# Government take over



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Of the internet tomorrow. Is it going to happen.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Of the interment tomorrow. Is it going to happen.


You mean like - 
All of your graves are ours?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

LOL, go figure I'd spell it wrong...


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Bad spellers will not be tolerated after tomorrow ....

.... didn't ya read the new 332 page rule book ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Bad spellers will not be tolerated after tomorrow ....
> 
> .... *didn't ya read the new 332 page rule book* ?


No one outside the FCC has.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

It was the computer that spelled it wrong! Mine does that all the time!

Wade


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Did anyone say, "under fcc regulations, if you like your current internet, you will be able to keep your current internet"?


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Bad spellers will not be tolerated after tomorrow ....
> 
> .... didn't ya read the new 332 page rule book ?


You don't need to read it! Trust 'em. You're gonna love it!! (words I kinda recall hearing about ACA a while back)

I had a frightening thought... There is actually a "Mr. Nancy Pelosi". 

Shiver me timbers!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Spell check only indicates a misspelled word....

Free tip from me .... type the misspelled word into google and it will be corrected

otherwise you keep guessing till ya get it right.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

The internet is being hijacked by by the UN and turned over to Chinese regulators so to prevent people like me from spreading propaganda.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Spell check only indicates a misspelled word....
> 
> Free tip from me .... type the misspelled word into google and it will be corrected
> 
> otherwise you keep guessing till ya get it right.


Actually my tablet puts in it's own words and I often don't reread before hitting the post button.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *Spell check only indicates a misspelled word.*...


 Not when it is on Auto Correct. 
THAT is where many of us have problems. 
It Corrects WHAT IT THINKS IS THE CORRECT WORD. 
And if you don't catch it, the misinterpreted word is posted~!. So many spell checks are automatic now and corrects what it thinks is what you wanted to type. Sometimes the wrong word gets through if not caught on a prove read before posting. LOL


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Actually my tablet puts in it's own words and I often don't reread before hitting the post button.


Yes, when I used to use it and spelt " Rotties" it would correct to "kittens". Kinder, gentle lib internet for you.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

UN taking over internet ..... oh yes a possibility

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech...lan-could-lead-to-un-internet-powers-20150225


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I'm going to watch the internet carefully and if it slows way down or it doesn't allow me to access the sites I want to, I may stop purchasing internet service. I pay $50 now and I think it's only worth about $30, so if it gets worse you may not see me anymore.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

They want to control what is being said. They can't shut down talk radio (yet) and tv is pretty much already controled. The Net is letting the truth out too much for politics.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Sorry kids: Was that vote not yesterday???? 

As for regulation--As I understand it, the FCC proposes to rule that internet providers may not block anyone, that no advertiser or ISP client can pay more to get better service than the next customer. 

Firefox, the browser I use, wanted net neutrality. I trust Firefox more than I do Amazon or any other commercial giant.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Wlover said:


> Actually my tablet puts in it's own words and I often don't reread before hitting the post button.


Yes, Numb uses a tablet and it frequently makes him sound even more brain-damaged than he actually is. ound:


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Sheesh; I had no trouble understanding the guy! I've seen much worse spelling here, and the goobermint ALREADY controls your disposal. There's way more interment law than internet law.


----------



## TenBusyBees (Jun 15, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> Sorry kids: Was that vote not yesterday????
> 
> As for regulation--As I understand it, the FCC proposes to rule that internet providers may not block anyone, that no advertiser or ISP client can pay more to get better service than the next customer.
> 
> Firefox, the browser I use, wanted net neutrality. I trust Firefox more than I do Amazon or any other commercial giant.


What's the rationale behind that??? With Obamacare one can pay more to get better insurance coverage. Isn't that just naturally how things work? More money better service?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> Sorry kids: Was that vote not yesterday????
> 
> As for regulation--As I understand it, the FCC proposes to rule that internet providers may not block anyone, that no advertiser or ISP client can pay more to get better service than the next customer.
> 
> Firefox, the browser I use, wanted net neutrality. I trust Firefox more than I do Amazon or any other commercial giant.


