "taxes" and spread around in the most inefficiant way possible so that you could be "taken care of"
as for your isp argument, i know of 4 companies online right now that have a 90% or better tbc
@shalcall 90% or better coverage range in america, and you can buy the little stick needed online. Cheep fees, and good service.. You just haven't looked hard enough. Which goes back to the whole entitlement thing. Your problem isn't competition, it's ease of access. It isn't that there aren't other companies, it's that you would have to take the time out to find them. Argue the correct point next time.
@daPlumber702 Once again putting words in my mouth and avoiding the actual topic. That's not the way to make an argument. This isn't about entitlement, and it isn't about taxes. It's about competition, or the lack thereof. Do you really consider a wireless broadband access a competitor of cable internet service? Are you denying that there are limited choices (if any) for wired ISPs?
The regulation talked about in this video deals with ensuring that your service isn't limited AFTER purchase
@daPlumber702 Being in IT I understand the issue fully. I'm not sure your understanding of the underlying problem as to why there is a need for regulation but if you are interested in learning the basic issues as to why regulation is needed please look at this. watch?v=Qmd38t3OjZ8
@omababy Oh wowsers.. IT.. so you complain in a nerdy way about people all day, and have no real idea what you're doing at the end of it. Your kind is an interesting study.
I have a complete understanding of it. Only difference is I have the brains to know that ANY regulation is more or less bad. And when it's regulation involving knowledge... well that's the worst kind there is. Read up on hitler and his regulation of books. they didn't think it was that bad of an idea back then either.
@daPlumber702 Regulation is what the internet was built on, it was deregulation that brought on the need to stop telcos exerting controls above and beyond designed only to the benefit themselves but regulations are bad if they are overbearing.With the Telecommunications act of 1996 brought about the destruction of competition in the ISP market. With limited or no alternative in areas across America customers are beholden to price and restrictions they impose so they is no recourse for consumers.
Reason.tv is part of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian "nonprofit organization advancing free minds and FREE MARKETS." We need look no further for why they oppose net neutrality; libertarians, like most economic conservatives, oppose ALL regulation. They believe businesses should police themselves.
Yeah, deregulation and lack of enforcement worked well with BP and the banking industry/financial markets, didn't it?
@daPlumber702 The reclassification of broadband to a title 2 service will only regulate the telcos making sure they leave the internet alone, back to the way it traditionally was the internet we are use to. It will not cover anything else. It will give back to the FCC the power to make sure we are left alone from corporate interest, thats all.
@gollyanamegame then you're acting on ignorance. And when you get your way and you realize that the internet is now smaller and more expensive and less free you'll once again blame government for your own ignorance.
@shalcall from your moms tit to the government tit, I am good with out their or your help making my own decisions. The internet is fine without your guidance, control freak .
@omababy Just because you work in IT doesn't mean you have an understanding of these regulations and the effects of it. I have a degree in Cyber-Crime and I work in the corporate world. Regulation of the internet would result in many loopholes and would increase white-collar crime dramatically. Having the government step in would create an uprising in malware usage to surpass these regulations, thus creating more crime through government involvement.
@JonnieDarko69 The reinstatement of broadband as a title 2 as it was for 10 years or or there about would apply similar restrictions that apply to phone lines. It will have none of the affects you mention. It would in no was inhibit the monitoring of illegal activity it in any way now and in the future. And it would not cultivate it either. I don't trust the government either but regulation applied correctly as is proposed by the title 2 reclassification is necessary.Please look into it further.
@JonnieDarko69 I should actally proof read before I post...Anyway there is alot of misinformation and fear mongering out there.The facts are that if the reinstatement goes ahead the internet would be protected under regulations over 50yr old.The same regulations that kept telcos at bay and protected consumers for a great number of years and promoted the growth of the internet.So all that is proposed is to turn back the clock and use the regulation that was in use to begin with. For the people...
@RogueSwordThesco Is that shows on the internet? I doubt it, cuz thats what we are talking about. I'm sorry but the ignorance here is astounding. People know nothing about what is being proposed, why it's being proposed, or the history of regulations in regards to broadband and dialup. Basically they are talking nonsense out of fear instead of reason and knowledge.
My point is, I don't need to be stopped from going anywhere on the internet that I want to go. If I typed something into my browser, or clicked a link, it's because I wanted to see what was on the other side.
@omababy What protections are you talking about? If its not broken don't fix it. What do we really need to regulate on the internet that we already haven't?
@JonnieDarko69 Are you sure you have a degree in Cyber Crime because you seem clueless to the issues that affect your industry. Working in IT you MUST know you always have to read to keep up to date with your craft more so than most occupations but you need me to fill in the gaps for you? If that is the case I can guarantee you hopeless at your job.
We should try and shut down the FCC.I don't know about y'all but I'm sick & tired of hearing a million beeps when all I'm trying to do if watch tv.It's hippocritical because this stuff is apart of everyday life.now they are attacking the last place left we have to express ourselves.I can gaurantee this if they shut down the internet they will also shut down other forms of entertainment as well thus leading to the snowball effect.
huricane887 1 year ago
first of all FCC IS VIOLATING ARTICLE 19 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS which is freedom of expression media or public broadcasting and the first Amendments of the U.S constitution FREEDOM OF SPEECH & THE PRESS.
HUMANELEMENT90s 1 year ago
The internet does not belong to America. The internet belongs to the world. How can a government agency run by a single country decide what should be allowed?
Kamatzu 1 year ago
YouTube Lying!
According to youtube the second highest rated comment was loqiloqi arguing for government control with 6 thumbs up.
However their were 8, count 'em 8, ANTI-fcc posts that had 7 thumbs up or better.
At the time I wrote this of course.
