FCC new regulations for the internet?

[Dagny D.E.W.]

I have been hearing rumors that the FCC will be coming out with some new regulations for the internet on Dec. 21st.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

I'm assuming this is to control political talk but what if it does something to the hobby side of the internet? How will you find your gals without eccie, backpage & google?

Please write down the numbers (or email) for your ladies on your list just in case. (Starting with mine! LOL)

It's just DC telling us Merry Christmas!

[greymouse]

Originally Posted by D.E.W.

I have been hearing rumors that the FCC will be coming out with some new regulations for the internet on Dec. 21st.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

I'm assuming this is to control political talk but what if it does something to the hobby side of the internet? How will you find your gals without eccie, backpage & google?

Dagny: Don't get too upset over Republican propaganda in the Wall Street Journal, which is to to say any column, editorial or opinion piece in Rupert Murdoch's money losing flag ship.

Try this story in the NY TImes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/technology/02fcc.html
or this one on the FastCompany information technology site:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1639209/f...t-happens-next

This is about whether telephone/cable companies that connect people to the Internet have to treat all traffic alike (Net Neutrality) or if they can make deals to make more money by blocking or slowing some sites and favoring those that pay them. It is the telcons vs Internet content providers like Netflix, Apple and Google (YouTube). A Battle of the Titans with the bought and paid for Right Wing media taking the side that makes the biggest campaign contributions to the Republican Party.

[GneissGuy]

There are actually two big internet issues happening now.

1) Network neutrality. You've paid Comcast for unlimited access to the internet. Suppose Comcast tells Netflix that unless Netflix pays protection money to Comcast, Comcast will block or slow down your connection to Netflix. Network neutrality would ban this and similar internet protection rackets.

2) Control of DNS (Domain Name System.) DNS is the system that translates, for instance, eccie.net to a number like 123.45.67.89. The 123.45.67.89 number is the number that actually allows your computer to find eccie's servers.

The forces of darkness (BOTH Republican and Democrat) in the government want to be allowed to manipulate the DNS servers for any reason. This means that the US government would at any time, without a court order, with no reason given, be able to decide that when you type in "xyz.com," instead of getting the xyz.com web site, you get nothing, or even worse, you end up at some impostor web site that looks like xyz.com, but is actually run by the government or someone else.

The government is using the excuse of wikileaks and terrorist sites as an excuse, but once they get this power, they'll use it anytime they want on a whim. The corporate bigwigs are paying their bribes to Congress and pushing this to shut down "pirate" web sites. Just like the RICO statutes that give them draconian powers to deal with "racketeers," but the government routinely uses RICO to threaten people who are doing things that have nothing to do with the organized crime it was supposed to be used for.

[Dagny D.E.W.]

Originally Posted by greymouse

Dagny: Don't get too upset over Republican propaganda in the Wall Street Journal, which is to to say any column, editorial or opinion piece in Rupert Murdoch's money losing flag ship.

Try this story in the NY TImes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/technology/02fcc.html
or this one on the FastCompany information technology site:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1639209/f...t-happens-next

Hummmm Repubican propaganda....... Ok I went to YOUR links and both links (and you) mentioned net neutrality.... so I goggle that and find.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121902461.html

where Hugo Chavez says....
"We aren't eliminating the Internet here ... nor censoring the Internet," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio program, "Hello, President." "What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, cybercrimes, through a law."

As examples, Chavez mentioned messages promoting drug use, prostitution and other crimes, and said his government has an obligation to ...unquote...

So we can go with what YOU think it will be, but I D.E.W know that Our President Obama is friendly with Hugo Chavez. He took a book from him and hugged him but wouldn't take a folded paper from our Gov. Perry about border security. Go figure. What kind of net neutral will happen Dec. 21st?

I don't think that is Republican propaganda....more dem since they are in charge of House, Senate and President... I didn't know that the WSJ was that off political speaking.

All I'm saying is write down your ladies contact info. I'm just saying. Better be safe then not have anyone to contact.

My number is in the signature. LOL

[austin_voy]

The group that deals with the actual allocation of IP addresses is having some very real issues with the concept of "liberation" of IP addresses and/or domain names (if you've ever been in the military, you know what "liberation" means)

Name servers outside of the US would have no obligation to follow any US rules, and it's really surprisingly easy to find a nameserver that will work for you. Dagny, you could get a domain www.dagnydew.co.bz using a Belizian server that does nothing more than a redirect to the US.

Complicated? Mayhaps to some, but I ran LARGE systems & networks for years. Before my job became more profitably done in India.

[greymouse]

The FCC regulations have been voted into effect by the Commissioners despite hysterical rhetoric from the Republican members. No one is happy with them: the ISPs don't want anything and the net neutrality advocates wanted more. The San Francisco Chronicle says, "The Truth About The FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules: Nothing Bad Is Going To Happen To You", of course they are not owned by Rupert Murdoch .
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ty-2010-12.DTL
Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, views it with alarm quoting Republicans.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...et-neutrality/
The San Jose Mercury, in Silicon Valley, has a pretty neutral report
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1
It will be interesting to watch the big boys fight it out. The fight will be over who will make the most money since no one who counts represent just plain folks.

