Our old friends at the FCC have started to
put words into action, as the net neutrality regulations
proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski have now entered the rule-drafting stage. The provision of most import here is that broadband providers would be forbidden from
traffic discrimination or
"management," and compelled to provide equal access and services to their users, irrespective of the type or bandwidth uptake of their internet activity. Of course, this is
hardly a bumpless road, with Senator John McCain proposing the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, whose sole reason for existing will be to prevent the FCC from putting those rules through. Even if things do go smoothly, though, "reasonable network management" will still be an available recourse for telecoms, where it is necessary to block spam and illegal content, such as child pornography. Which sounds kinda like censorship to us. Look, we have no more interest in child porn than we do a pair of
Lady Gaga Heartbeats, but any time we hear of internet providers having either the right
or responsibility to block content, we get an uneasy feeling in the pit of our libertarian stomachs. Anyhow, the great big gears of regulation have finally started turning, and we can look forward to more political wrangling as the rules take shape over the coming months.
posted Oct 23rd 2009 6:45AM
How can somebody who doesn't even USE the internet even have an opinion in this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2403704/John-McCain-technology-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html
Lobby money talking, I presume...
Nah, just typical republican stance, screw the people, oppress freedom, cater to big money needs.
Beast are you being purposefuly ironic or just a moron? You realize that McCain is working towards the opposite of "oppress freedom" right?
This whole bill is about internet censorship and while it may have good intentions (child pron), it could also be used as a means for the government to silence internet cites they dissagree with... Hence McCain and his legion stepping in and saying "no"...
McCain's bill sole purpose is to prevent FCC ability to regulate and enforce the law, it does not ensure any freedom but on the contrary, it gives providers the ability to maintain current status quo without any fear of the law or any agency to enforce the law upon them.
Derek: Net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship. It essentially forbids ISPs from making deals with content and service providers to give them preferential treatment versus competing content and service providers. The government will not pick the winners and losers on the Internet, and neither will the ISPs; the market (i.e. the people) will decide.
If your ISP stopped allowing you to access ronpaul.com, or slowed down foxnews.com because they signed a deal with CNN, you would quickly become a supporter of net neutrality. I'm sure your response is that you would just change ISPs, but in some markets there is only one broadband ISP. In monopoly markets, sensible regulation is a necessary step.
McCain's bill only supports large corporations that want to begin making content deals or protect their own content. It is loser for Internet users, and that's why Google, Verizon, and others are banding together to oppose it.
Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with this bull about preventing Comcast from blocking access to Google for some dingbat reason that none of these guys can come up with.
IT HAS NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT!
This is a FCC power grab that is hiding behind crap like that to get gullible geeks, who think their torrent farms will be protected, to go out and shill for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uULNBso0BU
(this is what it's all about)
You want to give the Feds an inch on the net, then dont be so damn stupid to thing they arent going to go for the mile!
L_A_Y: Money is the "dingbat reason" that an ISP would restrict content or differentiate grade of service. By signing a deal with Bing, they could slow down every Google search. They could hamstring every online video service so that they stop bleeding customers from their broadcast service or their own online video service. They could then make more money (or at least think that they would). Last time I checked, corporations are in business to make money, and why this isn't incredibly obvious baffles me.
Creating a neutral, level playing field is not a "power grab." It is, in fact, the opposite of that. We have dozens of examples where government does this, and we have a functioning society as a result.
I won't even respond to your ridiculous slippery slope argument. Do you wear a tin-foil hat as you scan the skies for black helicopters?
@ Look_Around_You
Have you ever heard about the homeland security act of 2002? it gives all the power federal agencies need to act online, and guess what... it was a republican idea.
That kind of bursts your bubble.
The theory is that competition amongst content providers would give a steady flow of money to ISPs, and therefore we the people wouldn't need to pay for something as essential as Internet service.
The problem with that theory is that we have had net neutrality way too long. ISPs know they can charge us, so they will, regardless of what money they make from content providers. And since they are the only game in town, or at least an oligopoly, nothing is preventing them from basically killing off the Internet in the long run through instant-gratification deals.
My answer: don't fix what ain't broke.
Another perspective:
There's nothing stopping a content provider from charging ISPs for content (e.g. ESPN 360). So, if ISPs suddenly started charging for service, those providers would probably rebound in kind by charging for the content itself.
Would the net effect be zero?
I'm not sure what that would ultimately do for the market. Maybe it would work itself out.