Buffalo122333 1 year ago
@Buffalo122333, Which is more likely? That Google employees are manually reading through hundreds of thousands of comments per hour and boosting their favorite comments without boosting those comments' stats, or, that the YouTube comment system is hopelessly broken, barely writable, and even less readable?
So many viewers of this video are profoundly Internet-illiterate. It's no wonder they confuse arguing against ISP abuses as arguing in favor of government control of network content.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
Reading through the comments I see a preponderance of fucktards.
Nick Gillespie's initial comment should be a tipoff: "...to regulate ISPs the same way it regulates telephone companies." He can't even say the words "common carrier" because that might clue us in that FCC is not trying to censor the Internet, but rather to prevent censorship on the Internet.
Look up Wikipedia Common_carrier#Telecommunications.
The FCC regulates your phone company, NOT your phone calls, fucktards.
loqiloqi 1 year ago 8
Yes! Fuck those fucking fucks at the fucking FCC! Thats all I have to fucking say about that..........fuck!
TheRevolutionJ 1 year ago
is that the Covenant remix of that DM song in the b/g?
XanatharEye 1 year ago
Depeche Mode music choice FTW! w00t!
stefestella 1 year ago
@ismeme: "Your first mistake is I don't see Net Neutrality as a power grab by the gov't" - haha, I'd call that your mistake, not mine ;) The FCC are not your friends. They promise to be helpful and lighthanded every time they stick their nose into something, then out come the favors, monopoly rights, and censorship. This will never change. Also, Reason is a Libertarian publication. They bitch about all government power grabs, and were happily bitching about Bush during his reign.
Nphyx 1 year ago 2
@Nphyx Nope, sorry, I'll take gov't regulation over unregulated capitalism any day of the week. We have no control over private entities, but we do still have some control over the gov't.
The Libertarian ranks have swelled with the Tea Party. Hard to know who's a real Libertarian and who's one by convenience anymore. The ones who never bitched about Bush's excesses but moan endlessly about Obama's are fakers when it comes to loving the Constitution, so I suspect everyone till I see their creds.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Government is fundamentally weaker than private enterprise because its not a popularity contest. In private enterprise, because of investors protecting their assets, a board selects the most COMPETENT person, rather than the most handsome, best orator, or most politically connected. This is one of the fundamental reasons why capitalistic societies always progress faster than socialist ones.
"Our" lack of control over private entities is a good thing. Production isn't a popularity contest
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian Production isn't a popularity contest? You ought to tell that to all the corporations. They'd be grateful to know they could be saving millions in advertising.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme You just proved it. PRODUCTION is not a popularity contest. If person A makes 50% more of the product than person B, it doesn't matter how popular person B is, they still produce 50% less product than person A.
ADVERTISING is different. That's more of a popularity contest, but they don't actually produce anything, and if the product is good enough, its irrelevant anyway.
Jaspian 1 year ago
@ismeme "regulation" is just a euphemism for "forcing other people to do what YOU want them to do with threats of violence". Bottom line is, without getting into who paid for the infrastructure (a valid argument, since a lot of it was funded by money stolen from tax livestock), the telcos own the lines. You have no right to threaten to steal from them, cage them, or kill them if they don't let you use it how you wish. Your only ethical resort is to build something better or find someone who has.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx Your theory about how to deal with the telcos is quaint, but it doesn't apply in the real world where most of us live and work. And your definition of regulation is pure theatrics. I own my car. That does not give me the right to use it however I wish.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Yes, it does give you the right to use the car however you wish - restricted only by the rights of others: violate no person or their property. Obviously as soon as you enter a road, unless you own it, you are on someone else's property and you must observe their terms of service. As for pragmatism, it disgusts me. If the ends justify the means, just get it over with and steal whatever you want and shoot whomever tries to stop you. Don't pussyfoot around like a hypocritical coward.
Nphyx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nphyx "Yes, it does give you the right to use the car however you wish - restricted only by the rights of others: violate no person or their property."
Precisely. Which is also why we regulate business.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Actually, as long as its on your property, you can use your car however you wish.
NewPyroLabs 1 year ago
FCC has an inflow problem? (reason 2) Win!
nunya7606 1 year ago
@ismeme: lulz at the political false dichotomy. "He's against a power grab by a democratic government, he must support the republicans!" That's funny. I am against anything and everything the FCC does, whether it be forcing telcos to allow their fellow scum to spy on people or granting the same telcos monopoly rights (e.g. over huge chunks of radio bandwidth). I generally take a low view of all bottom-feeding scumbags who take what they want or solve their "problems" at gunpoint.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx Your first mistake is I don't see Net Neutrality as a power grab by the gov't; I see it as a means of avoiding a power grab by the telcos. (Absent the actual bill, I'll reserve judgement and go with what's intended.) And I didn't accuse you of being a Repub so much as a small gov't conservative, a mindset hardly restricted to the GOBP. What perplexes me is the hue & cry about "gov't overreach" from everywhere on the right since Obama took office. It was absent under Bush.
ismeme 1 year ago
show me on the interwebs where the bad man touched you...
lol!
pudodrewculous 1 year ago
I know why people are waking up.
BRKS627 1 year ago
Yeah, it starts with a light touch.....and then one day it's "oops, sorry for the black eye"
UnderseaCaveman 1 year ago
1:35: "...all government agencies act like private businesses."
Yeah, Nick Gillespie, except that our government is nominally answerable to voters, while all private businesses actually ARE private businesses.
What a douchebag.
ISPs have been lobbying hard to be allowed to mess with my traffic. Fuck them. I want my government to keep the users free, not ISPs free to abuse users to the limits that the cornered market will bear.
loqiloqi 1 year ago 3
@loqiloqi answerable to voters... lawl : )
Nphyx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nphyx: "answerable to voters... lawl : )"
Agreed. That's why I said "nominally answerable to voters".
