Net neutrality

[Crackerborn]

So once again we are getting the screws from our clear and transparent government. This time the FCC is implementing the internet version of the Affordable Care Act. On Thursday February 26, the 3 democratic members will vote to let Big Brother control the internet as if it were a monopoly like the Bell companies were 30 years ago. Is our beloved forum now going to be subject to government fees? (Can you say taxes.) Will your private domain now need FCC approval? Is our ability to speak our minds on a forum like this now going to cost this forum extra in fees or fines for not controlling the speech of the unwashed radical insurgents that populate this forum? Several friends that could well have their livelihoods affected by the changes have mentioned they do not know what is being proposed since the transparent (sarcasm font needed) FCC has not allowed any public hearings on the proposed changes. One knowledgeable  person has suggested that we will likely loose our internet based businesses to countries that won't try to control, tax, or limit access to the internet.

So much for government by the people.

[BF]

It must be really great. 

They won't even let us see what's in it. 

[Willow]

It must be really great. 

They won't even let us see what's in it. 

Well, they will have to pass it to show us what's in it.   

[Jess from VA]

Grabbing the ankles again. 

[old2soon]

Open and transparent government1   

[BF]

If you like your website, you can keep your website. 

[..]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702#!

[FloridaValkRyder]

This is bad..real bad. The more you read about this the more screwed we are. 

[wiggydotcom]

And if anyone in the VRCC voices disapproval with the current Administration, their tax exempt status will be denied and said person will be subject to yearly IRS audits.   

[old2soon]

resistance is futile so sayeth the borg-or in this case the henchmen and henchwoman of deception central!    surprised the obuminater just didn't go executive order.  RIDE SAFE.

[baird4444]

                   http://www.departmentoftheinternet.net/

[Valkorado]

                   http://www.departmentoftheinternet.net/

 
Oh, that's good!   

[G-Man]

IF the gov't takes over the internet,……………….

If you do business on the web, you will be subject to licensing and taxation.  You will also have to be in compliance with their "guidelines" (they call the rules "guidelines" so they can be open to interpretation) and undergo inspection/audit at their convenience.

If you use the web for non business purposes, you'll be taxed for its use.

Whenever the gov't gets into anything, it becomes more expensive for everyone.  Costs go up to the consumer because costs go up to the provider, and costs go up to the tax payers because there has to be a gov't agency that oversees the thing the gov't just got into.  Someone compared this to the ACA.  So right.  Wait untill the we see the real cost of all the new gov't agencies that had to spring up to run the ACA come to light. 

[BF]

If you like your internet, you can keep your internet.   

[..]

More taxes from we the tax payers to pay for parasitic government.

[Master Blaster]

Obamanet, enough said.

[..]

So 3 guys that the voters of this country DID NOT appoint decide what's good for the rest of us.

And the fine Americans bow down in praise.

Where's orangeman and the rest of the politicians. scum.

And more from the scum

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150227/us--congress-homeland-d09c304e78.html

Why couldn't they simply not fund the amnesty part. They are political cowards and making sure they keep their so so precious jobs. scum.

[3fan4life]

[Robert]

A simple question, while no one likes government involvement, how do we stop internet providers from being the gate keepers and rule makers?

A example
 My wife had unlimited data on her cell but it was well known unlimited data came with a 3 gig cap that the providers would slow or stop the service.

 Did I get unlimited data as promised, no of course not.

Internet throttling is being used for YouTube and other sites by cable companies, is this right, no also.

So how do we stop this without government control?

 At this point I remember the phone company and remember that without the government involved they would have charged through the roof for services and cut off those services without compassion. While the gov did tax some portion of it they did not limit the access or quality of phone service. But the providers sure hated it because they don't care about you just the money. The companies were ruthless in the disconnection of service the reestablishing of service, the only recourse people had was the rules the government established.

 Do you also know that the cable companies get free right of way access to service areas that cities own to run their cables in? Yet they want to throttle and limit what content can run on their cables, after not charging for this right of way.

The internet will be used to control people but it will not be in the sense we think of now, that kind of control will require a good working internet provided to all households, business, schools, gov and every location that deals with people and money.

[MP]

Just to be sure the internet is fair and impartial to all, Lois Lerner has been appointed Chief For Life

[Woton]

The internet will be used to control people but it will not be in the sense we think of now, that kind of control will require a good working internet provided to all households, business, schools, gov and every location that deals with people and money.

A thought-provoking comment...  Thanks for sharing a different perspective.

[F6Dave]

At this point I remember the phone company and remember that without the government involved they would have charged through the roof for services and cut off those services without compassion. While the gov did tax some portion of it they did not limit the access or quality of phone service. But the providers sure hated it because they don't care about you just the money. The companies were ruthless in the disconnection of service the reestablishing of service, the only recourse people had was the rules the government established.

 Do you also know that the cable companies get free right of way access to service areas that cities own to run their cables in? Yet they want to throttle and limit what content can run on their cables, after not charging for this right of way.