LMAO @ look around you: You linking Glenn Beck the douche tool @ Fox explains it all. I bet you were really upset when our President even called Fox out.
You have no real clue your a tool and don't even know it. Of course Rupert Murdoch is against net neutrality.
Somebody who has NEVER used the internet and never will. He also clearly has no desire whatsoever to understand what the internet is or what it's for.
@Beastage: Yeah, because the Democrats are perfectly innocent to all of this, right? I mean, there can only be one wrong party here.
IMO, the only "real" neutrality is one without any laws or regulations. If Comcast starts filtering your content, you simply sign up with another provider. Somewhere along the line, people have gotten the idea that we are powerless without the government because the government is taking all the money that gives us power. They have you thinking that businesses are bad, mmkay. They attack the one thing that makes the world run in order to get you to vote in the next Representative or President that tells you they are protecting you from the evil Insurance companies that government is controlling themselves. Think about it for a second before you go off spouting the typical ____ party did this, and ___ party did that. Both of them are responsible for this and the American public is being played like a fiddle.
Anyone in here that voted for this old fool should RUN OFF AND BURY THEIR HEAD IN SHAME!!
MCCAIN/PALIN? REALLY?! That alternate reality would have been a worse disaster for the planet, PERIOD!!!
Andir3.0
I'd +1000 you if the commenting system let me.
L_A_Y: Money is the "dingbat reason" that an ISP would restrict content or differentiate grade of service. By signing a deal with Bing, they could slow down every Google search. They could hamstring every online video service so that they stop bleeding customers"
AND TELL ME WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED?
You are accusing companies of doing stuff that has not taken place!
You are willing to give the feds a massive power grab over a F'ing theory?
What the hell is wrong with you people?
@Andir3.0
"If Comcast starts filtering your content, you simply sign up with another provider"
I think you've missed the whole point here. Comcast was already caught restricting VOIP content. And in most of the USA, our choices are either Comcast or the regional Bell telecom. For the most part, this leaves us with the monopoly cable company or the monopoly landline telcom.
It doesn't take an economics degree to know that competition (which is required for true net neutrality) only happens when you have 3 or more choices. I won't even bother trying to go into why the telcoms have tried (and usually successfully) to kill every chance of new competition that local governments have tried to implement to give us the 3rd option.
"LMAO @ look around you: You linking Glenn Beck the douche tool @ Fox explains it all. I bet you were really upset when our President even called Fox out.
You have no real clue your a tool and don't even know it. Of course Rupert Murdoch is against net neutrality."
And you are going to get around to explaining to me what was presented was made up when?
Yeah, somehow I think I'll be waiting a hell of a long time.
Ahhh, nothing like a typical government power-grab justified by theoretical boogey-men. What exactly is the problem with the current system? I'm not talking possibilities here, I'm talking about actual things happening that net neutrality legislation is supposed to fix. Can't bring up the Comcast thing either, because under the current system, they got fined. The argument here is ridiculous, Google wants net neutrality because its afraid an ISP could give preference to its chosen search engine, yet at the same time, they are acting antithetically to these principles by locating there servers inside of telecoms in a process called edge caching, in an effort to, you guessed it, make there search work faster than the rest. How is that fair to the little guy? People need to look past the PR-titled "Net Neutrality" here and realize that the argument in front of us is between two types of business that want to tilt the playing field in their advantage. As always, the government will step in and make things more tilted.
@Andir While your statement is very interesting there are millions of people who don't have the option of switching. You seem Libertarian. When are we going to elect someone to office?
@rightwingnutjobs: I like McCain, he's a good man BUT any bills the Republicans put out that have the word Freedom, Patriot, Security in the title means that the citizens are fucked because big business will have complete control (or in the case of Homeland Security a bloated worthless division of government that needs disbanding). I don't trust AT&T, Comcast, Cox, or any of them to regulate themselves anymore than I do the banks. You right wingers should be jumping on this net neutrality bandwagon, it's good for you too. The only people its not good for are superrich assholes who run those billion dollar corporations. The effects of this bill will have minimal effects on ISP's. All it does is keep them from screwing us with unfair charges.
"
Have you ever heard about the homeland security act of 2002? it gives all the power federal agencies need to act online, and guess what... it was a republican idea.
That kind of bursts your bubble."
And?
You think I supported the HSA just because the GOP came up with it?
Stop being so damn obtuse as to think that this is some Elephant V. Donkey pissing match.
This is about the free market and liberty V. Federal overloardship.