The U.S. implementation of democracy is deeply wrong. Still, corporations are called "private" because they are not answerable to voters, only to their owners. Meanwhile, the U.S. does hold sham elections, which actually do occasionally change things.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
Julian Assange
Birgitta Jónsdóttir
contagious courage
monday brussels eu
ryanshaunkelly 1 year ago
This might be a bit too anti-government than pro-libertarian. I can't believe Reason has me thinking about defending the BS-filled FCC, but from what I understand, they're trying to make sure the Internet stays free through enforcing net neutrality standards. That would be pro-liberty. So...how is that a problem?
Unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something?
HeffeLoco9 1 year ago 2
@HeffeLoco9 No you are not missing something. Comcast and AT&T are attempting to control the Internet, and Nick Gillespie is their tool.
He's trying to position the FCC as the big evil government agency that stops us from seeing boobies on TV, implying they're trying to censor the Internet. But in this case, they're trying to stop our ISPs from censoring the Internet.
Should we permit upstream nodes to diddle our packets, or should we prevent that?
Our choice.
loqiloqi 1 year ago 13
@loqiloqi i see your point, but Comcast and AT&T are the ones that spent billions putting down cables, not you or me and not the government
ortzinator 1 year ago
@ortzinator Much of those billions came from taxpayers. The rest came from subscribers (the very selfsame people). $50/month buys hell of a lot of copper wire.
But it doesn't matter how much was paid by whom to build what. Should my ISP be allowed to mess with my data stream?
I say no. Others might disagree.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
@loqiloqi
Yeah I agree. When it comes to anything business related, ReasonTV becomes a propaganda machine that flat out lies. The FCC is attempting to maintain freedom of speech on the web, not censor it.
I'm curious as to who's funding these cocksuckers at ReasonTV.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@loqiloqi “Should we permit upstream nodes to diddle our packets, or should we prevent that? Our choice.”
Who is going to enforce our choice? We the people as individuals, or is the will of the people going to be enforced vicariously though a Government Agency? I say we leave the government out of the internet. They may do one thing you like in the short term but they will screw it up more often in the long term.
Yereviltwin2 1 year ago
@Yereviltwin2 "Who is going to enforce our choice? We the people as individuals, or ... a Government Agency?"
What do we do if a used car dealer rolls back an odometer? A restaurant sells tainted food? A construction company mixes excessive sand into the foundation of our house?
We could individually make sure not to give them repeat business and bad-mouth them to our friends -- that is, if we individually figure out what they did. Or we could yank their licenses for abusing the public trust.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
@loqiloqi
You want the government to filter the internet by issuing licenses to websites for the public trust? Sorry, I don’t agree with that. I have a few websites and I dont want to adhere to some govt license regulation. The internet is doing fine w/out the intervention of govt oversight. If Im defrauded by a website there are already laws that I can use. If you get Govt involved then big company lobbyists will invade the govt officials that do the regulation, thus corrupting it
Yereviltwin2 1 year ago
@Yereviltwin2 You run websites but you don't know an ISP from a packet?
This video is trying to trick unsophisticated viewers into thinking the FCC wants to censor your website. The FCC wants to make sure that what I see when I visit your website is actually what you put there, and not what Comcast injected along the way. Meanwhile, AT&T wants to charge your site money in order to allow THEIR customers to see your website with decent performance --that is, if they feel like serving it at all.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
@loqiloqi
That sounds reasonable, but do we need the FCC to over see it? Is there not a reasonable to find a way to get the desired result without a government agency to regulate and punish offenders? Maybe a law? I just worry that their small intrusion now will lead to bigger intrusion later like most government agency regulations. Look at the train and trucking industries.
Yereviltwin2 1 year ago
@Yereviltwin2 Such a law would be called "network neutrality" legislation. We've had network neutrality on the Internet for decades, but only because no Internet providers had been trying to mess with traffic. Times have changed. Many ISPs cannot be trusted anymore, and must be prevented from doing whatever they want to us.
Criticisms can be made of the FCC, but a law is only as good as its enforcement. Some law enforcement agency's gotta stop Internet providers from messing with our traffic.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
@loqiloqi I can't beleave that these fucking retards have so much power. We need to take down the FCC before they go too far.
blackbatmatt30 1 year ago
@loqiloqi One of the great things about this country is the free-enterprise system, and if you find yourself with an ISP that deliberately slows down your traffic or tries to censor what you see, you can change ISPs. Did you know, for example, that televisions have more than one channel? So if you see something you don't like, you can switch to a different one. Radios too. There are also a number of magazines and newspapers published that cater to different audiences.
amadeusyaoi 1 year ago
@amadeusyaoi,
If your banker straight-up embezzles from your account, or your auto mechanic charges you for work not done, or your plumber instals plastic and charges your for copper, that's called fraud. Your repeat business has lower value than their repeated abuse of your neighbors.
Most Americans can choose from among zero, one, or two broadband providers depending on where they live. And who do you stop paying if your content is being adjusted by an ISP on the other side of the Internet?
loqiloqi 1 year ago
Save our sysadmins from scummy bureaucrudic buildup! Keep the FCC out of the server room!