I think you have some bad information.  Before the mid-1980s, phone service was much more heavily regulated.  You had to rent your phones from 'Ma Bell', and you couldn't even install them yourself.  A 5 minute long distance call cost several bucks, which today probably equals $5 or $10 when adjusted for inflation.  After de-regulation the industry finally had competition, and along with the help of technology prices plummeted.

I was once a councilman in a little town and the cable company, along with the other utilities, all paid the town a franchise fee.  I believe this is the norm.  Of course, that fee was no more than a hidden tax that was passed on to the customers.  Remember, corporations don't pay taxes.  They only collect them.

Competition is what improves products and services, and brings prices down.  Regulation often stifles that.  Just look at Uber compared to the heavily regulated taxicab companies in big cities.  Air travel today is cheaper (in real dollars) than it was before the industry was de-regulated.  It's much safer, too.  And then there's Obamacare...

[MCRIDER]

On Thursday February 26, the 3 democratic members will vote to let Big Brother control the internet as if it were a monopoly like the Bell companies were 30 years ago.

I have to defend the Bell company.  In those days, the Bell system kept everything going well.  One company sold and repaired everything.  The phone system always worked.  Repairs were done quickly.  There was never a hassle.

Once it was broken up, you started getting dozens of call a day from "companies" wanting to switch you ever to theirs.  Many people got slammed into signing up with a new company each month.  I remember sales calls, sales calls, and more sales calls.  None of these new companies took care of the lines and transmitters.  The Bell system was still stuck with the repair and maintaining of hardware.   Most of the new, upstart service suppliers are long gone.

Now that cell phones have taken over, I imagine how nice it would be if the Bell system was still in charge.  There would be coverage EVERYWHERE.  There would be no tricky plans to confuse customers.  It would be like it should be.

[Robert]

At this point I remember the phone company and remember that without the government involved they would have charged through the roof for services and cut off those services without compassion. While the gov did tax some portion of it they did not limit the access or quality of phone service. But the providers sure hated it because they don't care about you just the money. The companies were ruthless in the disconnection of service the reestablishing of service, the only recourse people had was the rules the government established.

 Do you also know that the cable companies get free right of way access to service areas that cities own to run their cables in? Yet they want to throttle and limit what content can run on their cables, after not charging for this right of way.

I think you have some bad information.  Before the mid-1980s, phone service was much more heavily regulated.  You had to rent your phones from 'Ma Bell', and you couldn't even install them yourself.  A 5 minute long distance call cost several bucks, which today probably equals $5 or $10 when adjusted for inflation.  After de-regulation the industry finally had competition, and along with the help of technology prices plummeted.

I was once a councilman in a little town and the cable company, along with the other utilities, all paid the town a franchise fee.  I believe this is the norm.  Of course, that fee was no more than a hidden tax that was passed on to the customers.  Remember, corporations don't pay taxes.  They only collect them.

Competition is what improves products and services, and brings prices down.  Regulation often stifles that.  Just look at Uber compared to the heavily regulated taxicab companies in big cities.  Air travel today is cheaper (in real dollars) than it was before the industry was de-regulated.  It's much safer, too.  And then there's Obamacare...

  When the telecom industry was started it needed equipment, cables, switches and all this required a capital investment. No one was going to do this if there was not a return on investment and laws to allow the laying of cable and tearing up of properties and legal fees for designation of right of ways. It was not the local gov that established telecom fees and way to do things it was the phone company's ability to control as much of the market as possible along with the partnership of the gov to allow favorable laws, in return accomplishing the gov need for communications in the US. They basically got greedy though and did not allow competition nor even the installation of consumer bought equipment. It was through the gov rules that gave the telecoms the freedom to operate and establish their own guidelines. The gov deregulation did allowed and mandate competition in these areas but that was in 70's. Along with local phone companies told they could no longer control long distance service. This is where the phone companies got the death toll. So the gov made a favorable environment for investors to invest trillions by giving the best choice concessions in the telecom industry infancy. This market scenario is not one that is present today for regulation. Like I said the gov desire now is to have high speed internet all over the world for their purpose. George Soros gave millions to have net neutrality, why because of the kindness of his cold dead heart? I think not, it goes to purpose and plan. So we see the gov act favorably to new industries with tax breaks and handouts that it wants to promote just like early telecoms. But that really could not be considered true gov regulation and deregulation, especially in the same light we see today.

The AT&T breakup
Competition in the long distance tele-phone business began in the 1970s after the Federal Commu
nications Commission’s 1969 approval of a petition by startup Microwave Communications Inc. (later known as MCI) to compete with AT&T by offering “specialized” long distance services
via microwave between St. Louis and Chicago. In the ensuing years, AT&T fought aggressively against the further expansion of competition, sometimes with the apparent support of the FCC. Ultimately, it took an antitrust lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice to inject competition fully into the marketplace,resulting in the famous 1982 Modified Final Judgment, leading to the 1984 breakup of AT&T into a long distance company and seven “regional Bell operating companies”

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/11/v35n3-6.pdf

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-the-internet-competitive