[WyldemanATX]

Greymouse I new you were a left wing loon!

Rupert Murdoch even though he owns fox news the majority of the board members are extremely liberal.

I would be alarmed by the government wanting to control all areas of free enterprise which the Internet is the last of the most freedom of expression there is.

All these different entities are all tied together its WWF and a distraction to everyone so you do not know what they are really up to.

Democrats and Republicans are on the same team they go to the same schools and they drink together at the same bars.

Use common since and don't drink the kool Aid!

[WorknMan]

Originally Posted by Dagny D.E.W.

I have been hearing rumors that the FCC will be coming out with some new regulations for the internet on Dec. 21st.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

I'm assuming this is to control political talk but what if it does something to the hobby side of the internet? How will you find your gals without eccie, backpage & google?

Please write down the numbers (or email) for your ladies on your list just in case. (Starting with mine! LOL)

It's just DC telling us Merry Christmas!

I think the question basically boils down to this - do you want to give control over what comes down the Internet's pipes to the evil government, or to evil corporations? And this harkens back to the age-old question:

Would you rather be eaten out by Jaws, or fingered by Captain Hook?

[Dagny D.E.W.]

dear Grey, sorry I didn't get back to you, I wanted to take time off from troubles the government starts to enjoy Christmas and I think that is why they did this at this time anyway so that we aren't paying attention.

So what I get from your posts is that Foxnews & murdoch is all bad
and government is all good and can be trusted.

I can't agree. If the people that we elect (and can unelect) form the FCC and let them make any kind of rules they want with no oversite..... that worries me.

When they say they have to pass the rules/laws before we can know what is in them..... that worries me.

When we D.E.W. not know who runs the FCC and can't vote them out..... that worries me.

WHen I read that the current chairwoman for the FCC has been in to see President Obama 11 times..... that worries me.

I trust business over government any day. I looked at your links and they were talking about problems they saw and what they were trying to fix that I hadn't considered but I think if I had a server who slowed down my Netflix I would just change companies so that should work better then a law from the gov.



here are some things I got from other sources:


* Genachowski's press secretary, Jen Howard, also once handled media relations for a radical left group misnamed "Free Press." Free Press is headed by Robert McChesney, who told the Socialist Project in 2009: "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies... but the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and divest them of control."


* The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for federal regulation of talk radio.


* The Free Press and Moveon.org and 8 other major liberal groups are pressing for net neutrality regulations to control the media. These groups have gotten some $123 million over the last decade to push for campaign finance regulation, which also establish political controls over free speech. Many of these groups and their affiliates (such as the leftist Berkman Center) have been pushing a "National Broadband Plan" and have been writing studies for Genachowski's FCC commissioners pushing for Internet regulation.

My guess is these sources are pretty accurate as to the real plan. I have known about MoveOn.org for many, many years and I have read their emails for years. I D.E.W. know what their intentions are and that IS what scares me for the USA.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by Dagny D.E.W.

I looked at your links and they were talking about problems they saw and what they were trying to fix that I hadn't considered but I think if I had a server who slowed down my Netflix I would just change companies so that should work better then a law from the gov.

You can't just change companies. These companies are monopolies or oligopolies at best. Most people have only one cable provider. Many people have only one phone provider who may or may not be able to provide broadband. Even if you think you have multiple choices for broadband, you may not. Even if your broadband bill says XYZ internet, it will go to one of the very few companies, such as Comcast, who provide "backbone" service and are already threatening to blackmail companies and services like Google and Netflix.

Without net neutrality, you can't hook up Vonage or MagicJack to the broadband you're already paying for. Without net neutrality, you may find that your access to something like eccie or even LibertarianParty.org gets blocked because one of the internet companies decided they didn't like what they say. You may find that you can no longer access Amazon.com because Walmart is willing to pay money to Time Warner money to block access.

[WorknMan]

Yeah, here in Austin, we have access to AT&T (who usually ranks in the top 5 companies as having the worst customer support ever), Time Warner (who isn't much better than AT&T in this regard) and who else? I guess if you're lucky, you will have access to 4G coverage from Sprint, but if you're like most of us, 4G doesn't quite reach to where you live.

[greymouse]

There is also Grande but their geographical coverage is limited and they appear to have run out of financial steam in expanding it. Wireless coverage from Clear, Sprint's alter ego, is fast for wireless but slow compared to ATT/TW. This is all subject to change in the near future as new technologies continue to arrive but I don't see much hope of good, fast, cheap, reliable and even-handed coverage from any new corporate competitor.

As GneissGuy points out these are oligopolies which is to say a market consisting of "few" competitors where competition is unlikely to deliver the minimum technically possible price to the consumer. This is the exactly the situation that calls for government regulation to prevent abuse of private economic power. The original model was regulation of railroads when they were the dominate source of transportation and charged whatever they thought would maximize their profits. On a battleground occupied by giants the only giant that might have the people's (that's us) interest as a priority is the government since those who run it are supposed to elected by majority vote.