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx The FCC was in "the server room" until 2005 when Bush had them abandon the guidelines that kept the telcos in check the previous two and a half decades. The internet you're used to is what Net Neutrality aims to preserve.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme For one, I think you should check your history. Second, an internet run by government scum is no internet worth having. If ISPs stop delivering the service we want, we'll build a new network. I'd take that any day over the situation in, say, China or Australia. Even if I allow for the moment the possibility that any government scum could implement sane regulation, the FCC has a track record of constant abuse, nepotism, censorship, and exploitation. If that is "neutral" screw neutrality.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx I have no idea what you mean by an internet run by "gov't scum". The FCC had regulatory oversight when I first got onto the internet in 1990. The only things that have changed since then are the results of Bush decisions to let the NSA read our emails and giving telcos the power to monitor and turn over customer info to the gov't when requested, as well as loosening FCC control in 2005 which a couple of big ISPs have used to try and control customer access.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme an internet run by scum is what your'e going to get if you beg the scum to start interfering. Like all bloodsucking parasites, governments only expand over time and continue until they destroy the host body. I'll deal with my ISP - if it threatens to shit up my service, I'll find another one. If I can't find another one, I'll route around whatever problems they cause me. If the government starts screwing with my service, I have no alternative. I deal with it or get caged/killed. S.C.U.M.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx Where was your concern about gov't scum interference when Bush was in office?
As I've repeatedly said, the FCC had oversight until 2005; re-adopting those guidelines means preventing ISPs from shitting with service. It's bad enough many of them run monopolies, making finding a comparable alternative an expensive if not impossible mission. The last thing telcos need is more power to extort their customers.
ismeme 1 year ago
Give the FCC the power to regulate Internet access services and they will use it to control Internet content. There’s no place for the FCC in monitoring or administering speech controls, nor in controlling our communications infrastructure, the Internet. That is just fact.
quizerry 1 year ago
@quizerry Your "fact" is crap. The FCC had guidelines in place until 2005. Net Neutrality means re-adopting those guidelines to preserve the internet we've had from the beginning. Oppose it and the telcos will monitor and control where you can go on the internet, how fast, and what it will cost to access certain sites - at their whim.
ismeme 1 year ago
This is the beginning of the end for free speech.
And the end of free speech will usher in a era of violence and tyranny such as the world has not seen for decades.
This needs to be nipped in the bud right quick.
schulwitz 1 year ago
Fuck the FCC. Leave the internet alone.
gunguy54 1 year ago
@gunguy54 You've been sucked in by misinformation. The FCC wants to leave things as they are: keep an open internet, where we all decide what succeeds and fails online. It's called net neutrality. What Reason.tv wants is to deregulate the telcos, who'll then wield control over your access to the internet, right down to taxing content providers and slowing down or stopping your access to sites of their choosing. Don't fall for the mumbo jumbo.
ismeme 1 year ago 2
Are you going to have the FCC grant more democratic and less autocratic control to the rest of the media too? TV? Radio? The nanny state is crucial in supporting the collective efforts of PRIVATE hierarchies--but not PUBLIC horizontal institutions.
Catalonia 1 year ago
you ungrateful idiots, al gore goes to all this trouble to "invent" the internet and all you can do is whine and bitch lol
rabidchevy 1 year ago
Libertarians and Repubs are cut from the same cloth when it comes to big business. Libertarians just dress it up as being about "freedom". What neither cares (or thinks) about is how this affects individual freedom and rights. Case in point: the SCOTUS ruling in January this year rejecting a ban on corporate contributions to US campaign funds as an abridgment of "free speech". Now big business can contribute as much as they like to pro-business candidates, even if the money comes from overseas.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme (cont'd) The opposition to Net Neutrality is no different. The conservative dream of doing away with the FCC's ability to regulate how telcos operate will lead to bigger monopolies, higher prices, and your ISP controlling what you have access to through "their" internet connection.
Don't let anyone tell you the "free market" is free.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Like Obama, you do not understand (and probably didnt read) the law. I don't see you crying about the Unions and their rights to free speech. Not to mention the huge amount of donations they give to a particular party. Let's talk about Democrats are their lust for socialism and control. How do you feel about the individual mandate in ObamaCare? You think it affects an individuals freedoms and rights when the government mandates they must purchase a commercial product?
NCMan28025 1 year ago
@NCMan28025 Truth is all political parties are corrupted by one thing, corporate interest. The only way to judge what decisions and policies are right for the people is to look at them on their own merit individually. Something most people in this thread have not done.
omababy 1 year ago
@NCMan28025 I don't give a fuck about the Dems. I'm a liberal and very few of them represent me. Unions aren't corporations; they actually represent people's interests and are nowhere near as influential as big business in gov't. I oppose the mandate in the healthcare bill and support a public option.
ismeme 1 year ago
It doesn't matter either way... there is no fucking way on this earth the FCC has even the remotest power to silence, halt, or stop any true net junkie. It aint gonna happen... ever.
Truth is, if the fcc messes with the net... you can guarantee... the world of crackers will shit all over them... and take them off the net. The FBI has a hard enuf time monitoring the net... do you really think the fcc can get even close to what the fbi has. lol. It's a joke. Nothing but money.
freeridelifedotnet 1 year ago
I think a more fitting Depeche Mode song for this video would be "Policy of Truth", since Obama's FCC is afraid of the truth.
brucevbracken 1 year ago
From what I am able to gather it's the FCC who wants to keep the internet as is and cable companies like viacom and comcast that want to regulate internet subscriber activity from reading an article "Comcast Wins in Case on FCC Net Neutrality Powers (Update6)" from bloomberg businessweek written April 6. Is this the case reasontv is referring to or am I missing something?
BubbaGumpShrimp33 1 year ago
@BubbaGumpShrimp33 Yes, the FCC wants to keep the internet as it is (Net Neutrality). OTOH, Reason.tv is part of the Ayn Rand "free market" club that wants to completely do away with government regulation, believing businesses will police themselves. We've had a taste of how well business polices itself with BP and the economic crisis caused by the banking/credit industry.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Government regulation pushed BP into 5000 ft of water. Government regulation limited BP's liability. Govenment regulations prohibits most onland drilling. As for the economic crisis; Government regulations incouraged poor crediting through Freddie and Fanny, equal housing, and sub prime loans. These same "people" demanding more regulations, are the same poeple who created the regulations that that caused the problem. Now they cry for more power to solve more problems.
