phreddy wrote:

Right now the Internet is the most democratic form of communication and journalism the world has.  If we allow the government to stick its bureaucratic nose under the tent it won't be long before the subtle pressure of partisan politics and government heavy handedness grinds innovation to a halt.

Up to now The Cold Nose Of Bureaucracy has been the only thing preventing corporations from doing exactly whatever would maximize profits, and democracy be damned.

phreddy wrote:

Right now the Internet is the most democratic form of communication and journalism the world has.  If we allow the government to stick its bureaucratic nose under the tent it won't be long before the subtle pressure of partisan politics and government heavy handedness grinds innovation to a halt.

It's also a cesspool.

phreddy wrote:

Yes, right now you may need to sort through the horseshit to find the pony, but that's far better than allowing the government decide who, it its ultimate wisdom, is labeled a "privateer" and who gets licensed to broadcast on the Internet.

Please put up some articles or other evidence that the government is doing this.


Or shut up.

This may be somewhat off point, but we certainly do need to class ISPs as common carriers.  We've had them successfully extort Netflix, and then there's this

http://blog.level3.com/global-connectiv … middleman/

Talk about fucking your customers.

Tall Paul wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Yes, right now you may need to sort through the horseshit to find the pony, but that's far better than allowing the government decide who, it its ultimate wisdom, is labeled a "privateer" and who gets licensed to broadcast on the Internet.

Please put up some articles or other evidence that the government is doing this.


Or shut up.

Jesus Paul, didn't you read the articles Dusty posted?  If you and others on this forum truly believe it better serves your personal liberty to give a federal bureaucracy the authority to track your every Internet download and forum post through an ID number and to qualify and license content providers as utilities do, you are thicker than even I ever believed.

If you want to see how secure you really are, I would recommend Gibson Research.

Last edited by Baywolfe (2014-05-13 17:21:37)

phreddy wrote:

I know we aren't very secure from snooping right now, but sometimes we would rather remain anonymous.   Like to the members of forums like High-Street.  Do you really want to log in with your government issued ID?

Your point is well taken, but I have two words for you: Butler Avenue. I got those two words with 7 clicks on two websites (counting this one) in under two minutes. (Mine comes back as Shinjuku Central Park in Tokyo for some reason, and in support of your argument I declined an automated request to pin-point it on a map) Internet anonymity is hard to get these days if it isn't already completely illusory. I think you were subconsciously influenced the the word 'Scary' in the title of the story Dusty posted. After doing a bit of reading on the subject the adjectives I most identify with the internet ID plan are 'ill-conceived' and 'unworkable'.

Ever since Al Gore invented the internet companies have tried to make it conform to the broadcast television business model and have failed miserably. Ever since liberals wrote the Constitution rich bastards have been trying to buy politicians and bureaucrats and have scored a nearly unbroken string of successes. This latest abortive FCC attack on net neutrality is merely the latest example of both traditions working in unison.

phreddy wrote:

...track your every Internet download and forum post through an ID number and to qualify and license content providers as utilities do

I'm confused. What utilities license content providers... gas and electric, the railroads, the phone system, water and sewer? 

CC status of ISPs isn't about federal control, it's about antitrust.

Edit: drunken apostrophe

Last edited by opsec (2014-05-13 21:36:40)

I'm still confused about the content providers statement, but credit for a cogent response.

Your first four sentences pretty much state fact. 

phreddy wrote:

Most utilities are not politically charged, but the Internet certainly is.

I disagree.  Things like power blackouts in major cities, unpotable public water supplies or garbage piling up in the street causing plague are all politically charged.

phreddy wrote:

The influence during the relicensing process doesn't need to be the loss of the license.  The commission often requires implementation of pet programs and policies as a condition of relicense.

I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with the licensing policies that might apply, but not with government grease works.  You're right that government oversite brings extra costs and some inefficiencies to a market.  This is the cost to regulate a market that could otherwise cause even greater harm.

Consider the state of the US IPS market right now, consider the tactics they're blatantly using to restrict not only competition but the product itself.  For small business and entrepreneurs to grow we need cheaper and faster bandwidth and we're not getting it due to lobbyists and shareholders.  And please don't bring up privacy, that ship sailed long ago.

square wrote:

. . . Tom Downey, a lobbyist for the National Cable Telecommunications Association, is circulating a letter to members of congress arguing that "in the years that broadband service has been subjected to relatively little regulation, investment and deployment have flourished and broadband competition has increased, all to the benefit of consumers and the American economy."

So is broadband investment flourishing? Not according to the NCTA's own data which shows investment booming in the years before the Great Recession and declining more recently:

Maybe more recently to him means during the past six months.  Or, maybe he's using the same analyst who calculates reduction in the unemployment rate when people give up and drop out of the job market.

After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

He said his plan asks whether paid prioritization should be banned outright, but he still moved forward with a proposal allowing new business arrangements between Internet service providers--such a AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups.

"There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

Emphasis, mine.  Doesn't sound like the sky is falling quite yet.

Last edited by Baywolfe (2014-05-15 15:42:58)

Dmtdust wrote:

Seeing it all slip away...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2 … plications

Slip away? The first network ID rollout will shutter sites like this at one stroke and a bored nation will become productive again, at least for a week. After that, all bets are off.

These cunts never give up, do they?

Another take on this in the WS Journal.  This could be serious.

Baywolfe wrote:

phreddy wrote:

"There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

Believe it or not, actions really do speak louder than words.  This wouldn't be the first baldfaced lie from a political appointee.

That's a valid opinion but, if you really believe that, then you're really a closet anarchist and you need to stop all the Republicans/Conservatives good, Democrats/Liberals bad, bullshit you spew on here.

Choose a side and stick with it or you'll be the next to be up against the wall when the revolution comes.

I don't have any need to take sides.  The idiot politicians I call out on this forum select themselves.

phreddy wrote:

Another take on this in the WS Journal.  This could be serious.

Serious? I think the word you're groping for is 'sophistry'.