Divided FCC adopts rules to protect Web traffic (Update)

Dec 21, 2010 By JOELLE TESSLER , AP Technology Writer
In this file photo made March 12, 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is interviewed at his office in Washington. New rules aimed at prohibiting broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers of Internet traffic now have just enough votes to pass the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, file)

(AP) -- Federal regulators adopted new rules Tuesday to keep the companies that control the Internet's pipelines from restricting what their customers do online or blocking competing services, including online calling applications and Web video.

The vote by the Federal Communications Commission was 3-2 and quickly came under attack from the commission's two Republicans, who said the rules would discourage investments in broadband. Prominent Republicans in Congress vowed to work to overturn them.

Meanwhile, critics at the other end of the political spectrum were disappointed that the new regulations don't do enough to safeguard the fastest-growing way that people access the Internet today - through wireless devices like smart phones and tablets.

The new rules have the backing of the White House and capped a year of efforts by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to find a compromise. They are intended to ensure that broadband providers cannot use their control of the Internet's on-ramps to dictate where their subscribers can go.

They will prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services that travel over their networks - including online calling services such as Skype, Internet video services such as Netflix and other applications that compete with their core businesses.

The prohibitions, known as "net neutrality," have been at the center of a Washington policy dispute for at least five years. The issue hit home with many Internet users in 2007, when Comcast Corp. slowed traffic from an Internet file-sharing service called BitTorrent. The cable giant argued that the service, which was used to trade movies and other big files over the Internet, was clogging its network.

The new FCC rules are intended to prevent that type of behavior.

They require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks. They do give providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with network congestion and unwanted traffic, including spam, as long as they publicly disclose how they manage the network.

"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," Genachowski said. "For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness."

On one level, the new rules probably won't mean big changes for Internet users. After Comcast's actions cast a spotlight on the issue - and drew a rebuke from the FCC - all of the major broadband providers have already pledged not to discriminate against Internet traffic on their wired networks.

Even Genachowski acknowledged Tuesday that a key goal of the new rules is to preserve the open Internet as it exists today.

Still, critics say the rules don't do enough to break the existing lock-hold that wireless carriers have over the online applications that subscribers can access through their systems.

The regulations prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing services such as Internet calling applications on mobile devices, and they require carriers to disclose their network management practices, too. But wireless companies get more leeway to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth and can become overwhelmed with traffic more easily than wired lines.

That means that while wireless carriers must allow access to Internet calling services such as Skype, they could potentially still block online video applications, such as Sling.

The rules also wouldn't apply to phone makers, so Apple could still dictate which applications to accept or reject for the iPhone. Apple could choose to block Skype, for instance, even if AT&T, which provides wireless service for the iPhone, can't.

At a time when more and more people go online using smart phones and other mobile devices instead of computers, the rules leave wireless carriers with tremendous control over tomorrow's Internet, said Gigi Sohn, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge.

At the same time, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., fears the rules don't do enough to ensure that broadband providers cannot favor their own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay extra. Big websites such as Google Inc., for instance, could pay to have their content download more quickly than mom-and-pop sites - leading to what critics term a two-tiered Internet.

While the new rules prohibit unreasonable network discrimination - a category that FCC officials say would most likely include such "paid prioritization" - they do not explicitly bar the practice. What's more, they leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services, such as home security systems, over dedicated networks as long as they're kept separate from the public Internet.

These concerns resonated with Genachowski's two Democratic colleagues at the FCC, who voted to approve the rules only reluctantly.

"Today's action could - and should - have gone further," said Michael Copps, one of the other two Democrats on the commission. But, he added, the regulations do represent some progress "to put consumers - not Big Phone or Big Cable - in control of their online experiences."

Republicans, meanwhile, said they worry the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from upgrading their networks because it will be more difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments. Republicans also said the regulations seek to fix a problem that doesn't exist because broadband providers have already pledged not to discriminate.

"The Internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today," said Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two FCC Republicans, in voting against the rules.

A number of prominent Republicans - including Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, and Fred Upton of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the House Commerce Committee - vowed to try to overturn the rules.

Robert McDowell, the FCC's other Republican, predicted that the FCC will face court challenges to its regulatory authority as well.

In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency had exceeded its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network - violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC in 2005.

Those principles serve as a foundation for the formal rules adopted Tuesday.

Explore further: For top broadband policy, look no further than Canada

4.2 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition

Oct 05, 2009

(AP) -- Republican opposition is mounting as federal regulators prepare to vote this month on so-called "network neutrality" rules, which would prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain ...

FCC net neutrality plan faces battle with GOP (Update)

Dec 01, 2010

(AP) -- A proposal to prohibit broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their networks has an uncertain future with just lukewarm support from large phone ...

FCC seeks input on rules for online services

Sep 01, 2010

(AP) -- Federal regulators are seeking public input on what rules should apply to wireless Internet access and specialized services that aren't part of the Internet but are delivered over wired broadband connections.

Recommended for you

Facebook awards 'Internet Defense Prize'

40 minutes ago

Facebook awarded a $50,000 Internet Defense Prize to a pair of German researchers with a seemingly viable approach to detecting vulnerabilities in Web applications.

HP revenue inches up after years of decline

9 hours ago

Hewlett-Packard on Wednesday reported that its quarterly revenue rose for the first time in three years, nudged by improved computer sales everywhere except Russia and China.

Giant tablets aimed at families

11 hours ago

Costing a little more than an iPad but standing more than twice as tall, a new pair of giant tablets wants families to share cozier group experiences with technology.

Restaurants experimenting with pay-in-advance tickets

12 hours ago

With restaurant patrons increasingly jumping on the Internet to make reservations, some high-end eateries here and across the country are adding a new tech wrinkle: having their clientele pay for their meal in advance using ...

User comments : 177

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

christian_physicist
2 / 5 (16) Dec 21, 2010
In which the government claims more power for itself to address a problem that doesn't even exist.
Quantum_Conundrum
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2010
In which the government claims more power for itself to address a problem that doesn't even exist.


This problem does exist. Maybe you are too young and naive to remember when bell south nearly took control of everything.

Unfortunately, republicans love monopolies and padding the pockets of the filthy rich even more, so they probably shoot this down.
Skultch
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
Good first step.

Google-Verizon is still a problem.
alq131
1.8 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2010
They also worry that the rules don't do enough to ensure that broadband providers cannot favor their own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority - resulting in a two-tiered Internet.

So, what's wrong with two tiers!? Democrats fought long and hard here to get special bus and HOV lanes which also gave people the right to buy passes to drive in HOV lanes (with only one occupant).
The roads aren't equal, grocery stores with 15limit lanes aren't equal, DSL and Cable aren't equal, so why are we trying to push some sort of technological equality?

People that want higher speed, different services or their phone calls to take priority over grandma's cookie recipe transmissions should be allowed to pay for them...AND companies should have the right to refuse to transmit recipes or phone calls. Seems to me like we'll just make the on and off ramps slow and dumb for everyone --which is equality, but not very beneficial.
Skultch
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
@alq131

We finally have a cultural equalizer; something that really helps bridge the opportunity gap. It should be equal.

I don't have a problem with throttling, tiers or meters, but they should treat all content or sources equally.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
Maybe you are too young and naive to remember when bell south nearly took control of everything.

ATT had a govt granted monopoly, remember?
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2010
The camel now has his nose under the intertent. Next comes the censorship from the left.

The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year. After all, we've always been at war with EastAsia.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2010
"To distrust government is simply to trust...in the ability of average people to peacefully, productively coexist without some official policing their every move. The State is merely another human institution--less creative than Microsoft, less reliable than Federal Express, less responsible than the average farmer husbanding his land, and less prudent than the average citizen spending his own paycheck"--James Bovard

In 2000 I suggested it may be a good thing if Gore won. The 'liberals' would over reach and accelerate more libertarian policies. BHO, Pelosi and Ried have validated my hypothesis.
The unintended consequences of this act will create a backlash by the most libertarian members of society further discrediting 'progressivism' (aka: socialism).
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2010
"the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." "
"Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." "
"So the "media reform" movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That's quite a coup."
http://online.wsj...LEADTop=
So this kind of collusion is acceptable since it is for socialism and by socialists.
trekgeek1
4.8 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2010
..... 'progressivism' (aka: socialism).


What a dumb thing to say. Socialism and progressivism are not the same thing. And though implying that one leads to the other may be accurate in a sense, it is only so with a slippery slope fallacy. An equally accurate statement is then "'conservatism' (a.k.a: anarchy)". Progressivism is the belief that our laws and societal policies must adapt to our changing cultures. You are a progressive since the values you hold dear are far different than those embraced 200 years ago. The difference is that you place an arbitrary and egocentric bookmark in our nations progress and label it "conservative" simply because you were born in that time. This conservatism is yesterdays progressivism.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2010
"However, Mr Cable indicated in the secret recording that he would seek to block the deal on political grounds – which he boasted was one of the benefits of being in Government.

"I didn't politicise it, because it is a legal question, but he [Mr Murdoch] is trying to take over BSkyB, you probably know that," the Business Secretary said. "He has minority shares…And he wants a majority. And a majority-control would give him a massive stake. "
http://www.telegr...nts.html
Regulatory decisions based upon politics? How can this be?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2010
Socialism and progressivism are not the same thing.

Yes, they are. Sorry you don't like it, but the truth hurts sometimes.
the values you hold dear are far different

I still value the right to life, life and property. Do 'progressives'?
trekgeek1
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
@ryqqesoqn2

yes, the policy is meant to take control from the "capitalists". This is a good thing. They are saying that your internet connection cannot be held hostage by your internet service provider by them forcing you to visit their content if you want decent bandwidth. Neutrality ensures that you have the freedom to use a service you paid for in the manner you see fit. Which is more in line with your views? A.) Pay for a service that has certain content selected for approved viewing OR B.) Pay for a service and nobody can effect the quality of your service based on your content (net neutrality)?
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2010
Socialism and progressivism are not the same thing.

Yes, they are. Sorry you don't like it, but the truth hurts sometimes.
the values you hold dear are far different

I still value the right to life, life and property. Do 'progressives'?