TmanWdaPlan 1 year ago
@TmanWdaPlan 1) The vast majority of remaining oil is in deep water; US shallow water and land wells have little capacity by comparison. 2) If Repubs had their way there would be NO liability. 3) See #1. Also, the Federal gov't has the right to say what happens on Federal land. 4) Bush demanded with his American Dream Act 2003 that Fannie & Freddie loosen restrictions to increase minority home-ownership. That combined with loosened banking regulations over the last 30 years = greed & crisis.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme You must take me for a "Repub". I care not about what party is in power. In fact, it was a republican congress and a democratic president (Clinton ) that put the liability limits on the oil companies. Pointing to a party does no good here and means nothing to me. I generaly lack faith in government. As for Bush/ Obama light, he can stick is American Dream act up is you know were. ( Something we probably agree on).
TmanWdaPlan 1 year ago
@TmanWdaPlan Actually, it was a democratic Congress and a Repub president (Bush Sr) that passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 with liability limits. And I don't care what you are: if you oppose net neutrality you're a fool for the devil in the form of "free market" proponents. There are plenty of them on both sides of the aisle, but it's conservatives who are pushing hardest for deregulation.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Oh ya, I forgot what this video was about. Neutrality. Makes sence, and I would be for it if I had any trust in the FCC. Maybe if the bill is 10 pages long, and I can read the whole thing before its passed....I may be okay with it. But, im very skeptical, expecially since the abuses of providers is almost none existent. It has happened yes, but I don't want to fight fire with a possible bigger fire. You get me?
TmanWdaPlan 1 year ago
@TmanWdaPlan The abuses of providers is almost non-existent because the FCC guidelines that kept them in check for the past three decades were only stripped away in 2005. We've seen plenty of evidence of what corporations do when there's little oversight of them; the idea of losing the internet we have to telco market forces ought to scare anyone who's been paying attention. We should support the re-adoption of previous FCC guidelines, with a wary eye.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Revisionist history? Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. Then Democrats threatened banks with penalties if they did not give loans to individuals who had no jobs, income, credit or means to pay back these loans. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. In 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, Republicans sounded the alarm about the two GSEs named Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank, and a number of other Dems said there was no crisis. Frank was in a love affair with a executive.
NCMan28025 1 year ago
@NCMan28025 Please go read up on Bush's "American Dream Act 2003" and how it pushed Fannie and Freddie to relax rules for less than creditworthy borrowers, then go kill yourself.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme You should read up on what started the mess and stop blaming Bush. You sound like the typical Obama zombie. Point fingers without pointing to the real issues that caused the mess. Barney Frank and the Dems pushed for lower lending standards. It's documented and you can find the video right here on youtube. Rahm Emanuel is tied to this scam as well. Read Jane Hamsher's investigative report about it @ firedoglake. Obama refuses to appoint an Inspector General to oversee Freddie/Fannie. Why
NCMan28025 1 year ago
@NCMan28025 I'm not a Dem, and you're the one who refuses to see the whole picture - dare I say like the typical conservative, always pointing fingers at the Dems and Obama. BOTH parties had a hand in creating the mess we're in. BOTH parties have been chipping away at regulations for 30 years. And Bush's "American Dream Act 2003" had as much to do with facilitating the economic crisis as anything else. Try learning outside your comfort zone.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme If you look above, you will see the one who has pointed the finger. It's you. I simply debated against your claims while you only pointed out conservative, Republicans and George Bush. Maybe you need to look outside your own biased opinions before giving advice for someone else to do so. Typical liberal bullshit. Who started the Community Reinvestment Act. Who stands behind Freddie and Fannie. Who is tied up in these GSE scandals? Truth hurts doesn't it.
NCMan28025 1 year ago
@NCMan28025 If you could read you'd find that I also said the loosening of banking regulations has been going on for 30 years. Were only the Repubs in charge the last 30 years? That's news to me. I'm not surprised that you can't see beyond the tip of your big conservative nose - the same one that's happy sticking itself into everybody's business until Dems are in charge. Then it gets bent out of joint. Your type is never interested in the truth, just in deflecting blame.
ismeme 1 year ago
@ismeme Every single statement you have made, you referenced Conservative and Republicans and blamed them. I've pointed out several questions, which you continue to fail at answering. Typical liberal attempting to dodge questions due to a lack of knowledge about the subject. I jumped into the coversation because you were pointing blame at one group. I showed you it is both political parties. However, it was Democrats who pushed for deregulation time-and-time again.
NCMan28025 1 year ago
@NCMan28025 You either need glasses or a refresher course in reading comprehension. Oh, or you could just take the blinders off. I'm sure they're comfy but they're making you look foolish.
ismeme 1 year ago
@TmanWdaPlan Absolutely right....good post
RnaldSchwollenPeka 1 year ago
I guess Tipper Gore's PMRC finally broke into Al Gore's internet. Is that why they're divorcing?
TreyLutrash 1 year ago
The Government is here to protect our Freedom and liberty. So it is in our Constitution. The FCC should protect our freedom not try and limit it or sell it to the Highest bidder. The internet should be no exception freedom of the press freedom of speech. NO CENSORSHIP !!!
kryz24v 1 year ago
FUCK THE FCC
joggylol 1 year ago 9
@joggylol I'd rather not, they'd probably give me AIDS.
dudemanbearpig 1 year ago
@dudemanbearpig lol
joggylol 1 year ago
No, it's not voluntary to the people outside of it who are affected by it. It has the rights and power of citizens, but large corporations control media, control most of what we consume, and dominate most of the space and by and large finance every single major candidate at the federal and state levels as well as both major political parties. Internally, it is the 3 musketeers all for one and one for all. You can leave a corporation. And you can leave a country.
Catalonia 1 year ago
"collectivists" is the joke term of all time. A corporation IS a collective.