Then why is this being done behind closed doors?

Why 332 pages of regulations?


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Then why is this being done behind closed doors?
> 
> Why 332 pages of regulations?


At least until the vote, that would be 332 pages of SECRET regulations...as in "you have to pass it to see what's in it". Yet another blow to Obama's "transparent" govt, yes?

I read the vote is today and is expected to pass, 3 - 2, dem - rep, respectively.

Just a side note...I had NO idea that the grand total of people that make up the FCC is only FIVE...I've never given them or what they do much thought, but, for some reason, I've always imagined there were at LEAST dozens and dozens of people whose job it is to...oversee...something as important as communications!


----------



## GrannyG (Mar 26, 2005)

Obamanet.......coming now......Lord help us.....


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

hippygirl said:


> At least until the vote, that would be 332 pages of SECRET regulations...as in "you have to pass it to see what's in it". Yet another blow to Obama's "transparent" govt, yes?
> 
> I read the vote is today and is expected to pass, 3 - 2, dem - rep, respectively.
> 
> Just a side note...I had NO idea that the grand total of people that make up the FCC is only FIVE...I've never given them or what they do much thought, but, for some reason, I've always imagined there was at LEAST dozens and dozens of people whose job it is to...oversee...something as important as communications!


Yes .... unelected bureaucrats making our laws !!!!!!!

nothing new here!!!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Just heard-Obama wrote Ex.order to forbid sales of ar15 ammo.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I don't care what ANY internet company or a company says they want this nonsense called Net Neutrality. It is FAR from being neutral FAR FAR from it. It is yet another Unfair practice of the government once again controlling things. THAT is not what the government was for, is for or was set up to be. 
And now that is coming watch out for Fairness In Broadcasting. THAT is yet another big no no. And should never make it to the light of day, but now that this had made it watch out now for this airwaves fairness carp see the daylight.
And BOOM there goes most ALL talk Radio talk shows. ALL Except WHAT the government Wants YOU TO HEAR. Like Air America will likely make a comeback. And have No Way for others to snazzier to THEM. Arrrrgggg.


----------



## TenBusyBees (Jun 15, 2011)

Let the law suits begin. It passed exactly as predicted.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Is this what you are belly aching about? What is wrong with it? Do you want some giant ISP delivering some mail faster than others because they get a bigger payoff? Would you like if Walmart could get faster telephone service than you? 
======================================================

"After more than a year of heated public debate, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday passed "net neutrality" rules: They allow the agency to prohibit Internet service providers from granting faster access to companies that pay for the privilege.

The new rules treat broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act -- the same category as utility companies that provide gas, electricity, etc. -- in which all customers have equal access to service.

========================================================

I think this is common sense; common carriers are exactly what the ISP's are.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

hippygirl said:


> Just a side note...I had NO idea that the grand total of people that make up the FCC is only FIVE...I've never given them or what they do much thought, but, for some reason, I've always imagined there was at LEAST dozens and dozens of people whose job it is to...oversee...something as important as communications!


That's five commissioners. They have a couple thousand employees.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes yet another liberal idea that everything has to be even and fair. Life is NOT fair OR Even.
But now in schools you can't play by the same rules as we did when we went to school SOME might get THEIR FEELINGS HURT. They are LAST in a race, and might feel bad. OH MY.
No more flunking out cause the child would feel bad. FEELINGS FEELINGS and Fairness. that is now the new in thing. Well that is pure stable floor sweepings.
Get that same person out in the work work, and NOW you see what is happening. We want this cause it is not FAIR.
We want more cause it is not fair. I want, I want this ands that, we want everything so everyone is Equal. 
You have the Right To Pursue Happiness. Not have that happiness shoved down a person throat by The Government.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

While the devil is probably in the details, and the details don't exist yet, this appears on the surface to be a good thing. Internet should be regulated as a public utility.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

For once Nevada and I agree on something!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Can anyone say "law suit?"


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

arabian knight: everything is fair in Obama's world only if it makes the wealthy more money or enhances his narrow community organizer mind. 