I won't waste my time with someone so ridiculous. If you believe that socialism and progressivism are the same thing and that's just the "painful truth" then you're too far gone for rational conversation. Have fun making picket signs at your Beck rallies. Net neutrality protects your property. You pay for internet and should not be subject to bandwidth restrictions based on your preferences. You hold a severe political conflict. You claim to value freedom and property but oppose net neutrality. The silliness of your statements speaks for itself. Good day.
stealthc
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
this is nothing more than a tyrannical power grab over free speech that is veiled as it's savior. What a joke.

It's up to the people now to take back what is theirs. This does nothing but open the door to regulation and control by the government. The government should have no dominion on the internet, it should be up to the free market to decide where it goes, and not the fcc or any regulatory body.
Arkaleus
2.3 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
America is struggling with the emergence of a new fascist-socialist power faction, very similar to the NAZIs our grandfathers destroyed. Now that they have gained authority and overcome the executive and legislative branches, they seek to address the "oversight" of allowing freedom to exist on the Internet.

The old bastards behind the new order didn't really understand the implications of having a free network, and instead focused on consolidating the book publishers, television, print media. If it weren't for the internet, we would have never understood the nature of the powers in play.

You can see the division between Americans in the responses to this forum - An amazing change has overcome the people in the last 10 years. A large portion of Americans no longer share the ideologies of limited rule or constitution, they have fallen into the seduction of power and now heil the new world order.

Civil war is inevitable.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
Arkaleus, civil war is only inevitable if people like you go out and start shooting people you disagree with. I disagree with you but have no plans to start shooting anyone. Do you?

http://www.wired....ty-tiers

There's a link that might open some people's eyes as to why exactly Net Neutrality is necessary to protect entrepreneurship on the internet (and therefor the creation of new, productive, non-government jobs in the tech sector). If comcast can charge you extra to get access to sites that are not owned by them (which they have already hinted they would do), then what chance do competitors have who may have a superior service, but that can be throttled at will by the landlords who own the lines?

People who oppose net neutrality either own shares in comcast or have no idea what is in their best interest.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
Net neutrality protects your property. You pay for internet and should not be subject to bandwidth restrictions based on your preferences. You hold a severe political conflict. You claim to value freedom and property but oppose net neutrality. The silliness of your statements speaks for itself. Good day.

Did you even bother to read the linked article in the WSJ, which clearly details that these are self-proclaimed Marxists behind the Orwellian-named "net neutrality" movement"? (In case you live in Rio Linda, Marxists are just Progressives on steroids.) And that their ultimate goal is far more ominous than just "protecting your property"?

If this is allowed to stand, the government will slowly begin to interfere with the political content of the net. But guess what, leftling, that cuts both ways. Will you really be so happy when a Republican gets elected and they have that power over YOUR speech?

(And for SH, please refer to my earlier explanation of "Orwellian named".)
Mesafina
4 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2010
geokstr, you are so caught up in some kind of conspiracy theory it's surprising. Watch out for those black helicopters, the UN is gonna get you!

Seriously, do you even understand the issue here? Are you involved in doing business on the internet at all? I am and I can tell you for a FACT that if we as a society do nothing to preserve net neutrality now, then in 10 years you will have ISP's essentially deciding what businesses on the internet succeed and fail arbitrarily by throttling speed and charging extra fees for access to competing services. Then they will slowly expand to provide as many profitable services as possible, to maximize their profits. There will be no competition so the services will suck and cost alot. And entrepreneurship will be dead on your glorious new feudal internet.

Is that what you want?
AkiBola
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
The power grabbing Julius Seizure at the FCC will find things are not so easy after January and Congress becomes divided. The republicans will thwart the FCC takeover of Al Gore's interwebs, and box in the FCC to what the US Supreme Court has already decided it has power to regulate, and not one byte more. If net neutrality is so good, have Congress debate the issue and let the legislative process play out as it should.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2010
geokstr, you are so caught up in some kind of conspiracy theory it's surprising. Watch out for those black helicopters, the UN is gonna get you!

Seriously, do you even understand the issue here? Are you involved in doing business on the internet at all? I am and I can tell you for a FACT that if we as a society do nothing to preserve net neutrality now, then in 10 years you will have ISP's essentially deciding what businesses on the internet succeed and fail arbitrarily by throttling speed and charging extra fees for access to competing services. Then they will slowly expand to provide as many profitable services as possible, to maximize their profits. There will be no competition so the services will suck and cost alot. And entrepreneurship will be dead on your glorious new feudal internet.

Is that what you want?

If that occurs, then a new 'internet' will emerge to compete.
Arkaleus
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
We can call the ideology of the ruling factions "Inverted Totalitarianism"

http://www.thenat...arianism

Mesafina, civil war is the historically constant condition that results from a large state mismanaging power so badly that it experiences systemic collapse. The nature of competing factions makes it inevitable.

It has *nothing* to do with what any individual does with his guns, or if he sees black helicopters, or whatever nonsense you said in above caption.
geokstr
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2010
Seriously, do you even understand the issue here?

And I guess I'll have to repeat for the reading challenged, did you even look at the article in the WSJ?

The proponents who have been pushing for this faux "neutrality" are not looking to keep Comcast from setting up discriminatory pricing strategies. THEY ARE HARD-CORE, SELF-PROCLAIMED MARXISTS, who admit that their eventual goal is control over the content of the internet.

Who needs to imagine "black helicopters" when the pilots of the damned things are proud to tell you they exist and what they're being used for. I can only surmise that, in the guise of some kind of free marketeer, you're just another leftling trying to push your leftist religion on everyone else.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
And I guess I'll have to repeat for the reading challenged, did you even look at the article in the WSJ?
I couldn't until now. My internet provider filters out the WSJ and no one on our network could see it, you know, until they passed these regulations that required the provider to allow access from a competing political ideology.
Mesafina
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
Not everyone who supports net neutrality is a marxist just because some of it's supporters may be marxists, any more then you can say people who support the military are nazi's just because nazi's supported military expansion. Your logic is painfully flawed and shows how you just immediately clump people into giant generic groups based on your own preconceptions. That is not scientific, that is moronic.

As long as we're playing the game of generalizations, it's funny you accuse me of preaching some leftist religion when plenty of people on the right push their ACTUAL religion on others. And if you want to argue that that is just a minority of people, you should have thought about that before you lumped all net neutrality supporters in with marxists.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2010
Not everyone who supports net neutrality is a marxist

But they are their useful idiots.
The objective of n.n. as stated by the Marxists is to destroy the capitalist media providers. That will leave NPR and PBS?
Mesafina
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
That's their view of it maybe, but they are idiots if they think that's what this is going to do. Please explain to me now how exactly this is going to 'destroy' the free market for media? I want details, since you sound so sure of yourself you must be crawling with them.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
But they are their useful idiots.
As opposed to useless idiots like yourself?

The objective of n.n. as stated by the Marxists is to destroy the capitalist media providers. That will leave NPR and PBS?
No, that'd be the producers, the providers would be the people who actually transmit it. Comcast, verizon, etc. Free media, I'd be for that, you know, the way it was in the good ole days, right Marjon?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
""At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." "
{This is called fascism.}
"The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio. "
"more than 50% of the public argued that, as a private resource, the Internet should not be regulated by the federal government."
{And SH claims to be a populist!}
http://online.wsj...LEADTop=
Socialist groups bought and paid for the nna.
Let's hope Congress will step up next year and end it.
Javinator
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
Being FOR free market and AGAINST net neutrality is mindboggling.

Internet companies are restricting access to services on the internet that compete with the services that the internet company provides. This is REGULATION BY the internet companies that you hate.

This is the reality of the monopolization attempts that would occur with your "government-free free market". They definitely do not benefit the customer as you think they will in your dream world. Rather than providing a better service, companies will attempt to prevent access to competing services.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
Being FOR free market and AGAINST net neutrality is mindboggling.

Internet companies are restricting access to services on the internet that compete with the services that the internet company provides. This is REGULATION BY the internet companies that you hate.

This is the reality of the monopolization attempts that would occur with your "government-free free market". They definitely do not benefit the customer as you think they will in your dream world. Rather than providing a better service, companies will attempt to prevent access to competing services.

Billions of consumers will force a response much more quickly than the FCC.
Facebook makes a little tweak their users don't like and they find out very quickly. They either change it or lose customers.
Google is running an annoying pop up add for chrome which does little to curry my favor.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
"The same organization that forced all consumers to buy Ma Bell-made telephones for decades, the same FCC that enforced speech codes via radio "fairness doctrines," the same FCC that took two decades after its invention to OK cellular technology for the marketplace and acted similarly sluggishly with cable and satellite innovation has no business online. It has a history of hurting consumers, not protecting them. "
"It is likely that a new Congress -- or perhaps the courts -- will undo this regulatory power play. And though "net neutrality," or "open Internet" (no one needs to worry; doublespeak is still flourishing), may not survive, it reminds us that the FCC's institutional positions conflict with the vibrancy and freedom of the Internet.

Positions that are as archaic as they are detrimental."
http://www.realcl...325.html
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
1) Define "net neutrality".

2) Decide if you support the concept or not.

3) Decide if these new rules support net neutrality or not.

4) Resume beating each other up over arguements about what basic terms like socialism mean, call everyone else a nazi and get drunk together while singing Irish songs.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
SH asserts "follow the law", except when he doesn't like it.
"A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

"the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices,

Read more: http://news.cnet....8ssZoLLy

Only Congress is supposed to create the laws.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
Not everyone who supports net neutrality is a marxist just because some of it's supporters may be marxists

Marxists are the prime pushers of this concept. (Read the WSJ article.) Do you really think they're doing it for the noble purpose of protecting the "small people" from the evil capitalist-roaders who make evil profits? Then you know nothing about Marxists, whose entire purpose is power for communism, period.

Tell you what, if I'm wrong, and this is harmless, then nobody gets hurt. I'll even be willing to sincerely apologize. But if you're wrong about what this is all about, we can all watch how quickly this new power gets co-opted by the far left, and content begins to get strangled.