Catalonia 1 year ago
@Catalonia No, it's not. A corporation is a voluntary organization the goal of which is to produce a desired effect, be that earning money or promoting research or whatever. A corporation is a "paper person," in that it is a private enterprise that may own and sell property as a real citizen might, except it cannot vote. Collectives are organizations where everyone is forced to share what they create and, invariably, are not allowed to leave.
ThePenWolf 1 year ago
thumbs up
yougiberishtube 1 year ago
No we don't Julius.
UncleSam13 1 year ago
Who the hell is actually for this?
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
treysparker 1 year ago 2
Big Brother (New World Order) is getting worried. Most folks dont trust the MSM and go on the internet for the truth. Senator Rockefeller is trying to pass a bill to filter the web; just like they do in China. Well its too late for that now; us serfs have awakened!
ronheri 1 year ago 2
Maybe the way to go at this is to go after the FCC. Make an example of them and any other agency that tries to follow. Freedom of thought is everything.
THINKINGFREEMAN 1 year ago
Abolish the Fed Government
Campagnevoorvrijheid 1 year ago
pseudo-libertarians arguing against net neutrality. retards
includao 1 year ago
There's only one approach for the government to handle the internett...HANDS OFF!!!!
cybervore 1 year ago
Since the FCC is concerned mostly with children,
Via Dye Solar Cell as paint an RF transmitter could be embed into wireless keyboards and chips embed into children so the FCC can track what is typed and discover what is viewed by these American, over protected and worshiped, children whose best parent is the FCC. According to the FCC. Solved it! Such a soft touch. Ease in like a Trojan, kill like a Trojan. Failed Cokewold Community.
humanman65 1 year ago
Umm... I don't want to be touched at all!?! Especially not by t/ FCC, ever, period. The internet is t/ "brave new frontier" of communication. For politics it's t/ great equalizer in an already unequal relationship- those with money lined pockets can buy media airtime... the internet makes t/ quality of t/ candidates' ideas, rather than the size of their wallets, t/ determining factor on whether or not they gain popularity. Never give FCC control... even a "light touch", is an unacceptable one.
Daeghrefn 1 year ago
There is no hope. Once the ability to profit from the Internet was established, it was destined that the Internet would be taken away from the people who created it and from the people that it was created for. The Internet will either be regulated or it will be divvied up by stagnant, bloated corporations. This is the mentality that wrecked our economy, this will just be more of the same "too big to fail" that we still haven't found a reasonable solution for.
TesserId 1 year ago
Light touch? More like bad touch...
I NEED AN ADULT!
DeadInside200 1 year ago
Julius said at the beginning that "we need to do this in a way that reflects an appropriate view of the roll of government" Well good Sir (Julius you busy body ass hole), the roll of government is very simple secure the borders, insure domestic tranquility, and protect our rights, nothing more everything else is just well, in the words of Penn and Teller, Bull Shit!!!!
standj21 1 year ago
@standj21 i would add to that and take it down to, protect the borders from outside forces (meaning armies).. they should be open but cannot be because of the nanny state. Enforce contracts between two parties. Police force to enforce simple laws. and that's about it. nothing else should be done... bringing the "protect our rights" thing into it leads to all types of backdoor's for people that like to rule over others.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 Yeah I should have been more specific about what rights to protect it is my belief that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what should be protected and those in the Bill of rights, the rest is up to us... And you're right, no more is required, we should be left alone to control our own destiny.
I do understand that the word "Rights" is becoming an all encompassing word, and now the nanny Gov. thinks it grants rights, nothing could be more fallacious.
standj21 1 year ago
Not only do I believe that there is no way in hell that the FCC should regulate the Internet, I also think the FCC is obsolete, and they should be done away with. The Internet is the first generation of Interactive media every created, people find the content they want because they went looking for it, that's the reason the Internet works, we don't need some idiot bureaucrat deciding what content we can and can't access.
sharpcin 1 year ago
the internet is a great example of the free market at work... i think it's inevitable that the internet (as we know it) will be destroyed, but i'm confident that people will use technology to fight back.. maybe create a 'new' internet, one that is impossible for the government to control. the P2P fight is evidence of this...
DaveC86 1 year ago
The oligopoly which currently controls our telecommunication industries in the United States isn't any better than the proposed government regulations. In either case, my choices are and would be limited by individuals beyond my influence.
KyleOutrage 1 year ago
@KyleOutrage It's only an oligopoly because of the FCC since they regulate telecommunication lines. It's a gov't created oligopoly. You're only proving more that gov't shouldn't get involved.
goingalt 1 year ago
@goingalt Opponents of Net Neutrality have only offered the status quo as an alternative to enhanced regulation. Only fools believe we currently have a true "free market" in the United States. The only place a real "free market" exists is in Economic textbooks. Local, State, and the Federal Governments already control our market choices. I'd like to see a real push to end those restrictions rather than concentrating on straw man attacks on the FCC. We must fix the underlying issues first.
KyleOutrage 1 year ago
@KyleOutrage the "straw man" argument is used far to often by those that have mouths full of shit.
You're arguing against the regulation of it... and then saying that people need to stop complaining about it. The FCC has done 10xs more to hurt the average american then it will EVER do to help them.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@KyleOutrage Once again you have proved my point. I said that the FCC is a problem because the gov't limited our choices. I never said I want the status quo (though more power grabbing is the status quo). I would like to get rid of the FCC, or at least get them to their original task of regulating frequency bands (since that is a limited resource that does interfere with third parties), Please stop proving my position and come up with something of substance.
goingalt 1 year ago
@goingalt What I'm saying is that most people attacking Net Neutrality sound more like corporate lobbyists than they do Libertarians. It's easy to claim we should "have more choice" but it's much more difficult to reshape the market to actually allow those new choices. My question is this: What comes next after stopping the FCC's regulation? Do we sit back and allow the recasting of the internet in the image of the Government-backed oligopoly?