This "we're doing it for your best interests" and 'we want to keep everything fair for everyone" is the biggest bunch of crock to come down the pike in forever. 

Our only hope for America is that the next president has the tenacity to fight to rescind so many of these unconstitutional laws.

And NO Nevada, there is little reason for the internet to be regulated to the tune of over 300 pages. Once the government gets a toe hold in something, you can be sure it'll become over regulated by the little drones in our new internet department. Just look at what's happening with EPA, for one. 

I went to school where I was thought to think and take care of myself - not have the government wrap me in cotton batting for life - "for my own good" 'cause I'm too dumb to take care of myself. And if I can't/don't & screw up - ya know what? That's on me.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Remember this, and remember it well.

*Today is the day the internet died. *


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Remember this, and remember it well.
> 
> *Today is the day the internet died. *


I think you're over characterizing what this is about. This isn't about Internet content, and Internet content servers are not regulated by this at all. It only regulates Internet service providers as if it they were the public utility providers that they are.

You see, up until now phone service was regulated, but not network services. This just brings network services under the umbrella of public service utility regulation.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Well since I am in telecom, I can tell you that I think it will end up being a good idea for the ISP. As a customer, I don't think it is a good idea. On the other hand, the government is going to be happier - just wait till all those new taxes show up on your internet bill - cause they are coming. Just have to figure out how much will be charged.

_Regulation may end the tier system _and the ISP will eliminate the "lower" rates and _charge everyone a higher rate based on the presumption that faster speeds will be desired by all and no one can demand a lower speed. _ So one rate will apply for eveyone, it will be a higher rate..but it will be one rate. That is what people want right?

So in the long run, the customer is not going to be as happy as they thought they would be, but the ISP and the government will be - higher rates, one speed, and..more taxes. A win win for all and the customer got his "neutrality".

Don't think that those in the business have not considered all possible outcomes, sometimes it is best to let people think they have won.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sidepasser said:


> Well since I am in telecom, I can tell you that I think it will end up being a good idea for the ISP. As a customer, I don't think it is a good idea.


Watch and learn; the ISPs will be the ones bringing suit against the FCC. They aren't going to like being regulated.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Just a question why is it that the new regulations not available to the public before it was passed?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Just a question why is it that the new regulations not available to the public before it was passed?


There aren't any new regulations yet. Regulations will be written during the next few months. All that's been decided so far is that internet service providers will be regulated as public utility providers. Anything beyond that is speculation at this point.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Let's see, in my ignorant computer lingo. In the eyes of "fairness" say,Rush's site gets 100,000 hits a day, so that isn't fair to some lefty site, so Rush's site will get shut down or rerouted to a lefty site. Out of "fairness" ofcourse. Kinda like how traffic lanes work in construction zones.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

So it takes 300+ pages to simply state that "internet service providers will be regulated as public utility providers."

WOW!!! That does not really seem to pass the smell test!

I cannot wait to see how large the actual document that actually sets the regulations will be!!!

TRellis


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

They may sue, especially Verizon, but that doesn't mean that they will win.

As usual, the government has things to hide in their plan:

_Thursday's vote comes after Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai asked that the FCC "immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it."

That request was denied; we'll post the document here when it's available._

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board

Google had a say in the matter as well:

_As expected, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed new net neutrality regulations today on a vote of 3-2, with the Commission&#8217;s two Democratic appointees joining Chairman Tom Wheeler in voting yes. The Commission&#8217;s two Republican-appointed members both voted no.

Notably, the FCC&#8217;s plan is now known to have undergone a last-minute revision to remove a potential weakness in its formation, pointed out by Google, that might have allowed for some paid prioritization. If you were curious about Google&#8217;s take on net neutrality, that fact should settle the question._
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/26/fc...eutrality-regulations-on-3-2-vote/#cnIxLk:qOX


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> There aren't any new regulations yet. Regulations will be written during the next few months. All that's been decided so far is that internet service providers will be regulated as public utility providers. Anything beyond that is speculation at this point.