And these sheep that think big brother Barack is pushing this to ensure that some batshit insane fantasy of Comcast charging you to go to Google doesnt come true, are living with their heads up their asses.
And just like the GOPers that supported the HSA only to have it now put out a report citing them as potential threats to "homeland security", YOU will be bitten by this too.
@Izzy: It's like D W said:
It doesn't take an ... degree to know that competition only happens when you have 3 or more choices. I won't even bother trying to go into why the [Dems and Repubs] have tried (and usually successfully) to kill every chance of new competition that local governments have tried to implement to give us the 3rd option.
;)
There's corruption on every bracket of it, but giving power to the government (whom was explicitly limited by our Constitution) is not the answer here. When you centralize power, you increase the chance of corruption. The only thing the Federal (anything) should be doing is keeping the state laws in check and protecting our borders. Less government is more Freedom for you, me, business, and our right to choose the proper businesses instead of being told by our government which businesses should stay open (cough, GM, cough). If your state enforced a law that was overly restrictive to ISPs jacking up the price, they'll only pay for it in lost populace income when people move out of state.
I wish water company that feed McCain's house have freedom to put whatever liquid into the pipe. Sweet freedom. Well, if he doesn't like the urine taste in his water, he can just "switch" to another water company. Or take a shower with arrowhead. He can afford that with all the money he's getting from ISPs.
Hrmmm... except for the fact that when he said he needs help to send e-mails, he was talking about the fact that he physically is unable to do so, due to the injuries he had received from "real" torture when he was serving as a fighter pilot for the US Navy - not the fabricated means of torture that liberal idiots have coerced on the US population.
@Andir3.0
I hope you realize that that's the reason we need this. Because of the lack of regulation within the telecom market. There are many situations where only a single ISP provides service to an area. That is not competition. There is no way for the user to choose with his/her money. Eventually, businesses will get to the point that they've grown so fat and large that they will begin to screw over their own customer base. It's not some fairy tales; it's happened before (the trusts of the 1900's) and it is happening now (AIG). Businesses get to a point where the only way to provide a fair and even ground for the customer is to regulate it in some way (this is a far too proven fact).
@Look FFS man do some effing research, read the arstechnica.com article on it or one of the other thousands of available. But for the love of god, try for once in your annoyingly pathetic internet existence not to be a complete ass hat.
@Andir So in my neighborhood we have att dsl ONLY, ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY. Who am i supposed to sign up with instead of them.
Reminder, ONLY att DSL. ONLY! I am not alone in this. You people need to get off your Glenn Beck idiot fest high and look at THE REALITY.
You don't have access to (albeit slow) dial up services? There's always a choice. You may not LIKE the choice, but it's there.
I am a Republican, and think McCain is way off base. As far as I can tell he's a rare member of the Republican party that's not in favor of Net Neutrality. He has always been a maverick in the party, and I knew the minute he was chosen as the 'Republican' candidate that our party was screwed and would be tarnished by his campaign and the things he did. That Sarah Palin stunt was ridiculous, too.
I think I know where McCain is coming from, though. His primary concerns are military and economic (which are more related than many of you would think). I think by supporting the FCC bill for net neutrality it effectively limits the ability of the government to manage internet communications and internet based enemy/terrorist endeavours. He's adding the child porn bit to pull at the heart strings of the Republican parents out there. I'm sure he's also concerned about the "rights" of business to run how they want to. There is something to be said for the perspective that these telecoms have built the internet from the ground up via cables strung alongside roads. The government had nothing to do with that, so perhaps the businesses should have the freedom to operate how they want to operate.
I disagree entirely with him, though. The government's job is to ensure my freedoms, nothing more. Telecoms deciding what websites get served and what don't prohibit my freedom of speech. This is why Republicans like small government, it allows us to have more freedoms. Sometimes you have to do a little regulation to make sure our freedoms are secured, though. McCain's move is away from the small government hallmark of the Republican party, which is consist with his position on the fringes of the Republican party.
There's no need to get emotional about it.
Inbox OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM
*explodes*
Typical Conservative:
Working against an increase in regulation.
Typical Liberal:
Not getting that that's actually a good thing because they read John McCain and assume he's "oppressing" people with the "status quo."
I guess we can HOPE for a CHANGE in the mentality of people jumping to conclusions.
@Kevin
So your tellin me that a former presidential candidate doesn't have enough function in his hands to send an email... and how exactly was he supposed to sign a bill? Last time I checked it takes about the same amount effort to do either one.