KyleOutrage 1 year ago
@KyleOutrage It's only difficult to reshape the market because of the FCC. It's hard to make an argument saying that opening the market will lead to an oligopoly when we already have one. Opening the markets creates more opportunities for entrepreneurs. One example is the FAA & removing airline restrictions and price restrictions. It created JetBlue and many other airlines. Though many people said it would lead to an oligopoly or a monopoly, it was false.
goingalt 1 year ago
Any allotment of regulatory powers to the FCC will ultimately result in censorship, albeit poorly and ineptly implemented censorship. It may take a decade or two to happen, but it will happen.
OTOH, something like this could be a crusading hacker's wet dream.
rqbuchanan 1 year ago
The fire is child porn, violence as an entertainment show, and plagiarism, you morons.
As soon as ReasonTV makes it big, they will be the FIRST to start suing plagiarists and censoring comments.
You are dumb fukks man.
MrYoober 1 year ago
@MrYoober you're the dumb fuck for thinking it's the government's place to say anything about any of that. It's not. It's the place of the person that has been wronged. Child porn will end up there one way or another just like everything else bad, but you propose punishing the whole for the mistakes of the few, and that is simply immoral.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
Appropriate view of the role of government?
How about "leave me the fuck alone and stay the hell out of my life" for a proper role?
These wanna-be tyrants know no bounds.
gte750h 1 year ago 7
Abolish the FCC
Bring Howard Stern back to AM
Vote Ron Paul 2012
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
Since when does any agency in the U.S. government tell the truth?
Deborahcm 1 year ago 2
Your name is Julius. That's enough to know you're messed up. You spend your whole youth getting your butt kicked.
cloudberry121 1 year ago
@cloudberry121 horribly ignorant argument. You fail.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702
That was horribly ignorant of you to think that was any sort of an argument. You fail in many ways. LOL
cloudberry121 1 year ago
@cloudberry121 since you were so smart as to not give any idea of what comment you're talking about I'll just say that you should look in the mirror when searching for a failure.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702
daPlumber702 = HUGE TROLL ALERT!
What a moron.
cloudberry121 1 year ago
This is a joke. This guy either has underlying reasoning that helps him justify overlooking the truth and lie about the the facts of the issue or he knows nothing about the issues at hand. If any of his previous videos are to go by I'd say its the underlying issues, he's got an agenda.
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy sorta like you with this reply. Government intervention in most everything is bad, and when it comes to the internet its downright horrible. They have no claim to it. NOBODY does
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 The FCC is doing what it is doing at the behest of bloggers and people who actually enjoy the internet. They are not trying (and should not try, and I hope they pass a bill making sure they cannot try) to regulate content. But I'm fine with them ensuring that access is available to all.
I'd rather not have comcast, or time warner decide which sites I can access and which ones I can't.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall well then whatever bloggers and people that are asking for it should just shut their damn mouths. You see that's the whole beauty of the free market, and the entire reason the internet has come as far as it has. Anything government gets it's hands on will grow, because that's the only way for them to justify taking our money to pay for it.
to be continued...
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@shalcall
When individual companies block what they wish to block, you have the opportunity to vote with your wallet by switching your subscription to another provider. When the government does it, EVERYONE gets screwed.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 you're working under the assumption that there is competition that gives people choices. Where I live I have a choice of dial up (trying watching youtube on that) or cablevision. When I was in the military I had a choice of Comcast or Comcast. In most regions people have only one or two ISP's to choose from. So in essence, they CAN'T vote with their wallet.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall You're working under the assumption that that won't change. Where there is a demand, there will be suppliers(hence the drug trade) Right now there are many more than that even in your area. Verizon has the style I'm speaking of right now. Whats wrong with regulating? These new inventions that spread out the supply of internet won't get made, because they'll cost too much too put into effect. and what incentive will any of the places already doing it have to make new stuff?
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 It might change, maybe 100 years from now. But that doesn't help me, or my children and only gives hope to my grandkids and great grandkids. Start up costs are already too high for any real competition to enter the ISP market. That's why ISPs have grown on the backs of existing cable providers and phone companies.
It's like you took economics and only learned about perfectly competitive markets and never studied the real world.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall you would have a point if you weren't entirely wrong. You nor your children, nor their children, are ENTITLED to internet service that is cheap and readily available. It's just not true, so throw that in the trash right now.
second, where i live 5 years ago you had the choice of dial up, dsl, or cox communications cable connection. Now we have clear, verizon, kricket, embarq, and so on. Things change when you leave them alone, which up till now has been done with the internet.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daPlumber702 "Now we have clear, verizon, kricket, embarq, and so on."
Clear is wifi, Kricket is satellite, Embarq is dsl. What Verizon service do you get, dsl? Or is it wifi like Clear? What I'm looking for is how many ISP choices you have within a particular internet access scheme like dsl or cable.
ismeme 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 Where did I say I was entitled to anything? Nice strawman. My argument is about competition. If you do not have adequate competition in a market, that market will be inefficient, this is econ 101. You said that if we don't like our ISP we can vote with our wallets. The fact is that the vast majority of people in this county cannot do so because the ISP market is not sufficiently competitive.
