Slashdot Mirror
FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations
ceswiedler writes "The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality. The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their press release (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines." Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications." McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Mr. McCain, since the government pretty much invented the internet, please feel free to step in occasionally to make sure capitalism doesn't drive it back into the ground.
The BIGGEST problem I have with Net Neutrality (regardless if it is initially for the good or bad) is that your are removing the checks and balances from the free market (aka capitalism) and handing it to government.
I mean, don’t these sorta things always start out as “good intentions”?? There are a bunch of short-range thinkers on here who are only thinking of measures to equalize the rights of consumers against the big evil ISP’s. While there are valid points where these ISP’s are tipping the playing field in their favor, be careful what you wish for is what I say. If you give these powers to your government, are you also naive to think your government will always have your best interests in mind? I’d say historically speaking this is not always the case.
Net Neutrality is really a means to an ends. Nope, I didn’t get that backwards. Consider this:
If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America, one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be a very difficult task to achieve. In true nerd fashion, kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware (the software cannot function on the hardware). So how do you get around this?? Easy, install an emulator or virtualization layer. In this case I believe it is capitalism, aka big business. For example, government cannot directly infringe on your rights... to smoke a cigarette let’s say. But a company can, because your employment is mutual which "volunteers" you for anything the company wants. Therefore, a communist regime need not change this country’s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses, they only need to control the corporations. Net Neutrality installs the transport layer needed for a government to control the Internet and that sector of our lives. Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else?? The sad irony here is that communism can use its arch nemesis “capitalism” against itself like a parasite uses a host.
I know most slashdotters here are a mixture of young IT professional's and students alike, and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there's nothing wrong with that. The danger (and this is historically substantiated) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ploys. Ask yourself this honest question; would you recognize a communist ploy if you see one? How do you even know what to look for? Granted, like capitalism communism has it's good and bad parts. The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at any given time (check and balance) while communism starts out with good intent like "Net Neutrality", but then evolves into something nefarious. "Net Neutrality", oh sounds so fair doesn't it? I think communists like to use oxymoron’s for naming things. Like "Free Press" founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist. Sad that many of you have bought into the "business is evil" and "capitalism is evil", there always has to be a villain etc... and you are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists. The sad part is by the time you all "figure it out" it'll be too late. I used to think the Germans were soooooooo stupid for falling for the Nazi’s and Hitler. But knowing history now, it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement. You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the exact same stuff you all are fighting for today: social justice, equality, freedom from big business, better jobs, unifying the country (Nationalism), environmental concerns, community service, etc... Any of this sounds familiar? I'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are noble causes, just be careful what and whom you vote for, and recognize the hidden agendas. Ironically with all the slams I see on here about big business being bad for the ‘little guy’, you same individuals
But we aren't talking about Obama are we Captain Conspiracy?
There is a war going on for your mind.
But there is a fear that the govt will go beyond network management policy here...and delve into rule of content on the internet. There are fears they may, once they get their claws in, start doing things like trying to have a 'fairness doctrine' on the internet.
Personally, I like it where ANYONE with an internet connection can get one and spout off any opinion on any subject they like.
I remember the days when on TV, when they gave an editorial opinion, they have to give equal time to another point of view. I'd not like to see this requirement for bloggers and the like...especially on the single, non-financially backed individuals who are using their soapbox to make their voices heard. There are plenty of voices out there with all types of opinions, I'd not like to see the govt. require each little guy to give equal time and space (time and bandwidth can be expensive, and this extra burden might squelch some of the enthusiasm people have for posting their thoughts and findings).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........