FCC

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by oden

When internet providers tried to charge per gigabyte downloaded there was serious push-back from consumers. Now sites are paying for priority arrangements. It will work or there will be push-back as well. Like PJ said, the free market will work it out. The internet actually works and is a great example of an unregulated sector of our economy that has changed lives and lifestyle; innovated and thrived without government interference. Why mess up a good thing?

Word! oden has NN right. I've been lurking on a list serv read posts about it. NN has been on their radar for more than a year. The small ISPs are the one in a pinch. They may have to piggy back on the backbone of the internet of one of the bigs. If Comcast (or whomever) decides that XYZ Internet Co is competition they could throttle back through-put.

While I'd like to agree with PJ that free market will adjust in this case the free market has failed and we end up getting charged for width or broadband access. My ISP has had broad band to my house since 1997 (I was the envy of friends!) and has never charged according to my usage nor where I surf (would they charge more for eccie? ).

As I heard the decision it is mixed results. Some controls on the providers but allows them to increase fees on some services.

[..]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Ok, some of you tech types...What does this mean to any of us?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40768809...h_and_gadgets/

"net neutrality" is an extremely important topic. Unfortunately most non-tech ppl. do not really understand the issue. (just look at this thread, the only good answers came from DG, and he clearly supports a tech POV, not a Democrat POV.)

What actually happens inside the FCC is just depressing. IMO the FCC should be a strong, independent body with a focus on technological sound decisions.
Unfortunately the FCC is just the opposite, under heavy influence from commercial lobbists, telcos, and govt.

It's depressing :-(

[..]

Originally Posted by oden

When internet providers tried to charge per gigabyte downloaded there was serious push-back from consumers. Now sites are paying for priority arrangements. It will work or there will be push-back as well. Like PJ said, the free market will work it out. The internet actually works and is a great example of an unregulated sector of our economy that has changed lives and lifestyle; innovated and thrived without government interference. Why mess up a good thing?

You and PJ are almost right on this issue, except the telco market is anything but a free market.

[Guest083011]

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/...omplain/68326/

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by SR Only

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/...omplain/68326/

I think PJ just fell in love with a columnist lol

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by ..

"net neutrality" is an extremely important topic. Unfortunately most non-tech ppl. do not really understand the issue. (just look at this thread, the only good answers came from DG, and he clearly supports a tech POV, not a Democrat POV.)

What actually happens inside the FCC is just depressing. IMO the FCC should be a strong, independent body with a focus on technological sound decisions.
Unfortunately the FCC is just the opposite, under heavy influence from commercial lobbists, telcos, and govt.

It's depressing :-(

It doesn’t matter if his response is pro tech vs pro Democrat. It’s a slippery slope. Sometimes regulation is good and sometimes it is bad. But it is NEV ER benevolent. We have trust busting laws on the books that work. Is the government wanting to protect us and the little-guy ISPs from evil robber barons or are they just are wanting to get their gooey little fingers on a huge, unregulated, juicy pie?


This is just the first step in controlling what comes over our computers. Before you know it, “they” are going to be attacking, woops I meant regulating, whatever they deem is “in the public’s safety”. Some of those things being controlled may be something you enjoy. I’m thinking maybe prostitution, gambling and other such vices or businesses that exist because the mainstream industry, such as the pharmaceutical industry, has a pseudo-monopoly, artificially inflated US prices and is protected by strong lobbies.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I think PJ just fell in love with a columnist lol

Net Neutrality: No One Will Be Satisfied, Everyone Will Complain

David J. Farber & Gerald R. Faulhaber | Dec 21, 2010

Two guys? I don't thinks so.

[pjorourke]

Most of this discussion ignores the fact that more often than not, regulations are used by the dominant players to stifle competition, not to protect consumers.

[Guest083011]

Prof. Farber is one of the few folks who can honestly lay claim to the fact that the helped start the internet. He gets a "I'm not worthy" from any and all of us. He is the list serv owner that I follow (called "Interesting People"). awesome List serv in that the discussions cover highly geeky computer stuff to internet policy (privacy, net nuetrality, censorship, you name it), politics, science and just about everything else. Subscribe to it. Some topics I can easily grasp others (tech stuff) is miles above my head, but it is always and interesting read. Farber will post both sides of a topic to sometimes the offense of some readers. He will occassionaly say he agrees with a PoV (or disagree). He is the gate keeper so it does not become a free for all like *some* internet forums.

[pjorourke]

I understand that China does a pretty good job regulating their internet. Maybe we can take some lessons from them.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I think PJ just fell in love with a columnist lol

With writers for The Atlantic??? I don't think so. It's the only magazine to which I subscribe. And you know where PJ and I fall on most issues.

[..]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

This is just the first step in controlling what comes over our computers. Before you know it, “they” are going to be attacking, woops I meant regulating, whatever they deem is “in the public’s safety”.

Yes, this is one absurdity of the whole debate, because "net neutrality" as principle has nothing to do with it and as DG and /me agree is an important issue.

But the FCC "net neutrality" will be only for "lawful traffic".

Another issue is the FCC procedure is to vote on a draft, and after the vote the draft is formed into the actual final form.

Other issues are outlined here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/0...ls-and-promise

[pjorourke]

How about we just kill the FCC entirely -- an agency that has long outlived its usefulness.

[..]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It doesn’t matter if his response is pro tech vs pro Democrat. It’s a slippery slope. Sometimes regulation is good and sometimes it is bad.

My bad, I didn't explain myself well here. The problem is the FCC is under enormous influence of party politics and lobbyists of all flavor. This already bad.

Worse is the FCC does mostly technical decision but the people who decide are mostly people with a law degree.

Problem is there actually should be a fair and competent arbiter for net neutrality, but the FCC is neither fair nor competent.

[..]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

How about we just kill the FCC entirely -- an agency that has long outlived its usefulness.

Declan McCullagh would certainly be thrilled about it

The problem is neither GOP nor the Dems want to kill the FCC, because they would loose power.

The other issue is, there is indeed a problem with net neutrality (which could be fixed IMO with laws and regulations that already exist) and the internet techies could actually find a viable compromise, just the government wants control, the copyright mafia wants control, the telcos want control...