That's part of the reasoning behind the regulation.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall Although i never said that you feel that way, ( I merely stated it as a fact. you aren't entitled to anything.) It is immediately implied. You were taken care of. and you feel happy about it.. because you think the government did it. When in fact it was the money stolen from people by way of "taxes" and spread around in the most inefficiant way possible so that you could be "taken care of"
as for your isp argument, i know of 4 companies online right now that have a 90% or better tbc
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@shalcall 90% or better coverage range in america, and you can buy the little stick needed online. Cheep fees, and good service.. You just haven't looked hard enough. Which goes back to the whole entitlement thing. Your problem isn't competition, it's ease of access. It isn't that there aren't other companies, it's that you would have to take the time out to find them. Argue the correct point next time.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 Once again putting words in my mouth and avoiding the actual topic. That's not the way to make an argument. This isn't about entitlement, and it isn't about taxes. It's about competition, or the lack thereof. Do you really consider a wireless broadband access a competitor of cable internet service? Are you denying that there are limited choices (if any) for wired ISPs?
The regulation talked about in this video deals with ensuring that your service isn't limited AFTER purchase
shalcall 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 Being in IT I understand the issue fully. I'm not sure your understanding of the underlying problem as to why there is a need for regulation but if you are interested in learning the basic issues as to why regulation is needed please look at this. watch?v=Qmd38t3OjZ8
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy Oh wowsers.. IT.. so you complain in a nerdy way about people all day, and have no real idea what you're doing at the end of it. Your kind is an interesting study.
I have a complete understanding of it. Only difference is I have the brains to know that ANY regulation is more or less bad. And when it's regulation involving knowledge... well that's the worst kind there is. Read up on hitler and his regulation of books. they didn't think it was that bad of an idea back then either.
daPlumber702 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 Regulation is what the internet was built on, it was deregulation that brought on the need to stop telcos exerting controls above and beyond designed only to the benefit themselves but regulations are bad if they are overbearing.With the Telecommunications act of 1996 brought about the destruction of competition in the ISP market. With limited or no alternative in areas across America customers are beholden to price and restrictions they impose so they is no recourse for consumers.
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy You're exactly right.
Reason.tv is part of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian "nonprofit organization advancing free minds and FREE MARKETS." We need look no further for why they oppose net neutrality; libertarians, like most economic conservatives, oppose ALL regulation. They believe businesses should police themselves.
Yeah, deregulation and lack of enforcement worked well with BP and the banking industry/financial markets, didn't it?
ismeme 1 year ago
@daPlumber702 The reclassification of broadband to a title 2 service will only regulate the telcos making sure they leave the internet alone, back to the way it traditionally was the internet we are use to. It will not cover anything else. It will give back to the FCC the power to make sure we are left alone from corporate interest, thats all.
omababy 1 year ago 2
@omababy this is neither radio or tv, the FCC is unwelcome and I for one will vote and give to politicians that share this thought
gollyanamegame 1 year ago
@gollyanamegame then you're acting on ignorance. And when you get your way and you realize that the internet is now smaller and more expensive and less free you'll once again blame government for your own ignorance.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall from your moms tit to the government tit, I am good with out their or your help making my own decisions. The internet is fine without your guidance, control freak .
gollyanamegame 1 year ago
@omababy Just because you work in IT doesn't mean you have an understanding of these regulations and the effects of it. I have a degree in Cyber-Crime and I work in the corporate world. Regulation of the internet would result in many loopholes and would increase white-collar crime dramatically. Having the government step in would create an uprising in malware usage to surpass these regulations, thus creating more crime through government involvement.
JonnieDarko69 1 year ago
@JonnieDarko69 The reinstatement of broadband as a title 2 as it was for 10 years or or there about would apply similar restrictions that apply to phone lines. It will have none of the affects you mention. It would in no was inhibit the monitoring of illegal activity it in any way now and in the future. And it would not cultivate it either. I don't trust the government either but regulation applied correctly as is proposed by the title 2 reclassification is necessary.Please look into it further.
omababy 1 year ago
@JonnieDarko69 I should actally proof read before I post...Anyway there is alot of misinformation and fear mongering out there.The facts are that if the reinstatement goes ahead the internet would be protected under regulations over 50yr old.The same regulations that kept telcos at bay and protected consumers for a great number of years and promoted the growth of the internet.So all that is proposed is to turn back the clock and use the regulation that was in use to begin with. For the people...
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy
Yes, the FCC "protects" me from the shows I chose to watch
RogueSwordThesco 1 year ago 8
@RogueSwordThesco Is that shows on the internet? I doubt it, cuz thats what we are talking about. I'm sorry but the ignorance here is astounding. People know nothing about what is being proposed, why it's being proposed, or the history of regulations in regards to broadband and dialup. Basically they are talking nonsense out of fear instead of reason and knowledge.
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy
Yes the FCC "protects me" from the sites I chose to visit on the internet
RogueSwordThesco 1 year ago
@RogueSwordThesco and what sites are those?
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy
My point is, I don't need to be stopped from going anywhere on the internet that I want to go. If I typed something into my browser, or clicked a link, it's because I wanted to see what was on the other side.
RogueSwordThesco 1 year ago
@RogueSwordThesco Well you might not be able to do that if the FCC can't control the telcos.
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy
You think the FCC would promote freedom of access on the internet?
That's Hilarous
RogueSwordThesco 1 year ago
@omababy
You think the FCC would promote freedom of access on the internet? That's Hilarious
RogueSwordThesco 1 year ago
@RogueSwordThesco remember when comcast blocked 4chan???
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy
Yeah, but they put it back, because it's a private industry and it's customers complained. Either way I didn't have any problems getting around it.
RogueSwordThesco 1 year ago
@RogueSwordThesco remember when they blocked bittorrent?
omababy 1 year ago
@omababy What protections are you talking about? If its not broken don't fix it. What do we really need to regulate on the internet that we already haven't?
JonnieDarko69 1 year ago
@JonnieDarko69 Are you sure you have a degree in Cyber Crime because you seem clueless to the issues that affect your industry. Working in IT you MUST know you always have to read to keep up to date with your craft more so than most occupations but you need me to fill in the gaps for you? If that is the case I can guarantee you hopeless at your job.
omababy 1 year ago