So they pass this with no real context and expect it to be acceptable? Ridiculous, again passing something no one has read!!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

When has ever the government just stopped with something simple with one or two regulations and rules and laws. The Take and Take And Take some more.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes Pass it first. And then lets see what it contains later on as they put more and more rules and regulations into it.
*
Pass it First, then Lets see whats In It.*

NOW where have we heard that before?? First two guesses don't count. LOL


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Wonder if Gruber helped put this one together? :bored:


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

One little thing that has bothered me is that the whole thing was an instrument of Obama meddling in the affairs of the FCC.

_Commissioner Ajit Pai said that it was âsad to witnessâ the FCC replacing Internet freedom with âgovernment control.â Pai continued, saying that the FCC only voted on the rules that it did due to intrusion into the agencyâs processes by President Barack Obama.

Pai was typically terse: âThe plan is not a solution to a problem,â he said, going on to call the plan itself âthe problem.â

Commissioner Michael OâReilly criticized the proposal to reverse Title II: âI see no need for net neutrality rules. I am far more troubled the commission is charting for Title II.â He continued, calling the move a âmonumental and unlawful power grab.â

OâReilly then called the forbearance of certain Title II provisions âfauxbearance.â_

http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/26/fc...eutrality-regulations-on-3-2-vote/#cnIxLk:qOX


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Let's see, in my ignorant computer lingo. In the eyes of "fairness" say,Rush's site gets 100,000 hits a day, so that isn't fair to some lefty site, so Rush's site will get shut down or rerouted to a lefty site. Out of "fairness" ofcourse. Kinda like how traffic lanes work in construction zones.


That can't happen because content hosting providers aren't regulated under this program.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That can't happen because content hosting providers aren't regulated under this program.


Do you have a link to this info?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Of course the ISP's will file suit; they are the ones who wish to set up the tiered system and charge some people more than others for their services. They want to charge Netflix and Amazon and big business customers a higher rate and give them priority service--in other words they pay more and your emails get delayed while theirs go first.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Some evidence the new regs will spill over onto TV.

This is going to be like obamacare ... it will have many undesirable and unexpected ramifications.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...gs-will-spill-over-tv-as-you-know-it-is-over/


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> Of course the ISP's will file suit; they are the ones who wish to set up the tiered system and charge some people more than others for their services. They want to charge Netflix and Amazon and big business customers a higher rate and give them priority service--in other words they pay more and your emails get delayed while theirs go first.


Yah! And if that happens you can bet the netflix and amazon rates will increase for you and me!So where is the "win,win" now?

Wade


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TenBusyBees said:


> What's the rationale behind that??? With Obamacare one can pay more to get better insurance coverage. Isn't that just naturally how things work? More money better service?


And there's the rub as I see it. Back in the day we used dial up. For years. Then as the internet started gaining steam companies that could see a potential profit started spending billions on fiber optic for faster internet. Of course they charged more to pay for the billions they spent. Then it was said that the net was as "big as it will ever need to be". 

Famous last words. Along comes youtube, FB etc etc. Now we need more server companies to handle all that data. They charge a price to cover overhead. Now we have absolutely no incentive for companies to upgrade networks or server space. It all pays the same to them now. 

Lets apply that same principle to homesteading farmers that sell food for a living. USDA passes a law that says we have to treat every customer the same no matter how much they buy. 10 bushels of corn will cost the same as 100 bushels of corn to the consumer. 

How long will you keep planting corn?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> And there's the rub as I see it. Back in the day we used dial up. For years. Then as the internet started gaining steam companies that could see a potential profit started spending billions on fiber optic for faster internet. Of course they charged more to pay for the billions they spent. Then it was said that the net was as "big as it will ever need to be".
> 
> Famous last words. Along comes youtube, FB etc etc. Now we need more server companies to handle all that data. They charge a price to cover overhead. Now we have absolutely no incentive for companies to upgrade networks or server space. It all pays the same to them now.
> 
> ...


Not the same situation at all.