@animeghost - There's a huge difference between writing and typing. Different muscles are used, hand/joint positions are changed, etc. Why do you think carpal tunnel syndrome is so prevalent in this day and age? Because typing & using computers are now ways of life.
I wish ISPs were just gatekeepers and nothing more. Ill pay you once a month to let me use your tubes at a certain speed and thats it. Don't slow my connection speed for using torrents, cap my monthly usage, have the ability to block sites, or even the ability to see what kind of data i'm sending and receiving. And the government is there to protect my freedoms and not give companies the freedom to do as they please when I only have one broadband service provider in my area. This is known as a monopoly, if there were 4 or 5 ISPs that anyone could go to then the competition would leave things open and keep prices down so until then it is the governments job to protect the people.
@nicolasjohnadams and everyone else who thinks this is just the government stepping in.
That is just a common discourse that is all over the news now; government bad, we know we know.
These FCC regulations have nothing to do with controlling the public, they are meant to protect YOUR rights. get it? The government protects rights, it's the basis of government that any text book will tell you. Everyone is so touchy right now the government can't even do anything to help you without someone making it demonic. If you let people tell you that Net Neutrality is going to interfere with you it's a lie. The idea that if you let business do whatever they want is not good for media and the internet. You don't want the Government regulating what you see and do, legally, on the internet. So why the hell would you want to give business the ability to do that? Because a loophole in policy that was meant for the TV era allows companies to do just that with the Internet.
The idea of net neutrality is that Telecoms can act as a business all they want as long as they don't infringe on your personal liberty to have unhindered access to the internet and to prevent costs from being invented such as tiering or packaging internet sites into bundles. There are a lot of other aspects but essentially it's to stop certain companies from preferring their own content over another.
If you let this McCain bill pass then you'll all be paying more for the Internet. If anything Net Neutrality ensures that small media companies can have a chance on the Internet instead of being muscled out by the big broadcast networks who desperately want to reclaim their control over YOUR media. That's what TV was all about and these laws that deny Net Neutrality are attempting to maintain that status quo. So get off your ass right now and go do something about it. Don't let them try and reverse the argument on you and make you think you are protecting YOUR interests by supporting McCain's bill.
who cares if McCain never used the internet, he knows what hes talking though, i support his proposal, McCain FTW!
Sheep.
(Baaaaahhhh, Baaaaahhh!)
Ironic that the people that have no clue of what the FCC is going to be pushing through, no idea who's running the place, but wholly supports what they are doing, is calling anyone a sheep.
Look around you get the hell outta here. You have no clue of what your arguing against. Without knowing you're standing up for these douche corporations, who even have less authority than the FCC to be writing legislation. And sadly for you (but it's actually a good thing) Net Neutrality will prevail, and the internet will not change. And you can continue to rant and rave where ever you please.
PS if you guys want any chance in 2010-12 then you really need to get rid of Glenn Beck and your other extreme conservatives who are just bringing your party down.
bobblehead: It is you that have no idea what you are talking about. You are following the typical BS "Business is the enemy" line you are being fed. Business is NOT the enemy here. The government you are ignorantly standing up for is the one making businesses charge excessive fees through organizations like the FCC and through regulations. If the government would give us back the money they are stealing from us, we could vote with our pockets and keep business in check ourselves... but thanks to the government, taxes and regulations we only have a few choices in internet providers, insurance, and pretty much every other industry and feel powerless because we can't choose. That loss of control is our government's doing. Not "douche corporations" as you put it. If government would have stepped out of the mix, we'd have two less "douche corporations" making automobiles today, but I suppose you supported that move, for the people, right?
While i believe that businesses take care of themselves and captialism works, it doesn't work in semi- monopolistic sections. When people have little to no choice between service providers especially for high-speed internet, which happened because companies pay for these contracts and if you wanted to bring up your own service provider it would take billions of dollars and years to even get close to infrastructure, then regulation is needed, other markets I COMPLETELY agree with you because in those markets you have a choice. I don't agree with everything the FCC does nor do i disagree with it, but telling the ISP that you must treat every business equally does not raise a hair on my head.
This the same McCain that voted FOR rape, in order to protect corporate interests.
Why are citizens voting FOR fools like this?
@andrey
ay andry or whoever the fuck you are get the fuck off my dick bitch! go get your dick fix from some one else bitch... pasty ass white boy living in your moma's basement! i know you love dick, but i aint gonna give it you! motha fucka! ay who gives a fuck bout this ranking shit eat my shit, fuckin knock the shit outta you if you were standing near me... have your internetz funs on this blog cuz thats the only way you know how to, hahhahahahahahahaha!!