But let me guess. You're a liberal, which means you have no problem with re-imposing the Orwellian named (that's for you, SH) "Fairness Doctrine", shutting down talk radio and muzzling Fox. Care to deny that?

That generalization stuff can be pretty accurate sometimes, like stereotypes.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
Only Congress is supposed to create the laws.
Again you show us your overwhelming lack of knowledge when it comes to Republic or Law. Rather sad for someone who ran for congress. Perhaps that's why you were thoroughly defeated.
http://www.boston...n_1.html
Marxists are the prime pushers of this concept. (Read the WSJ article.)
Or you could read an article from any publication that wasn't owned by an internet provider, Rupert Murdoch, and you'll find they come to the opposite conclusion.

Are you two really that happy sucking a corporatist's dick all day long for no benefit outside of an enforced ideology of false freedom? At least you can serve in the military now, no thanks to your own ideals of DADT.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2010
Well, SH, I guess you told us. You seem to be quite homophobic for a leftling, but then again, your descent into slime was totally expected.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
Again you show us your overwhelming lack of knowledge when it comes to Republic or Law.
Congress does not have to make the laws now?
Lets tell them not to come back next year and save lots of money.
Obama and his socialist staff can then write the laws.

So it sounds like SH is just fine with a dictatorship as long as they create laws he likes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. "
http://patdollard...t-order/

When a court ruled that a Catholic nurse can be forced to participate in an abortion, SH was pleased with the court's decision.
When the court states the FCC has no authority to control the internet, SH is happy when the executive branch creates law to do so anyway. That is NOT rule of law which SH claims to support.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
"The FCC is not motivated by any screwing the broadband companies have given customers. "

"What grieves the FCC is the screwing the broadband industry might deliver. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said as much in his prepared remarks, in which he decried the lack of enforceable rules, processes, and means of recourse for citizens seeking to protect Internet innovators, consumers, and speakers. "
{It is ALL about power.}
"But then why—in the absence of FCC regulatory powers to ban such Internet land-grabs—haven't the broadband providers erected such walled gardens? Because 1) they face competition from another broadband provider and don't want to give their customers an incentive to leave, or 2) where they're the only broadband provider, they tend not to want to give a potential competitor encouragement to enter their market."
http://www.slate....agenum/2
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
"If the FCC is as keen about encouraging Internet innovation and entrepreneurship and forestalling censorship as its chairman claims to be, there is a smarter policy framework to pursue. First, the FCC should avoid cementing the current broadband monopolies and duopolies into place by encouraging new entrants. One way to encourage new land-based Internet providers would be to replace municipal- and state-franchise laws, which extract concessions and cash from cable systems and telephone companies for the right to string line, with a federal-franchise system that simplifies the process—and can't shake the new entrants down or otherwise impede them. "
http://www.slate....agenum/2
As I have pointed out, local govts control choices with franchise fees.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
Congress does not have to make the laws now?
Congreess is not the sole legal authority of the US. I think you've said this yourself in the past.
Lets tell them not to come back next year and save lots of money.
Republican House, they're not going to save money or do any substantive work anyway.
Obama and his socialist staff can then write the laws.
Yeah, pass, thanks.
So it sounds like SH is just fine with a dictatorship as long as they create laws he likes.
I'd suggest you re-read my statements of opinion on the matter.
When a court ruled that a Catholic nurse can be forced to participate in an abortion, SH was pleased with the court's decision.
Yes, I like it when people are required to do the job they signed up to do.
When the court states the FCC has no authority to control the internet, SH is happy when the executive branch creates law to do so anyway.
ISPs are not the internet, they are an onramp to the internet and under the perview of FCC.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
As I have pointed out, local govts control choices with franchise fees.
Those laws are in place to prevent us from having 40 telephone polls per 50' of street. That synopsis of what "should" be done is almost as ignorant to the laws as you are.

If your IQ got any lower I think you'd stop breathing.
Javinator
5 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2010
Billions of consumers will force a response much more quickly than the FCC.


I understand what your vision is about: it's essentially natural selection but with companies. Those with practices that don't work to support the consumer will receive no customers or will lose customers and will die. Those that provide reasonable services at reasonable prices will live.

The problem with this view is it's not realistic. In a free unregulated market there are more ways than just "benefitting the customer".

I could sell you asbestos insulation CHEAP and not label it as dangerous or containing asbestos at all since there are no regulations telling me to do otherwise. Effects wouldn't be noticed right away since they're chronic and I'd make a ton of money. There would be no consequences to me whatsoever. Word of mouth you say? People won't buy?They wouldn't know. I paid off the local media outlets with my profits so there's no issue there (no regulations saying I can't).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
Those laws are in place to prevent us from having 40 telephone polls per 50' of street.

I see cable lines and telephone lines on existing power polls owned by the electric utility.
In many modern cities today, cables are buried.
But, is it cheaper for a company to install its own poles or lease existing ones?
I suspect the lease option would be preferred.
Like the FCC, SH fabricates a govt solution to a problem that does not exist.
Javinator
5 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
Because my asbestos insulation is so cheap, other local companies would be forced to close down or match my prices. Unfortunately, without using dangerous materials these other companies can't do it and are forced to close allowing me to monopolize the market. Without competition I can raise my prices to whatever I see fit and increase my profit margin.

Another company pops up to compete? No problem. As long as they're not using asbestos they won't be able to match my prices. Worst case scenario I just lower mine again to beat theirs since my profit margins are already huge.

People are assholes marjon. A complete removal of regualtions hurts consumers (who, in the "free market" are now completely uninformed or misinformed because companies aren't forced to disclose anything or can lie without consequence).
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2010
I could sell you asbestos insulation CHEAP and not label it as dangerous or containing asbestos at all since there are no regulations telling me to do otherwise.

"the hazards of asbestos were recorded as early as Roman times. Both Pliny the Elder and the first century geographer Strabo noted that workers exposed to asbestos had many health problems. Pliny the Elder recommended that quarry slaves from asbestos mines not be purchased because "they die young."
"As early as 1908 insurance companies began decreasing policies and benefits for asbestos workers. Metropolitan Life increased the premiums for such workers. In 1928 Cook identified the effects of asbestos in the lungs as asbestosis. "
"despite the evidence of severe health risks related to exposure to asbestos dating as far back as the first century, the production of products containing asbestos continued to grow until the mid 1970s."
cont
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2010
"Documents reveal that asbestos manufacturers were aware of the health risks related to exposure to asbestos from the 1940s and 1950s, but chose to conceal this information from their employees. In the 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began to regulate asbestos."
http://environmen...004.html
Why did the govt take so long?

The free market responded in 1908 when insurance companies raised rates on asbestos workers.

""There is no doubt in my mind that the Challenger disaster was caused by asbestos paranoia.""

"the U.S. has not banned imports of the most dangerous type, the blue, because some government officials don't want to admit that the white asbestos is far less dangerous. They want to maintain the fiction that all three types are equally dangerous and their use should be equally restricted or phased out.
http://spiderjohn...tos.html
Javinator
5 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
Paraphrase:The hazards of asbestos have been known for a long time


That's all well and good marjon, but if you don't know I'm selling you asbestos that knowledge doesn't do much good.

The free market responded in 1908 when insurance companies raised rates on asbestos workers.


So it was known to be dangerous by insurance companies. Unregulated and without serious consquence it remained in use due to it's cheap prices and lakc of awareness by the general public.

Why did the govt take so long?


That's not what we're arguing about. The point is that when the EPA and OSHA began to regulate asbestos then it ceased to be used as insulation in new buildings (likely a gradual phase out, I'm honestly not sure, but the point remains valid).

Your quote actually shows that, unregulated, companies implement work practices that show they care more about profits than safety of workers or consumers. You're quotemining against yourself.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
Those laws are in place to prevent us from having 40 telephone polls per 50' of street.

I see cable lines and telephone lines on existing power polls owned by the electric utility.
In many modern cities today, cables are buried.
But, is it cheaper for a company to install its own poles or lease existing ones?
I suspect the lease option would be preferred.
Like the FCC, SH fabricates a govt solution to a problem that does not exist.

Here's what telephone polls look like in a free market where anyone can string whatever they want.
http://photos.tra...pole.jpg

Marjon, If you think the lease option works out so well how do you think Nortel went out of business?
Verizon metered their leased traffic to the point of obscurity. Northpoint sued verizon, Erickson sued verizon, well, actually just about everyone has sued verizon over this.

Simply more ignorance from you.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
A complete removal of regualtions hurts consumers

I support free market regulations.
UL is a fine example of such a process. The IIHS has done more for auto safety than govt regulations.
Corporations WANT govt to regulate them to reduce competitors.
Free markets (insurance companies, lawsuits) are quite effective at regulation and until the FCC clamps down on the internet, people have access to a wide variety of information.
Private auditors like NSF.org now certify pet food products from China after intentional contamination.
The regulations, the standards of products are best set by private industry standards organizations and certified by private, independent auditors because they have an incentive to be successful.
US govt regulators are not fired or punished when millions of USDA certified eggs or millions of hamburger are contaminated.
If a private auditor certified such products, they would soon be out of business.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.9 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
Documents reveal that asbestos manufacturers were aware of the health risks related to exposure to asbestos from the 1940s and 1950s, but chose to conceal this information from their employees.
Why did the govt take so long?
Because the companies, that you state are moral and have to look out for their customers' best interests, didn't tell anyone that their products were killing people.
""There is no doubt in my mind that the Challenger disaster was caused by asbestos paranoia."
Whoever said that was a moron. Challenger was caused by yet another free market disaster, substandard manufacture and testing of components to save money. The engineer responsible for whistleblowing on NASA for ignoring his recommendations of further testing found this and revealed it to the general public. You should know better, but again must be hard to hear current events with your head that far up your ass.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
I support free market regulations.
Which is, no regulation. Be plain Marjon. The only reason why you support no regulation is because at that point in time the bribes you receive wouldn't be illegal.

Can't wait til they finally catch you in the act, and yes, they're trying.
UL is a fine example of such a process. The IIHS has done more for auto safety than govt regulations.
The UL cert is useless and on most products has been forged by the "Free Markets" of China and Korea because there are no laws in those countries against use of the UL seal without UL certification.