They are saying that you get the speed you pay for no matter what you are using it for. Not that you can't charge for a higher speed. That means if I pay for 10 gb and you pay for 10 gb, the ISP can not give you priority because of what you are using that speed for.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Wlover said:


> Not the same situation at all.
> 
> They are saying that you get the speed you pay for no matter what you are using it for. Not that you can't charge for a higher speed. That means if I pay for 10 gb and you pay for 10 gb, the ISP can not give you priority because of what you are using that speed for.


How can you be so sure? They have already stated that it will be the same no matter _*how much*_ data you use. They don't even know what they have passed yet from what I am hearing. So lets go to the how much only. I did mention that to but you must have missed that one.

So lets say that Rush needs 1 terabyte and I need 1 meg. We both pay the same. Everyone is happy. But what happens when our needs grow? Who is going to shell out money for more servers when it isn't cost effective anymore? 10 servers will pay the same as 100000 servers once the market reaches saturation point. We aren't far from that either.

Can you say rationing?

What will happen is that Cisco will go more overseas and do more in other countries. (more) Plants will be probably built there and these will be shut down.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> How can you be so sure? They have already stated that it will be the same no matter _*how much*_ data you use. They don't even know what they have passed yet from what I am hearing. So lets go to the how much only. I did mention that to but you must have missed that one.
> 
> So lets say that Rush needs 1 terabyte and I need 1 meg. We both pay the same. Everyone is happy. But what happens when our needs grow? Who is going to shell out money for more servers when it isn't cost effective anymore? 10 servers will pay the same as 100000 servers once the market reaches saturation point. We aren't far from that either.
> 
> ...


What incentive do they have to add more servers or more bandwith if they can charge more for the same speed? It would be like gold. I have less and you can't get more so I can charge more.

Sorry that scenario only works if someone else does not want the business. We already know that is not the case because they can get the service by phone lines, wireless or cable and even satellite.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

7thswan said:


> Let's see, in my ignorant computer lingo. In the eyes of "fairness" say,Rush's site gets 100,000 hits a day, so that isn't fair to some lefty site, so Rush's site will get shut down or rerouted to a lefty site. Out of "fairness" ofcourse. Kinda like how traffic lanes work in construction zones.


 From my limited understanding, that is not even close to what is proposed. The only reason it was even brought up is the big cable/internet companies wanted to charge more to certain content providers in return for NOT slowing down the internet connection. Basically, a shakedown from what amounts to a monopoly.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

If my ISP gets too expensive I will simply go offline and use the savings to subscribe to another of the weekly area newspapers that I read along with my daily paper over morning coffee.

The .02% of the internet we are given access to while a nice way to pass some time is not a true necessity of real life and the true internet networks will always be highly regulated and restricted as they have since the mid 1950s.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Wlover said:


> What incentive do they have to add more servers or more bandwith if they can charge more for the same speed? It would be like gold. I have less and you can't get more so I can charge more.
> 
> Sorry that scenario only works if someone else does not want the business. We already know that is not the case because they can get the service by phone lines, wireless or cable and even satellite.


Speed and storage are two different sectors. The server companies charge companies like Google, Apple and Rush for the use of their servers. So if Rush needs 2 terabytes instead if 1 but it will not cost him anything for that privilege, where is the incentive now to put more servers online? Why should Cisco spend the billions on more servers when the pay out will be the same? 

They wont. 

FWIW, I wish Rush would only have 1 byte but using him for example only because he was brought up earlier.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Speed and storage are two different sectors. The server companies charge companies like Google, Apple and Rush for the use of their servers. So if Rush needs 2 terabytes instead if 1 but it will not cost him anything for that privilege, where is the incentive now to put more servers online? Why should Cisco spend the billions on more servers when the pay out will be the same?
> 
> They wont.
> 
> FWIW, I wish Rush would only have 1 byte but using him for example only because he was brought up earlier.


That example is not quite on point. Servers store the webpages and are paid for by the people who own the pages. Isp's own the pipes between you and the servers and charge you for how fast and how much you can get. This law means if you pay for 10gb and unlimitec they can't choke down the pipe because you use a certain website.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Wlover said:


> That example is not quite on point. Servers store the webpages and are paid for by the people who own the pages. Isp's own the pipes between you and the servers and charge you for how fast and how much you can get. This law means if you pay for 10gb and unlimitec they can't choke down the pipe because you use a certain website.