(dont matter what the fuck you say bitch youre ass is mine including that lame mutha fucka on that other post bwahahahahahaha!!)
i know what i'm talking about, but i dont think you do though, feel sorry for y'all haters who have down ranked me or people who responded to my comments.... DONE!
I presume the bill title is ironic.
No, not at all. The bill proposes freedom from governmental regulation and censorship of the internet. Did you even read the entire post?
For whom? Only regulation will ensure fair access for all.
@good grief - Sorry you can't reply because we, as your ISP, have decided Engadget isn't a valuable Interwebs destination for you. You are welcome to pay an additional $25 per month if you'd like access to our Tier 11 selection of valuable Interwebs destinations, however Engadget is not included in that selection. That'd be Tier 12, for an additional $15 a month. Thank you for calling MegaISP help desk. Your call is important to us.
@posterchild: If you didn't have government regulations keeping MegaISP as your only provider, you'd have a choice to move to someone else.
Andir, you speak the truth. The child most likely doesn't have the option to change his ISP because his parents are the ones paying for it.
It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs. If you protect the freedoms of the ISPs, they will in turn limit the freedom of consumers. Just saying you promote "freedom" doesn't mean you're going to help the population as a whole. Supporting the freedom of rapists and murderers isn't good for everyone, but it has that magic buzz word, "FREEDOM!"
"It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs."
No, you have to give the people the power to protect themselves. Stop taking 30% of their income and let them decide what ISP to switch to if the old one is too strict.
Not only is the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" bill ironic, it's ballsy. There already exists a bill called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, which is actual net neutrality legislation http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show.
The FCC can adopt regulations all they want, but they're a slow and ineffectual body when it comes to taking action against an offending party. Do you think the FCC would take prompt action if you report that your ISP is blocking content or violating your right to an open internet? No. What we need is net neutrality legislation, so that offending parties can be brought into the judicial system, where lawsuits will ensure an expedient administration of justice.
When I say that the FCC is ineffectual at responding to complaints of average people, I speak from experience. I had to sign up with the only broadband provider in town, which was extremely costly and had a draconian Terms of Service. In order to use the service, I had to agree that I wouldn't use the connection to access material that "contains explicit or graphic descriptions, or accounts of, sexual acts." To make it worse, they would hijack random HTTP requests and redirect me to ads. No, I'm not kidding. This is what I'd occasionally see when trying to go to google.com: http://i35.tinypic.com/28qqf4w.png. I submitted a formal complaint to the FCC two years ago (when they still had these open internet guidelines) and they've done absolutely nothing.
McCain calling it the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 is either arrogant or ignorant. Tell your congressperson to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show
Where does net neutrality advocate only one ISP and no competition?
Maybe he can't switch ISPs cause there are no others, or one controllers the access of the rest (thus controlling all). Ask a Canadian and you'll know what I'm talking about.
@ Andir "'It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs.'
No, you have to give the people the power to protect themselves. Stop taking 30% of their income and let them decide what ISP to switch to if the old one is too strict."
Is this just a big swipe at income taxes? Seriously, you lose a ton of credibility if, in a debate about net neutrality, you swerve off into the huge tangent of "taxes are bad."
You seem to be against all regulation and argue that net neutrality isn't needed in our "more perfect" system because consumers should just be able to switch to a less restrictive ISP. First, there aren't really any other ISP options, because the systematic deregulation of the industry that has taken place over the last decade or two has allowed (essentially guaranteed) the consolidation of the ISP business into a handful of players, and surprise, surprise, they are all against net neutrality because it is bad for their bottom line (they'd much rather be able to claim you have "unlimited" data, charge you a premium for it, and then block the really high traffic types of data). Second, I've yet to hear an argument from anyone, and especially not John McCain (whom I generally respect a great deal) or you, as to why net neutrality is bad for anyone. It isn't even that bad for ISPs except that they will have to chance their pricing structure to a "per data used" basis, which makes more sense economically anyway.
So, until you make that argument, your screaming and yelling about "freedom" are ridiculous.
I never said it's not needed. I'm all for a neutral internet where I can download whatever the hell I want and have freedom of speech, and exercise all my freedoms. I just don't like the wording of the bill. It's open to loopholes and I think we are better off without it right now. I think it will do more harm than good.