It's getting painful to listen to the continuous stream of lies you spew.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
Challenger was caused by yet another free market disaster, substandard manufacture and testing of components to save money.

It was caused by NASA managers wanting get a politically important mission off.
Morton Thiokol engineers did fail to present o-ring blow out data as a function of launch temperatures which showed o-rings problems at low temperatures, but o-ring blow outs happened in the past and there was no catastrophic failure. That is poor risk management, but the final decision and accountability lies with NASA.
"Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds. "
http://www.ralent...ort.html
The immediate cause was cold o-rings. The systemic cause was poor NASA management.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
no laws in those countries against use of the UL seal without UL certification.

So why don't US laws prevent their importation?

"Of the 21 billion UL marks placed on products annually, very few are fakes, says John Drengenberg, consumer affairs manager at Underwriters Laboratories. Most fake labels are on high-volume, low-cost items such as night-lights, extension cords, and power strips. The real strip bears a holographic label; the fake one has a printed "UL" label that the Chamber of Commerce identified as fake."
http://www.consum...nterfeit

http://www.iacc.o...nies.php
"The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition is the world's largest non-profit organization devoted solely to protecting intellectual property and deterring counterfeiting. "
When govts fail, private organizations step up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
"The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition Inc., (IACC) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization devoted solely to combating product counterfeiting and piracy. Formed in 1979, today it is comprised of a cross section of business and industry - from autos, apparel, luxury goods and pharmaceuticals, to food, software and entertainment - the IACC's members' combined annual revenues exceed $650 billion. The IACC develops and conducts training for domestic and foreign law enforcement officials, submits comments on intellectual property enforcement laws and regulations in the United States and abroad and participates in regional and international programs aimed at improving intellectual property enforcement standards."
http://www.iacc.o...tory.php
When govts fail, a 'cross section of business and industry' step up to solve the problem.
Javinator
5 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
Free markets (insurance companies, lawsuits) are quite effective at regulation and until the FCC clamps down on the internet, people have access to a wide variety of information.


First, lawsuits don't do much without regulation and laws since you have no grounds to sue if it's not against regulations to misrepresent your product.

Second, as has been repeated ad nauseum, the FCC is not clamping down on the internet. The FCC in this case is preventing ISPs from "clamping down" on the internet as they already have been.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
The FCC in this case is preventing ISPs from "clamping down" on the internet as they already have been.

By what authority? A federal court stated explicitly the FCC has no such authority.

have no grounds to sue

Why not? Violation of an agreement, a contract, is sufficient grounds.
Javinator
5 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
You also haven't given any reason why my hypothetical profitable asbestos company would not make me a lot of money in your free market.

It would be completely legal for me to do this with no regulations governing the goods I sell and how I choose to package and advertise them.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
You also haven't given any reason why my hypothetical profitable asbestos company would not make me a lot of money in your free market.

It would be completely legal for me to do this with no regulations governing the goods I sell and how I choose to package and advertise them.

Your workers would sue for health claims and your liability insurance rates would be quite high to pay off those claims requiring you to raise prices.
Given insurance companies knew of this in 1908, I wonder what govt exemptions were given to companies to use asbestos. That was a great period of industrial growth requiring products like asbestos.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
Marjon, we could sit here and refute your tripe all day long. It's just bullshit story after bullshit story with you.

One would think you'd want to spend less time saying incriminating things on the internet.
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
Why would I provide insurance to my workers at all? What would they sue me based on? There are no regulations any more stating I need to take care of my workers or that I need to inform them of hazards so there is no basis for the lawsuits.

I'll pay them well because my profit margins are high so I would be able to do that. It would be low-skill labour so high turnover would also not be a concern. Plus, since the pay would be so high for unskilled labour it wouldn't be hard to just hire kids right out of highschool. Or just children in general since in your world there's no reason not to.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
My father worked for an insulation company for many years. They stopped using asbestos decades before it was outlawed, but they still got sued over it. lol, if people knew how bad the alternative product is for the environment, they may prefer asbestos. The process for making rock wool (the fireproofing alternative to asbestos) involves massive coke furnaces that melt rocks (releasing carbon and other nasty gasses). It makes a coal power plant look clean by comparrison.

If you think asbestos is dangerous, you should read the MSDS for a MIG welder. Standard MIG welding wire gives off just about every dangerous metal vapor under the sun, concentrated right in the breathing space of the guy doing the weld. Everyone knows it's deadly, but there's no alternative to replace welding, so nobody talks about it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
Why would I provide insurance to my workers at all? What would they sue me based on? There are no regulations any more stating I need to take care of my workers or that I need to inform them of hazards so there is no basis for the lawsuits.

I'll pay them well because my profit margins are high so I would be able to do that. It would be low-skill labour so high turnover would also not be a concern. Plus, since the pay would be so high for unskilled labour it wouldn't be hard to just hire kids right out of highschool. Or just children in general since in your world there's no reason not to.

Try it, or give examples of successful businesses that followed your plan.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
Standard MIG welding wire gives off just about every dangerous metal vapor under the sun, concentrated right in the breathing space of the guy doing the weld. Everyone knows it's deadly, but there's no alternative to replace welding, so nobody talks about it.
Well there is a matter of concentration and the OSHA regulations that require HEPA 2 filtration in a MIG environment.

As for rockwool, yeah, that stuff is brutally nasty to manufacture, however, the common replacement for asbestos is boric acid treated denim now a days, is it not?
Try it, or give examples of successful businesses that followed your plan.
The US Meat Packing Industry, The US Loom manufacture industry, Hammermill Paper company, The Textile industry, the electronics industry (in Asia, US laws were too restrictive at the time), GE, Bosch, Bendix, etc.

Literally thousands of examples, including your favorite Standard Oil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
If SH says it's true, it must be true. He is never wrong, except about me.
SH, be careful who you threaten on-line.
Physorg can find you if required.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
Yeah, right. HEPA 2 filters in a typical fabrication and assembly plant? I've never seen it. They usually have one or two electric air cleaners overhead, but having ducted air swapping equipment is almost never used. Sure in a G.E. or Toyota plant, but not in the average small to medium sized business. Auto mechanic shop for example.

Totally off topic now. I worked at the St Joseph Mo Altec assembly plant for four years.

http://www.altec.com/

I was so sick so often that I became resistant to the strongest antibiotics. They said it was from my smoking, not the welding. I finished my degree at night school and quit that job. I have been to the doctor for illness once in the past 10 years. I still smoke. Like most places, they had no filter system. When you're on a creeper under a truck, how do you get a filter in there?

Nope, mineral, rock or ceramic wool is still common in insulation and products like brake pads. Ceramic fiber may even be carcinogenic, but they aren't sure.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2010
Yeah, right. HEPA 2 filters in a typical fabrication and assembly plant? I've never seen it.
Yeah I know, I've never seen them in an exhaust pipe shop either, but the regulations are there.
If SH says it's true, it must be true. He is never wrong, except about me.
SH, be careful who you threaten on-line.
Physorg can find you if required.
Go ahead and show me where I threatened someone, or are you backing down like your lady friend freethinking did?
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
Go ahead and show me where I threatened someone


Yeah, that's what I was thinking. What are you talking about Marjon? I see where Skeptic has thrown out some insults, but I don't see any threats.

Yeah I know, I've never seen them in an exhaust pipe shop either, but the regulations are there


Which brings us back to the original topic; the FCC rules. It doesn't matter what the rules are so much as the level and manner of enforcement.

Joke: Hey does this mean my employer has to stop blocking porn and gambling sites on our network?
Justsayin
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
Right on ryggesogn2. Keep up the good work. Luckily this junk will be overturned or reversed soon.
Justsayin
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
Right on ryggesogn2. Keep up the good work. Luckily this junk will be overturned or reversed soon.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
For what its worth:

Skeptic_Heretic - Dec 12, 2010

* Rank: 3 / 5 (2)

Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).

You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.

Skeptic_Heretic - Dec 13, 2010

* Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

I hope you're ready when you next run for office, Marjon. You may not like what happens in relation to this website.

http://www.physor...firstCmt
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2010
Which brings us back to the original topic; the FCC rules. It doesn't matter what the rules are so much as the level and manner of enforcement.

Does it matter if the courts say the FCC has the authority?
It doesn't matter what the rules are? BTW, what ARE the official rules the FCC has no authority to enforce?
Should these undetermined rules be strictly enforced on all or selectively enforced against political opponents?
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
There you go again, with your lame argument about the FCC not having authority because there isn't a law passed by the legislation.

You know, that's called statutory law. Most law is not statutory law. Most law is what is called case law or common law, and is made by the courts. It's like the 'law' that says you have to pay federal income tax. There's actually not a statutory law that says you have to pay federal income tax, but there is case law based on IRS rules which will put you in jail if you don't pay. The Congress can't possibly write statutory law for everything the government needs to do. That's why we empower agencies who specialize in trying to make the best decisions for society. That means sometimes they make rules in favor of big business, because sometimes that's good for us. It's not a perfect system, but that's how it is. If you don't like it, move to Cina. When I retire, my GF and I are moving to her home country of Colombia so we won't have to deal with the BS.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
For what its worth:

Skeptic_Heretic - Dec 12, 2010

* Rank: 3 / 5 (2)

Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).

You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.

Skeptic_Heretic - Dec 13, 2010

* Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

I hope you're ready when you next run for office, Marjon. You may not like what happens in relation to this website.

http://www.physor...firstCmt

I forgot to add SH claims to know where I live and work and has posted that information.
Why would he feel the need to do that?
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
Should these undetermined rules be strictly enforced on all or selectively enforced against political opponents


What will most likely happen is that the FCC will do almost nothing to actively enforce these rules. They will in stead passively enforce them. That means they will step in when a complaint is filed by an agrieved party. Then it will go to court and both parties will have their chance to argue the merits of their case. This isn't going to be as drastic as you think. Companies already take eachother to court on these issues, but they have to use rules that were never meant to cover the internet, like anti-trust rules, because there aren't enough rules to tell the courts how they should decide on internet policy. There HAS to be a traffic cop on the internet. The only question is who gets to be the traffic cop. I don't mind the FCC doing it as opposed to say the EPA, SEC or Ag Dept.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
Which brings us back to the original topic; the FCC rules. It doesn't matter what the rules are so much as the level and manner of enforcement.