So we are getting back to the speed/ bandwidth issue. Whoops sorry, cant call it bandwidth after today. 

Let me ask you. How often in history have companies lost money due to regs only to make it up somewhere else? Most have. So Skype which uses a lot of bandwidth and high speeds doesn't have to pay their fair share anymore? 

Guess who will?

I would like to see this law that even the FCC hasn't seen yet. Wouldn't you? They did the same thing with the ACA and the war in Iraq. Lets do it now and worry about it later type of action. Do either of us really know what we are debating or is it just _our_ opinion? I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. The truth is I don't know a hill of beans about this law and it appears no one else does but the lobbyist wrote it. 

Small rant and highjack but you will understand my distrust. Years ago before Ike Galveston county was hit with a bill saying that you couldn't build within 300' of the coast to protect the sea turtles. Sounds good on the surface. Then they wanted to close and fill in Rollover Pass. Only one of two Texas coastal fishing spots that are handicap accessible. 

A group including myself hired a lawyer to find out what's up. When the bill shook out it said you couldn't build within 300' of the coast _unless_ it was more than 6000 square feet. Cant have the sea turtles coming up to shore in anything less than 6000' after all. It would be embarrassing. Then a 3000 acre ranch was bought out by a shell company and then we would try and legalize gambling. Well our lawyer prevailed so far but the fight is still on after 8 years. I know one dude that lost his election and one that didn't re-run because of it. 

In other words, I may trust what you say, I just may not trust the source of your (or mine either for that matter) info. I have just been using what I have heard from people in the field on their take and not the MSM.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's something the dicktator said today:
Obama Dares GOP: âHave a Vote on Whether What Iâm Doing Is Legalâ¦I Will Vetoâ 
Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are âthe right thing to doâ: 

âSo in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what Iâm doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because Iâm absolutely confident that what weâre doing is the right thing to do.â

The IDIOT doesn't even think that people in this Country know that the Senate dosen't get to "vote" to decide if something/bill/law is "legal". 
"The right thing to do" gets to be decided by a president- Can someone please inform him that he is not a dictator.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Wlover said:


> Not the same situation at all.
> 
> They are saying that you get the speed you pay for no matter what you are using it for. Not that you can't charge for a higher speed. That means if I pay for 10 gb and you pay for 10 gb, the ISP can not give you priority because of what you are using that speed for.


Wait a minute...the way "I" understand it is that, NOW, if I want better speed, I can pay $$ and get it and you can pay $ for a slower speed, but once this thing goes into effect, I will no longer be able to "buy" that higher speed so we will both pay the same...for the same speed?

I'm not seeing anything about content being the issue...did I misunderstand something? That's OK, I'll just go check the 332 page thingamajig...

Oh wait...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There aren't any new regulations yet. Regulations will be written during the next few months. All that's been decided so far is that internet service providers will be regulated as public utility providers. Anything beyond that is speculation at this point.


So that 232 pages of nothing? Then why is it 332 pages, shouldn't it be 1? What are those other 231 pages?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that &#8211; without the vote of Congress, the peoples&#8217; branch of government &#8211; a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.
> 
> *The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC&#8217;s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities*. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class


http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> Wait a minute...the way "I" understand it is that, NOW, if I want better speed, I can pay $$ and get it and you can pay $ for a slower speed, but once this thing goes into effect, I will no longer be able to "buy" that higher speed so we will both pay the same...for the same speed?
> 
> I'm not seeing anything about content being the issue...did I misunderstand something? That's OK, I'll just go check the 332 page thingamajig...
> 
> Oh wait...


You will always be able to pay for faster service. Here's is a clip that explains what Net Neutrality is all about. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p90McT24Z6w[/ame]


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, like if fed ex.refused a gun place from shipping...