The Internet, even though it's pretty ubiquitous, isn't really a requirement for life, liberty or the like. You cannot give me one example of a life sustaining system that requires the internet. So right now, I feel as though companies are in the right to protect their own networks for the betterment of their paying customers. If their paying customers move to another service that allows them to download torrents, they will be forced to reconsider. Until then, the Internet is a service, just like getting a massage. It might feel good when you have it, but it's not required to live your daily life so therefore it's a luxury and regulation is NOT required.
To me, it feels like the other failed legislation forcing the hands of business making them look like the bad guys. If this goes through, you WILL see internet prices go up to pay for infrastructure and service costs. Then you'll see some representative and his minions declare the evilness of ISPs that have exponentially increased their rates to cover the idiocy of the regulations placed upon them. Sound familiar? It should. We are arguing over it right this moment with health care costs. This is not greedy business entirely. Yes, there's some greed involved, but the bottom line is that the Internet service you receive will not be sustainable if everyone is permitted to use it however they like. Just like health care, I think we are approaching this form the wrong angle. Nothing is being fixed. More bandages are being/will be applied.
Too bad there is no real democracy in the US, or we would see "Pirate party USA" pretty soon... but well you either have to be a democrat or Republican, thats pretty easy to put the whole US population in 2 boxes, isn't it?
Suck on that ^^
The author of this article identified himself as a libertarian. Where does that fit into your hypothesis?
Libertarians are people with no vote who aren't listened to, ask a libertarian if you need confirmation.
You mean ask the hundreds of local and state elected officials who happen to be libertarians? What would they tell you?
They we are starting to have a voice? ;)
the author has no idea what "libertarian" means.
he probably just thinks that it makes him sound hip.
or he probably confused it with the ACLU.
a libertarian would want no part of the government interfering with private industry.
One sure fire way to recognize a libertarian is his constant fighting with other libertarians that they don't know what a libertarian is, at least that's my experience.
What's ironic here is that I believe China has implemented "Internet Freedom Act of 2009", but they did it with government regulation. Weird how that works.
Yep, get ready for the Great Firewall of USA. Thanks FCC!
of course he stands opposed, as he knows if something good ever came out of the US government it would harbinger of the approaching apocalypse
I may be missing something here, but wasn't one of the main points of the FCC legislation to "forbid providers from traffic discrimination"? If McCain's Act goes through, and is created to prevent FCC from making legislation, does it then give providers the ability to manage their networks however they see fit? Isn't that against Net Neutrality?
Republicans don't need regulation, or net neutrality, after all regulation could have stopped their friends from harvesting billions of dollars from unsuspecting american citizens who fell for the massive ponsi scheme that was american real estate throughout the Bush era.
"I may be missing something here, but wasn't one of the main points of the FCC legislation to "forbid providers from traffic discrimination"? If McCain's Act goes through, and is created to prevent FCC from making legislation,"
THE FCC ISNT SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING LEGISLATION!
For crying out loud, these people re elected representatives, and you sure as hell don't want the FCC regulating the free internet with no recourse.
What's going to happen when they do something that you dont like? Stomp your feet and hold your breath?
Yes, McCain is against Net Neutrality. I'm really surprised Engadget is using child pornography as defense for Net Neutrality. That's the sickest thing I've ever heard. I believe the biggest reason carriers are against Net Neutrality is not for the safety of our children by blocking certain content. It's so they can start charging you for other content. Especially now the internet is fast enough for most of us now, there's no use for Cable television anymore. Yet I can't go and watch anything I want on the internet legally. These carriers need a way to route the user into using their websites so they can charge you, and block the user from certain torrent's. It all boils down to money that the carriers are losing because of this. I mean, not the money they are "losing", but the billions of "extra" dollars they could be making on top of their already ridiculous fees. Hence the reason they are lobbying to the Republicans.
"I believe the biggest reason carriers are against Net Neutrality is not for the safety of our children by blocking certain content. It's so they can start charging you for other content. Especially now the internet is fast enough for most of us now, there's no use for Cable television anymore."
Yeah, again it hast happened, there is no evidence of it, and no example of it that people can come up with.
But you know, its maybe sorta possible, so lets dump new federal regulation of the free internet to prevent it from becoming regulated?
What the hell, people. Is this the world of pre-crime?