Joke: Hey does this mean my employer has to stop blocking porn and gambling sites on our network?
This law will work as OSHA does. If I worked in a Meineke I could sue the owner if he hadn't taken proper precautions or informed me that I had a right to request them in writing. If I worked at a brake shop, or exhaust shop and came down with mesothelioma without having the hazards explained to me I could sue for a lot of cash. That would be why the local company in the Northeast, Brake Pro, went out of business. It was sued to bankruptcy by the employees and consumers.
They(FCC) will in stead passively enforce them. That means they will step in when a complaint is filed by an agrieved party.
That's exactly how these regs will work. It is allowing an avenue for consumer recourse against a corporation. Much needed.
Skultch
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
A federal court stated explicitly the FCC has no such authority.


Wrong. Reread the actual case instead of the spin.

The court said it had no authority to levy a fine against Comcast because it had no rule in place before the fine. The FCC was claiming a rule that didn't exist was broken. Now the FCC has the rule in place. The court is NOT going to strike this down. It's actually quite a simple situation if you look at the facts instead of the spin.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
Try it, or give examples of successful businesses that followed your plan.


I can't try it. There are regulations in place that would make my business practices highly illegal and would land me in jail.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
A federal court stated explicitly the FCC has no such authority.


Wrong. Reread the actual case instead of the spin.

The court said it had no authority to levy a fine against Comcast because it had no rule in place before the fine. The FCC was claiming a rule that didn't exist was broken. Now the FCC has the rule in place. The court is NOT going to strike this down. It's actually quite a simple situation if you look at the facts instead of the spin.

What are the detailed rules?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
"An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security."
http://www.news10...atid=188
But the govt can't be bothered doing anything about wikileaks and this is the same govt you all want 'policing' the internet?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2010
"But the truth is there is nothing most business people like less than free markets.

Think about it. Competition is good for consumers because it keeps prices low while increasing the quality and choices of products and services. Yet competition is hard work for businesses. They have to fight for customers by innovating and evolving in ways that consumers demand. "
"To avoid the gritty work of fighting it out in a free market, organized private interests -- such as Louisiana’s licensed funeral directors -- lobby the government for special regulations, preferential tax treatment and laws that keep out competition. They lobby lawmakers to constrain the same free markets in which they originally achieved success. "
http://www.bloomb...ugy.html
How do all you 'progressives' like doing the bidding of big business with all those regulations?
Schools need to start teaching about the tar baby again.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
The future thanks to the FCC (and useful idiots here):
"Mr. Chavez is only a step or two ahead of the Democrats on this one. In the name of protecting the much-abused Venezuelans, he has asked for a law imposing draconian broadcastlike regulations on the Internet. He would ban all messages showing "disrespect for public authorities," that "incite or promote hatred," or create "anxiety" in the population."
http://www.washin.../?page=2
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2010
It just occurred to me, ryggesogn2 posted this:
I forgot to add SH claims to know where I live and work and has posted that information.

I happen to know that the quoted comment was directed at the poster Marjon. While it may be an open secret that ryggesogn2 is Marjon, this confirms it unequivocally. So why do you still bother with ryggesogn2 and why did you bother spawning this sockpuppet if you're going to post the same old crap? Were you banned?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2010
""Every half-wit can use a whip and force other people to obey. But it requires brains and diligence to serve the public. (...) He who is unfit to serve his fellow citizens wants to rule them." - Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy7"

Nothing changes.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
The threats that concern me more than SH's weak attempts are those threats from the 'progressive' socialists that threaten everyone's life, liberty and property.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
A federal court stated explicitly the FCC has no such authority.


Wrong. Reread the actual case instead of the spin.

The court said it had no authority to levy a fine against Comcast because it had no rule in place before the fine. The FCC was claiming a rule that didn't exist was broken. Now the FCC has the rule in place. The court is NOT going to strike this down. It's actually quite a simple situation if you look at the facts instead of the spin.

What are the detailed rules?

If you don't know them, you're ill equipped to argue them. That's simple common sense.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2010
The rules were just posted yesterday, 23 DEC 10.
Here is a link:
http://www.pcmag....5,00.asp
Unless you were writing this document NO one here knew the details until yesterday so how could anyone be equipped to argue for them?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
The rules were just posted yesterday, 23 DEC 10.
Here is a link:
http://www.pcmag....5,00.asp
Unless you were writing this document NO one here knew the details until yesterday so how could anyone be equipped to argue for them?

Unlike you, when the government starts creating ducomentation that I'm interested in I call and request a copy. The Proposed net neutrality bill which has been available for quite a while was my starting point, further documentation was available via email from fccinfo@fcc.gov and foia@fcc.gov. Beyond that, partial regulatory documentation was available as early as 12/1/10 as released by multiple press organizations.

Try looking for the information before you make sweeping generalizations as invented by entertainers like Howie Carr and Rush Limbaugh.

So now that you have the full text available to you. Feel free to show us how this will negatively impact free trade.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2010
Feel free to show us how this will negatively impact free trade.

The burden should be on the govt to prove it will NOT impact free trade. But that is impossible as that is the INTENT of such regulations.

"there was “no significant market failure of demonstrated
consumer harm” to support Net Neutrality.10"
"Competition and consumer
demand have ensured that the Internet remains open, and the majority offers no record evidence to
suggest otherwise. The FTC accurately found that consumers “have a powerful collective voice …[and] a
strong preference for the current open access to Internet content and applications.”"
"The majority’s repeated fallback is that network operators have incentives to act badly.
Throughout the decision, the majority presumes a malign intent on the part of broadband providers for
which there is no factual foundation."

http://hraunfoss....01A1.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"the Order sets up a transparency regime that
may be so detailed and engineering-focused, only Internet companies and special interest groups could
find them useful. The average consumer will be no better off."
{This is consistent with regulations which will favor big companies over consumers and competition. SH claims to want to stick it to Comcast, etc. Read Tar Baby.}
"In the majority’s quest to address the
unsubstantiated allegation that broadband providers may try to pick winners and losers, the government
has picked its own winners."
"The Order’s focus is on maintaining
the “status quo” and “current practices” in how networks are managed and operated. Given the dynamic
nature of the Internet, this is the wrong objective. The Internet is not a mature market."
"The threat
of government censure will unmistakably chill new developments, including those that would be proconsumer
and pro-competition. Innovate at your own risk is the wrong message to send."
{No for 'progressives'}
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2010
From the 'liberal' Seattle Times:
"Advocates of a free and open Internet found no comfort in a muddle of rules subject to more interpretations than Tarot cards. The rules do not preclude charging priority rates for faster service. They bump up against nondiscrimination rules, but are not forbidden. So it begins."
http://seattletim...neu.html
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
{This is consistent with regulations which will favor big companies over consumers and competition. SH claims to want to stick it to Comcast, etc. Read Tar Baby.}
No it isn't, it is quite antithetical to large companies as having a majority share of physical infrastructure does not allow for a majority share of provided content.
the government
has picked its own winners."
Explain how that comes to pass. Your source is ignoring prevention of discriminitory practice preventing the owners of physical infrastructure from determining content, forcing them to compete for acclaim regardless of their majority ownership.
Given the dynamic
nature of the Internet, this is the wrong objective. The Internet is not a mature market."
The internet is a fully matured market, has been for over 10 years now.
The threat
of government censure will unmistakably chill new developments, including those that would be proconsumer and pro-competition.
Laughable.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
Marjon, your sources all seem to state that innovation will be squashed.

The only innovation that a lack of net neutrality favors is the innovation of criminality and contractual abuse. What your source is effectively calling for is the market to leverage mechanisms that will obfuscate content to violate contractual obligations and industrial conflict and sabotage in order to promote upstart businesses.

your source is calling for the internet to become a black market of content proxies and malformed packet traffic to obscure data content. He's calling for an internet wild west. Your inability to comprehend this shows that oyu are rather unfit to discuss economics or technological innovation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
Marjon, your sources all seem to state that innovation will be squashed.

The only innovation that a lack of net neutrality favors is the innovation of criminality and contractual abuse. What your source is effectively calling for is the market to leverage mechanisms that will obfuscate content to violate contractual obligations and industrial conflict and sabotage in order to promote upstart businesses.

your source is calling for the internet to become a black market of content proxies and malformed packet traffic to obscure data content. He's calling for an internet wild west. Your inability to comprehend this shows that oyu are rather unfit to discuss economics or technological innovation.

The source was the FCC.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
The source was the FCC.
Link your source material.
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
I happen to know that the quoted comment was directed at the poster Marjon. While it may be an open secret that ryggesogn2 is Marjon, this confirms it unequivocally. So why do you still bother with ryggesogn2 and why did you bother spawning this sockpuppet


He uses multiple accounts to boost his own comment scores and downgrade those of others. I guess those comment scores are important to him. Hey Skeptic, do you know if Caliban is also Marjon? I have a hard time keeping track of all the Marjon identities.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
Hey Skeptic, do you know if Caliban is also Marjon? I have a hard time keeping track of all the Marjon identities.
Not in the least. Caliban is Caliban exclusively. His writing cadence is wholly unique.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2010
The source was the FCC.
Link your source material.


I did. It is a link in the PCMag story.

I happen to know that the quoted comment was directed at the poster Marjon. While it may be an open secret that ryggesogn2 is Marjon, this confirms it unequivocally. So why do you still bother with ryggesogn2 and why did you bother spawning this sockpuppet


He uses multiple accounts to boost his own comment scores and downgrade those of others. I guess those comment scores are important to him. Hey Skeptic, do you know if Caliban is also Marjon? I have a hard time keeping track of all the Marjon identities.

I could care less about my ratings.
It's amusing that anyone connected with science would care about popular opinions.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2010
This applies quite nicely:
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim {aka: 'progressivims'} may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies {'progressives'}. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis, former atheist.
deepsand
5 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2010
Maybe you are too young and naive to remember when bell south nearly took control of everything.

ATT had a govt granted monopoly, remember?

No; AT&T had a natural monopoly.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
Maybe you are too young and naive to remember when bell south nearly took control of everything.