The bitter reality is that the top 1% of the population, the really and unambiguously wealthy and the corporations they own and run have seized control of most of the government through their contributions to politicians. Unless the non-wealthy majority organize to break the stranglehold Big Money has over government the country will continue to move toward being a complete Plutocracy with a small ruling class and a vast peasantry of service industry workers. Since the mass media is increasingly owned by the same Plutocrats and increasingly successful at directing the non-rich majority's attention away from their own impoverishment it is hard to imagine a good outcome to all this.

[Dagny D.E.W.]

Originally Posted by greymouse

The original model was regulation of railroads when they were the dominate source of transportation and charged whatever they thought would maximize their profits. On a battleground occupied by giants the only giant that might have the people's (that's us) interest as a priority is the government since those who run it are supposed to elected by majority vote.

Which brings us to WHY I chose the name DAGNY.... from ATLAS SHRUGGED a novel about the railroad.... HEY read a good story about the gov. taking over the US......... by Ayn Rand....... you will understand why I don't like the gov. making biz decisions for the local people. Profits are really good when they fight to keep the people happy in their decisions.

I'm just saying 300 million can make a decision better for themselves better then one guy in DC making a decision for all of them ....(lousy.)

Read the book... page 602 for 10 pages and you will understand that socialism doesn't work for the USA because socialism fights against the human nature.

socialism does not work because you always run out of other peoples money

communism doesn't work because people want to own stuff.

get over it, put some ice on that!!!!!!!!

[greymouse]

Originally Posted by Dagny D.E.W.

Which brings us to WHY I chose the name DAGNY.... from ATLAS SHRUGGED a novel about the railroad.... HEY read a good story about the gov. taking over the US......... by Ayn Rand....... you will understand why I don't like the gov. making biz decisions for the local people. Profits are really good when they fight to keep the people happy in their decisions.

I am really sorry to hear that. I read Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum's AKA Ayn Rand books when I was in High School forty years ago when some of my friends fell under her spell. I think Ms Rand's influence on American politics is one of the most pernicious things that has happened to this country. The doctrine that every man and every woman ought to strive solely to enrich themselves with no thought of any other priority has underwritten the amazing concentration of wealth among the very few that has taken place since the Seventies. The idea that only a tiny minority of people matter and that these few carry the rest of us lazy and stupid slobs on their economic backs and hence deserve to receive the 21.8% of reported income that the top 1% received in 2005 is part of why Americans have been so passive while their personal incomes remain flat or decline in real terms and the rich get richer rapidly. The top 1 % received, I would hesitate to say "earned", more than the the bottom 150 million in total. If that doesn't upset you, you are probably a Randist and imagine that you are likely to join the wealthy elite, by and by, possibly in the sky.

So, I'm sorry to hear about the Randism. I think we will not be having a dialog about what is best for the country, however, I will say that "socialism" and "communism" have nothing to do with "regulation" of the powerful on behalf of the powerless. Look at the level of satisfaction expressed by consumers of internet connectivity in this thread for information about how well profit seeking has served to keep consumers happy with the mega corporations they have no choice except to buy from because no other choices exist.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by Dagny D.E.W.

Which brings us to WHY I chose the name DAGNY.... from ATLAS SHRUGGED a novel about the railroad.

Dagny, you should read the history of the REAL U.S. railroad barons in the 19th and early 20th century. See what happens when you have monopoly/oligopoly companies unfettered by government interference. The railroad barons were examples of evil so-called capitalists at a level that's probably unmatched since then.

While I like Atlas Shrugged, that doesn't mean the choice is always between the government destroying everything and a free market utopia. Sometimes things go horribly wrong if you let businesses run unregulated.

You should also realize that even without "net neutrality," the internet is not a free market. The internet was designed by and is still somewhat managed by the US government. Time Warner or some other cable company has a virtual government mandated monopoly in Austin or in other cities. They got the exclusive rights to lay cable in public areas, use the City of Austin power poles and right of way, etc. In exchange for this monopoly, they agreed to be regulated. Other companies were not allowed to compete. Now that their monopoly network is built out, they want to be allowed to compete on a "free market" bases using their government enabled monopoly.

It's similar to phone companies, water companies, electric companies, etc. They were given monopolies or near monopolies in order to bring a new service to the public. If you just hand the monopoly infrastructure over to Wall Street, things will go bad rapidly. Look at what happened with Enron and the electric power in California in 2000. They "deregulated" electric power in California. Enron gamed the system to move power out of California, causing brownouts, and then said they could "find" extra power, but the price would be higher. It turns out the energy traders were being taped talking to each other about how they were deliberately creating blackouts.

The internet is a public utility, nearly as vital to our country as electricity, water, gasoline, etc. We've allowed or caused it to be set up as a monopoly in many cases. Companies built the infrastructure with the understanding that they will be regulated as a public utility. Turning Wall Street loose to manipulate the lifeblood of our country will only lead to disaster.