@ LOOK AROUND YOU
Believe it or not the FCC is on our side (the internet user) this time. While I don't agree with most of the FCC's regulations. This one is for the better of the internet. Read: http://www.savetheinternet.com/
I agree and said it before, the FCC has nothing to do with internet, only with interference caused by WiFi transmitters maybe, and having the FCC meddle with the internet, even when they are, or seem to be, on a good side, will only lead to horrible situations, there are other people that should fight the fight and deal with net neutrality, not the damn FCC who's history and 'dedication to freedom' and 'fair review' and 'accountability' is well documented as being non existent.
You might as well have the minister (or is it secretary?) of agriculture chip in, just as valid (or even more valid actually since at least he/she's actual government and would have links to the president)
Someone should ask if these FCC guys are doing this stuff during working hours, because it's not their job and if they do it during working hours their salaries should be cut and they should be reprimanded for not being on the job, I mean if a construction worker or something goes to washington to fight something unrelated to his work he'd better do it in off hours too right?
@Beastage: You do realize that Freddie and Fannie Mae were started in the Clinton era as loan organizations giving loans out to people who were generally considered bad risks and are now defaulting on loans they couldn't afford? You really are brainwashed if you think it was one party that caused the housing bubble.
Also note, it's the FCC that censors your television.
... slight correction that I can't believe I missed. (thanks Mikee... though you could have been more tactful.) The legislation that required Freddie/Fannie to loan to these risks was during the Clinton years.
@ L-A-Y "THE FCC ISNT SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING LEGISLATION!"
Not true... that's the whole point of the federal communications act... to grant the FCC with rule-making authority over... wait for it, Federal Communications.
If Congress had to pass every single act that had any rule making aspect to it, nothing would ever, EVER get done. We set up an Administrative-based government decades ago, and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court dozens (if not hundreds) of times. The FCC has the power to make these rules. It isn't a "power grab" as you've been arguing. It's just the exercise of it's rightful powers.
Internet isn't federal really now is it?
"Federal" is anything that is "between the states" or "with a foreign nation." How the internet is communicated to United States citizens couldn't be more "federal."
Technically, it's private, which make's it an odd concept. It would be like the highways were owned by companies and you had to pay a monthly toll to use it. The ISPs restricting certain downloads are seeing a detriment to their other paying customers so they are setting up speed limiting devices and everyone is begging and pleading for the government to step in, take down the toll booths and leave it without a speed limit. When people start seeing their service degrade or they have to pay for the 14 new lanes of traffic then the private company running said highway will become the "bad and evil corporation" in your eyes for restricting you or not providing the service you used to have.
No mikey, federal means it's government controlled from washington, as andir3.0 is pointing out already internet isn't really, and shouldn't be really either, but companies have grown so big and dirty that you can't even half trust them anymore, so you have to lay some base rules it seems, sigh.
@wWhat... no, "federal" is shorthand for "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," under Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (generally referred to as the "Commerce Clause" or "Elastic Clause") which is the part of the constitution that grants Congress power. It is the portion that allowed Congress to create the FCC in the first place, and the only reason Congress or the FCC can regulate the internet. It doesn't matter that it is regulating private enterprises, because it is regulating "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states."
Believe it or not, I know what I'm talking about... and you're completely wrong.
I was really hoping for a Ted Kennedy reference in this article! :)
I love it when old fogeys like John McCain, who has admitted he has his staff do all his online stuff for him, try to dictate policy over things they have no idea about. Awesome.
""reasonable network management" will still be an available recourse for telecoms, where it is necessary to block spam and illegal content, such as child pornography. Which sounds kinda like censorship to us. Look, we have no more interest in child porn than we do a pair of Lady Gaga Heartbeats, but any time we hear of internet providers having either the right or responsibility to block content, we get an uneasy feeling in the pit of our libertarian stomachs."
So, blocking illegal content is somehow "censorship"? It's illegal. Other forms of expression - like threats, extortion, and the proverbial shouting "Fire!" in a theater - are illegal. When the government restricts those, is it censorship?
Do you have a problem with the government not allowing hazardous substances to be shipped by air, or should it just be a free-for-all? Should I be able to drive a tank down the street, or does it make sense to restrict that? This glibertarian position is nonsense. We allow sensible regulation in all parts of our lives, and it is essential to functioning, safe society. Reasonable provisions that allow networks to function and vulnerable parts of the population to be protected are a good thing.
"Oh we now find that sites that say mean things about President (insert name here) is only reasonable at this time."
"Since you site is a news blog, we think it's only fair that your ability to run ads be limited, so we can ensure that the public doesnt get tainted info."
"Oh people that comment on the internet about political issues should use their real names and have contact info so we can prevent slander"
You wanna let that camel nose in the tent? And dont act like it wont happen.