ATT had a govt granted monopoly, remember?

No; AT&T had a natural monopoly.

"Despite the popular belief that the telephone network is a natural monopoly, the AT&T monopoly survived until the 1980s not because of its naturalness but because of overt government policy." "
"After seventeen years of monopoly, the United States had a limited telephone system of 270,000 phones concentrated in the centers of the cities, with service generally unavailable in the outlying areas. After thirteen years of competition, the United States had an extensive system of six million telephones, almost evenly divided between Bell and the independents, with service available practically anywhere in the country."
http://www.cato.o...2-6.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
"Regulation played a crucial role in Vail's plans. Astute enough to realize that the kind of system he proposed--universal integrated monopoly--would stand little chance of gaining public approval without some form of public control, he embraced state regulation. In doing so, he broke with the company's long-standing opposition to what [AT&T] management had traditionally regarded as an unwarranted intrusion on its prerogatives. But after years of unfettered competition, during which the firm's financial strengths had been sapped and its efforts to build an integrated system had been dangerously undermined, regulation became a much-preferred alternative. Thus, Vail obviously saw government regulation as the way to eliminate competitors: the one-way ticket, not only to universal service, but also to monopoly profits. "
http://www.cato.o...2-6.html
And so many here support regulation, all to the benefit the big corporate interests.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2010
"Over the last two decades, millions of individuals have contributed to a remarkable expansion of freedom, creativity and commerce on the Internet that has benefited billions of people. For three FCC commissioners, that's a problem. The power to regulate, after all, is the power to control. For control freaks, few things are more tempting than an unfettered Internet.

Read more: http://www.mysana...r"
We know who the control freaks are on this site.
Parsec
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2010
What net neutrality really means is that the cost of transmitting exactly the same amount of information from one point to another should cost the same over a specified carrier no matter what the data source is.

If carriers can discriminate, charging you more for info from Netflix for example than the same information from a Netflix competitor, it gives the carriers a huge amount of power.

Republicans love giving companies more power. Its called pro-business. Its also anti-consumer, but business makes much better campaign contributions. Besides, if you can lie good enough, you can get the poor schmo's being victimized to vote for you anyway.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2010
exactly the same amount of information

How do you plan to measure that?
An ASCII text file can contain more information than a frame of video.
business makes much better campaign contributions.

Mostly to democrats who favor regulations to restrict competition.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2010
"Comcast chief executive Brian Roberts made more than $76,000 in political contributions to Democrats since 2006, compared to $13,500 in contributions to Republicans. Comcast vice president and top lobbyist David Cohen made about $180,000 to Democrats in the same period, compared to $12,000 to Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.org."
http://newsbuster...emocrats

"Two-thirds of Verizon donations went not to candidates, but to party committees, with Democrats receiving $507,500 and Republicans $384,947, mostly to help in Senate races."
"The company's lobbying efforts are the byproduct of efforts to purchase local cable franchises and changes in the technology field, said Lee Gierczynski, a Verizon spokesman.

"Our industry is rapidly changing because of technology, so it's critical that legislators are up-to-date on our industry."
http://www.buffal...2227.ece
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2010
To complete the comment:
""Our industry is rapidly changing because of technology, so it's critical that legislators are up-to-date on our industry. It's important they hear about [how] the effects of public policy can impact a company like Verizon," Gierczynski said."

http://www.buffal...2227.ece

You 'progressives' want to end such lobbying? Let the market regulate.
Politicians are no different than any other protection racket. They have the power to control a business so the business must pay even if it hopes to be left alone.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2010
Computers/Internet: Money to Congress:
Top 20:
Obama, Barack (D) $8,626,272
Kerry, John (D-MA) $3,050,171
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $2,832,807
McCain, John (R-AZ) $2,054,900
Paul, Ron (R-TX) $833,408
Eshoo, Anna (D-CA) $804,680
Murtha, John P (D-PA) $758,175
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) $743,680
Davis, Tom (R-VA) $743,604
Murray, Patty (D-WA) $717,986
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $699,878
Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) $666,383
Moran, Jim (D-VA) $652,782
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $607,340
Inslee, Jay R (D-WA) $597,344
Allen, George (R-VA) $585,711
Gore, Al (D) $558,467
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $533,200
Campbell, Tom (R-CA) $485,370
Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $472,692

5 Republicans, 15 Democrats
17% of the money went to Republicans, 83% to Democrats.

http://www.opense...torder=U
Jimee
5 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2010
We don't need a government since all the mega-corporations are more than willing to tell us what we want and how to live. Gee, thanks oligarchs!
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2010
For what its worth:

Skeptic_Heretic - Dec 12, 2010


Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).

You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.

Skeptic_Heretic - Dec 13, 2010


I hope you're ready when you next run for office, Marjon. You may not like what happens in relation to this website.


Margie,

Funny that a smarmy little crybaby like you, who has made explicit threats before -here, in this very forum- should be (again) threatening another poster with, one assumes, a retaliatory response.

But your true intent is easily discernible -you think that you can muzzle another commentor's speech- through the use of scare tactics, to invoke consequences that not even a cold day in hell would be sufficient in convincing anyone of.
In fact, I join SH in condemning you as a smarmy, sophistic, hypocritical tool.

Moron.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2010
From the 'liberal' Seattle Times:
"Advocates of a free and open Internet found no comfort in a muddle of rules subject to more interpretations than Tarot cards. The rules do not preclude charging priority rates for faster service. They bump up against nondiscrimination rules, but are not forbidden. So it begins."
http://seattletim...neu.html


Mingy, mangy, mongo,

So what is your point in quoting the "supposedly liberal" Seattle Times, then? Quite plainly, what is being documented is the dissatisfaction of putative net-neutrality advocates with these new regulations, which actually do nothing to enshrine the concept of net neutrality as a central Regulatory tenet or principle, and as noted in the quote you provided, are instead so vague as to allow all manner of excess by ISPs.

Again, I say: Moron!
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2010
I happen to know that the quoted comment was directed at the poster Marjon. While it may be an open secret that ryggesogn2 is Marjon, this confirms it unequivocally. So why do you still bother with ryggesogn2 and why did you bother spawning this sockpuppet


He uses multiple accounts to boost his own comment scores and downgrade those of others. I guess those comment scores are important to him. Hey Skeptic, do you know if Caliban is also Marjon? I have a hard time keeping track of all the Marjon identities.


Hey, G-

Thanks for playing. I got a good laugh out of that one, so I ranked it a "5". Even though I partly or wholly disagree with you most of the time, I don't always rank you with one star -like I do mangy, for instance(with one or two exceptions over the last two+ years). But, then again, mangy is a complete moron, so it's really just a case of the 100chimps/100typewriters scenario...
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2010
Once again, 'progressives' who disagree can only insult instead of defend their position.
How emotional!
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
Once again, 'progressives' who disagree can only insult instead of defend their position.
How do you know?
Cave_Man
3 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
i think we can all agree that because of this massive amount of comments that net neutrality is a good thing because if physorg didnt have the money to pay for "top tier" bandwidth then we wouldnt have been able to have such a large outpouring of comments from both sides. surely we can all realize this?
OdinsAcolyte
2 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
These rules were adopted to control not protect.
They have neither the authority nor the permission to do this. Defund them. It is coming. The American people are about to pull some Federal teeth.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2010
Once again, 'progressives' who disagree can only insult instead of defend their position


I don't think that's a fair stereotype. I've seen name-calling from all sorts of people on here, from all ideologies and all levels of intelligence. Some people can do name-calling and still back up their arguements with good logic. Other people are quite polite but not very bright. There are stupid people everywhere; they can even be President these days (Bush jr, for example, but I do wonder what Obama is hiding when he won't release his grades).

I figured you'd get a laugh out of that one Caliban. Hey, you get plenty of 5/5's from me too, even though you dare to disagree with my superior intalekt sometimes.

I give 5/5 to everyone, and 1/5 as well. I'm not prejudiced. I think everyone has an equal right to be foolish or pragmatic when they choose to. Personally though, I usually give namecalling a 1/5 no matter the source, unless it's REALLY funny.
Caliban
4 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
These rules were adopted to control not protect.
They have neither the authority nor the permission to do this. Defund them. It is coming. The American people are about to pull some Federal teeth.


That is what is techncally termed "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater". The American people need to "take back" their Govrnment, so that it serves their interests, and not simply the interests of the wealthy, especially since they get favorable treatment for pennies on the dollar, unlike the rest of us.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2010
so that it serves their interests,

What interests are those?
Take wealth from the wealthy and redistribute it or create an environment so everyone has the opportunity to earn wealth?
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2010
so that it serves their interests,

What interests are those?
Take wealth from the wealthy and redistribute it or create an environment so everyone has the opportunity to earn wealth?


MaryJane,

With respect to the subject of the article, "which interests are those" would be every individual user's interest in having equal, unrestricted, non-preferred("tiered") access to all information available on the web.

Doses that answer your purposefully disengenuous question? If not, I can easily warp it into an issue of class warfare, which appears to be where you would prefer to take it.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2010
equal, unrestricted, non-preferred("tiered") access to all information available on the web.

So sites can't charge a fee for access?
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2010
equal, unrestricted, non-preferred("tiered") access to all information available on the web.

So sites can't charge a fee for access?


...and right back to the water-muddying.
Way to add to the discussion, maryjane.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2010
equal, unrestricted, non-preferred("tiered") access to all information available on the web.

So sites can't charge a fee for access?


...and right back to the water-muddying.
Way to add to the discussion, maryjane.


That's what you said, 'unrestricted...access to all information...'.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2010
The 'populist' SH does not support popular opinion:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports..."
"American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda. "
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. "
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2010
equal, unrestricted, non-preferred("tiered") access to all information available on the web.

So sites can't charge a fee for access?


...and right back to the water-muddying.
Way to add to the discussion, maryjane.


That's what you said, 'unrestricted...access to all information...'.


The context of the article clearly points to thefear of ISPs imposing fees, tiered rate structures, et c. Therefore, my comment was in regards to unrestricted(by ISPs) access to all info on the web.

Try to follow along, and quit acting like a naughty Sunday-schooler.

Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2010
The 'populist' SH does not support popular opinion:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports..."
"American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda. "
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. "

Give us a link big boy.

Make sure it states exactly what the questions were and has the demographics of the respondents. If Rasmussen worded the question like:
"Do you want the FCC to regulate the internet like they do Television and Radio" everyone would say no.
How do you plan to measure that?
An ASCII text file can contain more information than a frame of video.
So ignorant. How can you even argue net neutrality when you don't know what a packet is?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2010
Give us a link big boy.

It tried.
It was on Drudge. Google Rasumssen.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2010
It tried.
It was on Drudge. Google Rasumssen.
I'm not going to accept drudgereport.com or conversely drudgeretort.com links as objective evidence, sorry. Only idiots do that. Produce the report.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2010
It tried.
It was on Drudge. Google Rasumssen.
I'm not going to accept drudgereport.com or conversely drudgeretort.com links as objective evidence, sorry. Only idiots do that. Produce the report.

I said: I TRIED TO LINK IT BUT PHYSORG WOULD NOT POST.

LOOK IT UP FOR YOUR SELF!

Do you know how to use a search engine?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2010
"Although it's highly unlikely net neutrality will remain in place over a period of time, as it's already been talked about as being repealed, until it is repealed, it will weigh on Netflix (Nasdaq:NFLX) in a negative way.

Citing a hypothetical 50-60 gigabyte cap, Netflix's value would change in the minds of consumers. Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) noted that "(1) in most homes, multiple people share a broadband connection (and usage cap) and (2) we estimate that the average streaming account on Netflix currently streams between 12 and 20 hours per month (using 12 to 20 GB per month)."

Ultimately it'll come down to how broadband providers will respond with pricing and how that would be passed on to consumers by Netflix.
"
http://everythinggold.blogspot.com/2010/12/netflix-nasdaqnflx-negatively-impacted.html

Links only work in quotes now?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2010
"But don’t worry, because the FCC itself has no idea what the impact of its rules will be:

The regulations prohibit unreasonable network discrimination - a category that FCC officials say would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority.

Most likely? Most likely? May I translate that for you, Mr. Anonymous FCC Officials? “We have no idea what’s going to happen with these rules. We’ll just commence firing into the crowd and see who drops. We can triage them later.”"
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/net_neutrality_for_some_big_br.html
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2010
"Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski's recent declaration, "I've been clear repeatedly that we're not going to regulate the Internet." "
"From nagging the Net to regulating broadcast speech, just about everything the FCC does is either onerous or ineffective. Either way, it's unnecessary."
"The FCC's entire approach is to rule by impulse and expand its reach whenever and wherever possible. "
"If something exists anywhere near the realm of technology or communications, the FCC tries to make it its business. But to what end? And at what cost? A 2005 study by economist Jerry Ellig estimated FCC regulations cost consumers up to $105 billion a year in additional costs and missed services. Throw in its own $338 million budget, and it is time to pull the plug on the FCC."
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/05/the-fcc-doesnt-need-to-be

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2010
The faith of the statist:
"if you hire the right people and design the bureaucratic details just right, you can regulate in a way that's "unbiased" and therefore somehow objectively "correct.""
"But no matter how much third-way hairsplitting these agencies build into their rulings, the sorts of regulatory decisions that the FCC intends to make under the new net neutrality rules are inherently arbitrary. Some practices will be shut down; some won't be pursued at all thanks to uncertainty. Others will be tweaked to please agency overseers. Some people will like the agency-approved outcomes better, some won't. FCC officials have argued that the rules are designed to prevent anyone from picking winners and losers. Yet by giving the agency the power to determine which network management practices count as unreasonable, picking winners and losers is essentially what these rules give the FCC the power to do. "
http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/28/net-neutrality-rules-not-so-po
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2010
Hey, Maryjane-

Quotemining is no substitute for substantive debate.

Perhaps I should start saying things like: "I know youare- but what am I?", or "I'm rubber, you're glue...".

Grow up, moron.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
I said: I TRIED TO LINK IT BUT PHYSORG WOULD NOT POST.
There is no try, only door do not, young Marjon.
LOOK IT UP FOR YOUR SELF!
Your source, produce it.
Do you know how to use a search engine?
I found out who you were using one. Question is, do you know how to use a search engine to do anything other than quotemine.

The best part of your posts is that you make it obvious that you don't have an informed opinion. If you look at your posting history it is an endless supply of article snips and misplaced, out of context quotes. You're simply repeating what someone has said to you without innovation or understanding. You are what's wrong with the country. Lack of intellectual curiosity or ability to think independently.

And you talk about freedom so much, no wonder why, you have no idea what it is.
DamienS
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
Sorry SH, I could only give you a 5 for that post.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
I have explained many time why I quote.
All good researchers provide their sources instead of pulling it out of their arse.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
CS Lewis, former atheist.
Lewis was NEVER an Atheist. He called himself one but Atheists don't hate Jehovah since they don't believe in Jehovah. Lewis HATED his concept of Jehovah. He prayed for understanding.

Just calling yourself a alien from Arcturus doesn't make you one and neither does calling yourself an Atheist.

I still can't figure out how Schermer missed this.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2010
Hey, Maryjane-

Quotemining is no substitute for substantive debate.

Perhaps I should start saying things like: "I know youare- but what am I?", or "I'm rubber, you're glue...".

Grow up, moron.

Defend your socialist positions.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
Lewis was NEVER an Atheist. He called himself one

Now there is a litmus test to join the atheist club? Do you have dues?
Instead of attacking the messenger, defend your position.
But that is the 'progressive' way is it not? When 'progressives' can't defend their position, create a diversion and attack.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
"The FCC move occurred as the result of a straight party line 3-2 vote, with the Democratic majority deciding to intrude government regulation on the Web."
"For most of the past two decades, the Internet has grown and evolved on its own quite well. There is now a host of new uses for the Web, including entertainment content, and a host of new ways to receive Internet content, including cell phones.

The Web also has been turned into a telephone network.

None of this was foreseen in the early days of the Internet.

And new uses will likely be devised that no one now envisions.

But how much less quickly and smoothly will these adaptations occur under a new government regulatory regime?

From The Detroit News:
http://detnews.com/article/20101229/OPINION01/12290316/Editorial--Hands-off-the-Web#ixzz19Va7Pzvt"


Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
I have explained many time why I quote.
All good researchers provide their sources instead of pulling it out of their arse.

Most of them do more than just post a snippet of text from a source and make wild pronouncements against their ideological opponent.

When you quote a 10 line block of text and write the equivalent of "Fuck you" at the end of it, you haven't evidenced, sourced, or even made a point. You've simply given up, both intellectually and conversationally.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
Now there is a litmus test to join the atheist club?
No club and I am Agnostic so I wouldn't even want to join if it did exist.

You aren't an atheist if you believe in a god. Lewis believed in Jehovah. You can't hate something that does not exist. If this too deep for you then you really shouldn't be here. Of course you prove that every day.
Instead of attacking the messenger, defend your position.
I did that. I didn't attack the messeger I just pointed out that Lewis was lying to himself.
But that is the 'progressive' way is it not? When 'progressives' can't defend their position, create a diversion and attack.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.

I simply pointed out that Lewis was not actually an atheist. You can accept that reality or you can continue to make equally foolish posts.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
I simply pointed out that Lewis was not actually an atheist.

He said he was.
Be careful Ethel, there is still a chance you may become a Christian.
No religion, even atheism, respect heretics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydyCqhzVZVE

It's amusing to observe others who call themselves atheist claim Lewis was not a 'real' atheist.
Are they afraid of the possibility they may 'convert'?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
He said he was.
I said that. He was wrong.
Be careful Ethel, there is still a chance you may become a Christian.
Only if someone can change reality or go back in the past and rewrite the Bible AND give proof that Jesus was crucified, died and got up again.
No religion, even atheism, respect heretics.
That makes just as sense as your standard nonsense. None at all. I am NOT an atheist and neither was Lewis. If he was an Atheist he wouldn't have been mad at Jehovah. Sorry this is over your head but that is probably NOT due to a lack intellect. You have CHOSEN to be ignorant.
It's amusing to observe others who call themselves atheist claim Lewis was not a 'real' atheist.
Not even a not real atheist. He simply fit the specs. It would be like calling L. Ron Hubbard a Fundamentalist Christian.
Are they afraid of the possibility they may 'convert'?
I don't know. I am Agnostic and its the radical Atheists that do that. Lewis didn't go on reason. I do.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
He said he was.
AINO, Atheist in name only?
Be careful Ethel, there is still a chance you may become a Christian.
Doubtful.
No religion, even atheism, respect heretics.
And if it were a religion, I'm sure it would, but it isn't. And if I recall correctly Ethelred has stated he is purely agnostic and holds no thought processes on the potential of a God, simply that the abrahmic god doesn't exist as depicted.
It's amusing to observe others who call themselves atheist claim Lewis was not a 'real' atheist.
You mean like Christians claim other sects aren't "true" christians?
Are they afraid of the possibility they may 'convert'?
An atheist who converts, was certainly not an atheist prior. They were at best, an agnostic or deist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2010
An atheist who converts, was certainly not an atheist prior. They were at best, an agnostic or deist.

That's quite an arrogant position to take especially since you have been proven to be wrong on so many issues.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2010
Only if someone can change reality or go back in the past and rewrite the Bible AND give proof that Jesus was crucified, died and got up again.