I hope you are okay with all your phone calls being listened into. Because, you know, you might be talking about something illegal, and it is up to your phone company to ensure that you don't.
Hey BH, why don't you apply for chinese citizenship, you'll be happy in a well controlled environment.
No, but those are all straw-men arguments. We don't restrict people's rights to speak freely, even though they have the capacity to say obscene, inciteful, or dangerous things. Let's call this... "air neutrality." When people commit a crime in this neutral territory, they are prosecuted. Their capacity to use it freely for their communication and commerce is not impinged.
To see it from the telcos' and McCain's perspective is to suggest that it ought to be alright to have an establishment owner blast an airhorn over you whenever you try to discuss a topic he doesn't endorse (for monetary or personal reasons). Oh, and there's nowhere else in town to go and have your conversation.
I don't think the vast majority of us endorse the solicitation or consumption of child pornography, nor any other organized crime conducted over the internet. The way we prosecute the latter, however, is vastly different.
It's really frightening how many on this board (LookAroundYou, Wwhat, etc.) don't apparently know what's going on. They think they do but they don't. ISPs are *CURRENTLY* traffic shaping. The "free internet" you think McCain is defending *NO LONGER EXISTS*. McCain is defending ISP's right to continue to decide what you can and can't access. Verizon is *CURRENTLY* inserting their own ads into the websites you visit. They are *CURRENTLY* throttling the speed at which YouTube videos will download to your computer. McCain favors allowing this to keep happening and to keep worsening.
Only the FCC's proposed true Net Neutrality will stop it. But somehow you're against that. Because you think that somehow your ISP is more trustworthy than the FCC. Because you're nuts.
"It's really frightening how many on this board (LookAroundYou, Wwhat, etc.) don't apparently know what's going on. They think they do but they don't. ISPs are *CURRENTLY* traffic shaping."
Where?
The only answer you can cob together is BitTorrent.
Now provide some mainstream examples of where this is taking place.
"Hey BH, why don't you apply for chinese citizenship, you'll be happy in a well controlled environment."
What a well-reasoned argument. Requiring ISPs to allow all legal content in the U.S. is exactly like the Chinese, who consistently block access to all sorts of online content for political and economic reasons. Makes sense.
We live in a nation of laws. You wouldn't last a week without them, so stop kidding yourself that you've "gone Galt" and are completely self-sufficient. More glibertarian nonsense.
@Look Do you even effing read stuff before you make your snarky incorrect replies to them? He gave many examples in his statement. Jesus you are the biggest effing stupidest damn tool here. Just get over it, YOU ARE WRONG, MOVE THE EFF ON.
You people are such sheep. You think just because the government's involved and the title of the bill says "Net Neutrality Act" that means its going to save the internet and make sure it is safe and free for all when really it just gives the government an actual framework to censor the internet for the first time ever. Go ahead and be clueless, love your government, and slowly turn into China and give away all your freedoms. Nobody is going to care whether or not you think you're cool because you make fun of republicans at that point.
When is that ancient white Panamanian going to go away?
Dude - the phone company doesn't get to decide what is illegal. You really want that going on? Because, that is much closer to a fascist state than you think and it is exactly what this "Freedom" act would do. Basically, anything with the word "freedom" in it is bound to be screwing you on your rights. Same goes with "Patriot" etc. Haven't you figured that out?
The Right truly wants a fascist nation where they can rule based on one group's set of morals and religion. Get a clue and quit thinking along party lines. If you actually sit and watch that Beck guy, it is no wonder you have no independent thought left in your head. You've been brainwashed, man.
Name 3 examples where Beck's been wrong. Specifics. I bet you can't.
We're gonna need a montage.
It's no accident that McCain introduced this anti-Net Neutrality legislation. He's received $1,515,046 from the tech industry -- money talks.
At the root of this issue is ISPs wanting more and more control over the content we access over their lines. Net Neutrality is the web's First Amendment, guaranteeing equal access to ALL sites, regardless of content. It's anti-censorship.
The telcos want the right to charge more for certain content, often in order to give their own content a leg up. A real case scenario: Universal, which owns NBC, wants to buy Comcast, not just so it can own some Internet lines, but so it can have a ready-made audience to watch its programming online. For a fee.
The tech industry is funneling so much cash to pols like McCain because it's the only way to get them to back this kind of nonsense.
Shhhhh Josh don't make sense, that only confuses the hell out of right wingers.
Well, equal access at "best effort." ;-)