Then you are not agnostic either.
The whole point of the exercise is faith. It's a bit like the scene from the third Raider's of the Lost Ark movie when Indy steps into thin air. His faith created the path.
Ethel would have failed that test.
How could anyone like Ethel even imagine a new hypothesis without having some faith in the process just as Max Planck said?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
Acton Institute has a DVD entitled the Call of the Entrepreneur (look it up if you care and know how).
In the trailer, a comment is made that an entrepreneur sees opportunity when other only see crap, literally.
That is certainly one benefit of faith, seeing potentials.
Is it a coincidence that those who attack faith on physorg also support socialism? I think not.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
That's quite an arrogant position to take especially since you have been proven to be wrong on so many issues.
First, that would be proved, second, produce references that add up to "wrong on so many issues". Your subjective opinion is not reality, regardless of how oyu feel about it.
The whole point of the exercise is faith. It's a bit like the scene from the third Raider's of the Lost Ark movie when Indy steps into thin air. His faith created the path.
No, you must've not seen the movie. The path looked exactly as the rock face on the far wall did. You couldn't see the path, until you were on it, ie: "leap of faith".
Ethel would have failed that test.
No, he would have thrown sand onto it first to see if something is there, you know, as opposed to jsut leaping out into a chasm.
How could anyone like Ethel even imagine a new hypothesis without having some faith in the process just as Max Planck said?
Last I checked faith stifles imagination.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
Acton Institute has a DVD entitled the Call of the Entrepreneur (look it up if you care and know how).
Cameron and Comfort have a DVD called Way of the Master.
In the trailer, a comment is made that an entrepreneur sees opportunity when other only see crap, literally.
Way of the master is literally full of crap.
That is certainly one benefit of faith, seeing potentials.
LOL, hilarious. Is that why you only quoted the trailer and not the actual movie? I'm certain you didn't buy it, and you have no idea what the content of it is. Do you want to start quoting the trailer for "The Secret" next?
Is it a coincidence that those who attack faith on physorg also support socialism? I think not.
Jesus was an unabashed socialist, that is, if he even existed.
ForFreeMinds
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2010
This is simply the FCC taking control of the internet to ensure job growth in the FCC bureaucracy, and to ensure politicians get campaign cash from the ISPs. The ISPs will likely benefit by capturing the regulatory bureaucracy, at our expense (but getting into bed with government has its risks).

The title ".. to protect Web traffic" is their excuse, but there really isn't any problem.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
First, that would be proved,

Wrong, again.

second, produce references that add up to "wrong on so many issues".


The popular opinion of net neutrality does not support your 'populist' view.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
Then you are not agnostic either.
Of course I am. I go on the evidence. There is none for or against a sufficiently vaguely defined god. The god of Genesis is sufficiently defined that it has been disproved.
The whole point of the exercise is faith.
Agnostics don't go on faith.
His faith created the path.
No. It was a special effects crew. Do try to learn about how movies are made.
Ethel would have failed that test.
Good. The test was fictional. So I don't have to worry about running across it in the real world.
How could anyone like Ethel even imagine a new hypothesis without having some faith in the process just as Max Planck said?
Fortunately I speak English not German. I have access to a broader range of words than Max did. I am fully capable of ASSUMING that something is likely true until the evidence can prove it one way or the other. That is NOT faith. That is using reason and evidence.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2010
Jesus was an unabashed socialist, that is, if he even existed.

Jesus never used, or advocated for, the power of the state to confiscate the wealth of others.

Last I checked faith stifles imagination.

Not much of an imagination I take it?

Maybe you should read "Think and Grow Rich".
Napolean Hill, working under the advice of Andrew Carnegie asked succulency people the secret of their success. One major factor was faith and most cited the Bible as a major influence in motivating their success.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
First, that would be proved,

Wrong, again.
Pfft. Learn english.
Jesus never used, or advocated for, the power of the state to confiscate the wealth of others.
No, he advocated not having any wealth whatsoever and giving all of yourself for your neighbor.

Learn Christianity when you're done with english.
Not much of an imagination I take it?

Let's see, I can grasp the concepts of science and further extrapolate on them, I've written both technically and creatively, I've been in a band, painted, etc. Nope, I'm fairly creative. Then again, I'M fairly creative. I wasn't "given the talents that God allowed for me".

If you're so creative, why can't you see a world without God or derive motivation and inspiration from something other than your silly Bible?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2010
Pfft. Learn english.

Prove me wrong.

I'M fairly creative.

Spell much?

"Imagination does not simply play a role in faith. We could not have faith without the human imagination."

From the Bellingham Herald

So SH agrees Jesus never advocated the use of force to take wealth as socialists do.
BTW conservatives advocate the DONATION of wealth, just as Jesus did.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2010
Pfft. Learn english.

Prove me wrong.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2387488_use-proved-proven-correctly.html
Consider yourself proved wrong.
I'M fairly creative.
Spell much?
I don't see a spelling mistake there.

Once again, learn english.
So SH agrees Jesus never advocated the use of force to take wealth as socialists do.
Strawman, after you learn english, try learning debate. Might help you practice your newly acquired skills.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2010
Consider yourself proved wrong.

Not according to Webster:

www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/proven


I don't see a spelling mistake there.

I'M or I'm?

try learning debate.

SH claimed Jesus was socialist, but SH also stated "he (Jesus) advocated not having any wealth whatsoever and giving all of yourself for your neighbor. "
The key word is 'giving'. Socialism uses govt force to take wealth from others. As Jesus never advocated force, he could not have supported socialism.

Regarding CS Lewis, if a self-declared atheist can't be considered a 'true' atheist, then the only 'true' atheists are dead atheists as every individual has the potential to change. And even some of those dead atheists may not have died atheist as no one will know if they changed their belief.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2010
Not according to Webster:
So you can't read either. Were you using prove as a verb or an adjective? If it wasn't the latter, proven is wrong. I'm not even a native english speaker, did you graduate primary school?You cracked a dictionary AND STILL GOT IT WRONG!
I'M or I'm?
Capitalization for emphasis, see above.
As Jesus never advocated force, he could not have supported socialism.
Other than that time in the temple when he started flipping over tables and whipping people, and that other time when he cursed an entire city to violent damnation, or that time when he told his followers ot sell their cloaks for swords.
then the only 'true' atheists are dead atheists as every individual has the potential to change.
Sounds about right.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2010
As I wrote earlier, Jesus never used, or advocated for, the power of the state to confiscate the wealth of others.

"has been proven to be", proven is a past participle of 'to prove'.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
Regarding CS Lewis, if a self-declared atheist can't be considered a 'true' atheist, then the only 'true' atheists are dead atheists as every individual has the potential to change
He wasn't an Atheist because he hated Jehovah. You can't hate something you don't believe in. It has nothing to do with later claim of belief. If you hate something then you MUST believe that something exists.

You are being exceedingly think on this. Even by your standards.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2010
Ok sonny, which is correct usage on another irregular verb.

It has been melted.
It has been molten.

To Prove follows the same rules.
Proven is an adjective, just like molten.
You are being exceedingly think on this. Even by your standards.
Well, he is trying to conjugate an irregular verb. I'm surprised I haven't seen smoke billowing out of the town of Chelmsford yet. He has to have stripped his last gear.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2010
By the way, interesting and relevant vid I just caught on youtube for a fora.tv lecture.
http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbuH20W94Kg

Ok, now I'm having the linking problem too.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
Fortunately I speak English not German. I have access to a broader range of words than Max did.
Max Planck visited schools of the German type "humanistisches Gymnasium". These are schools where you learn Latin first, then (ancient) Greek. I don't know whether he learnt English. In case you know Latin and ancient Greek AND Max Planck didn't know English AND the English language has a broader range of words than the German language - congratulations.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
I've seen letters he wrote in a museum exhibition. If he wrote them all and no one translated them then he could at least translate the written word very well.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
SH's dream:

"What it means is that we are abandoning the rule of law for the rule by bureaucrats. Unelected officials have been given the power to fundamentally remake industries based on their political and value judgments."
"At the Dec. 21 FCC meeting, the chairman said: “As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage and invest in broadband networks. That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order.”"
"maybe it (the internet) has done so well precisely because it lacked those rules, regulations and recourses."

http://blogs.forbes.com/merrillmatthews/
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
SH's dream:
It doesn't say "a Physorg free of Marjon" so it must be someone else's dream.

Marjon, give us an exact example of how these regulations specifically impinge American values, or free trade.

Give us a solid hypothetical, and if I can't refute it, I'll yield. Until then, go away, and learn something about it first.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
Marjon, give us an exact example of how these regulations specifically impinge American values, or free trade.

Define 'American values'.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2010
Marjon, give us an exact example of how these regulations specifically impinge American values, or free trade.

Define 'American values'.
So you can't answer the question, thanks for playing and further thanks for proving that you're nothing more than a mouthpiece...again.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
Words have meaning. I don't know what you consider to be 'American values'. Science and engineering demand standards to function.
SH has stated in the past he is a 'populist' and his standards are flexible.
Unless SH defines terms, it is a waste of time to discuss the issue. Unless, of course, you want to discuss American values?

Here is an interesting paper discussing how the regulatory state does not follow from the American values defined in the Constitution.

http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1987/3/sun.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
Words have meaning.
And correct usage rules, but you don't seem to know those either.
Science and engineering demand standards to function.
Like the standard of evidence.
SH has stated in the past he is a 'populist' and his standards are flexible.
Give us a quote for that Marjon. Make sure it's a direct quote from me saying as much.
Unless SH defines terms, it is a waste of time to discuss the issue.
Well I have said that in the past, usually when tlaking to you, because if I don't predefine everything for you I'm assualted by a mass of 3 word questions that you use to muddy the issue, like you're doing right now.
Here is an interesting paper discussing how the regulatory state does not follow from the American values defined in the Constitution.
"And here's a nonsequitor from Cass Sunstein."

Produce your definition of "American Values" and show us how the FCC regulations defeat said values. Be precise, I know that's hard for you, just use your head.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
Produce your definition of "American Values"

You asked the question. Define what you mean by 'American values'.
As SH has stated, he is a 'populist' so it may be a challenge for someone with no standards to define what he values.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
You asked the question. Define what you mean by 'American values'.
As SH has stated, he is a 'populist' so it may be a challenge for someone with no standards to define what he values.
And you should be able to define your terminology within the answer, that is unless you don't have one.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
"And that only begins to capture the brilliance of this idea. By giving your money to charity instead of the government, they explain, you "replicate good government policy, outside the government and free from the grip of obstructionists within it."

Come to think of it, we're being too hard on these guys. They've made a profound discovery: Private, voluntary charity is far more effective than coercive federal bureaucracies at helping people in need."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909904576051572334343448.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

Even 'liberal' Ivy League professors understand govt waste.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
Still waiting on your answer...

Going to give us one, or are you stuck in a loop of ridiculous?