Being done now

Or credit card companies defaulting on service to gun places.
Being done ...now


Or bankers refusing and terminating service to gun stores.
Being done .....now


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Net neutrality gives them more power over you and what you do with said Internet. It gives them the ability to at any given time to shut it down completely and cut you off from the outside world. It also gives them more power to regulate and monitor what is going on. As with any other public utility the cost will also go up. Glenn beck did a great piece on it. Anybody for it is nuts.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Before I had internet 10 years ago I got my political news from alternative news papers I subscribed to.

May have to return to that....

.... which would help the USPS


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I cannot understand why so many of you are going postal over this. The rule-making will be open; by law it must be and any of you can comment in the process.

Second; as Nevada points out, the rules will do no more than give you an equal shot at access along with the big users; the ISP's will not be permitted to delay your use in order to give another user priority. Perhaps it WILL raise our costs a bit, but that happened with the telephone as they modernized. 

In the old days when we had only the wall hook-up and the crank phone the basic charge was something like $3 per month; now my phone bill runs about $70 and I get unlimited long distance and unlimited internet access. In 1927 a call to California would have run about $15 and there would be added charges for each minute.

If there are to be monopolies, and there are just a very few large internet ISP's, then let them be regulated. We have the best telephone system in the world, and it is tightly regulated.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Before I had internet 10 years ago I got my political news from alternative news papers I subscribed to.
> 
> May have to return to that....
> 
> .... which would help the USPS


Probably exactly what they want,for you to have to go to controled Media.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> I cannot understand why so many of you are going postal over this. The rule-making will be open; by law it must be and any of you can comment in the process.
> 
> Second; as Nevada points out, the rules will do no more than give you an equal shot at access along with the big users; the ISP's will not be permitted to delay your use in order to give another user priority. Perhaps it WILL raise our costs a bit, but that happened with the telephone as they modernized.
> 
> ...


Because that is what the Governemt is Telling you. We know they lie under the guise of control- they have done with everything lately. Did you Hear ofraud say "If You like Your Healthcare, You can keep Your HealthCare" He lies, everyday.The monopoly of the government is to be feared not buisness.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> I cannot understand why so many of you are going postal over this. The rule-making will be open; by law it must be and any of you can comment in the process.
> 
> Second; as Nevada points out, the rules will do no more than give you an equal shot at access along with the big users; the ISP's will not be permitted to delay your use in order to give another user priority. Perhaps it WILL raise our costs a bit, but that happened with the telephone as they modernized.
> 
> ...


My biggest concern is why the public cannot view the whole book? As to making the rules after the take over doesn't that raise any red flags? This action has been in discussion for quite a long time and all we are given is a snippet of possible outcomes.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> So that 332 pages of nothing? Then why is it 332 pages, shouldn't it be 1? What are those other 331 pages?





no really said:


> My biggest concern is why the public cannot view the whole book? As to making the rules after the take over doesn't that raise any red flags? This action has been in discussion for quite a long time and all we are given is a snippet of possible outcomes.


I've always heard "the devil is in the details"...you can bet your patootie there's a whole bunch of little "goodies" in those pages. Otherwise, why the secrecy?

To those who say this is just a simple thing that addresses only a couple of simple issues, again I ask, WHY THE SECRECY?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> To those who say this is just a simple thing that addresses only a couple of simple issues, again I ask, WHY THE SECRECY?


I suspect that most of the details are pretty boring. How much do you know about current phone regulations, and how much would you like to know? Not a lot, I suspect.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that most of the details are pretty boring. How much do you know about current phone regulations, and how much would you like to know? Not a lot, I suspect.


Boring or not, it shouldn't be a secret...and if this thing is as benign as some suggest, there would be no REASON for secrecy.

_*ETA*_

Hmmm...perhaps this is being done so that prices (for internet service) can shoot though the roof and a lot of tax revenue generated. 

Think about it...


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

There is no secrecy, period. The government (congress) appoints the FCC commissioners, a political act. The commissioners then set the "Regulations" in accordance with the acts of congress. 

The rule-making is a tedious and complicated procedure, but one of the major points is that the public must be allowed its comments before any rule is final. The rules are proposed, the public comments and the agency either amends the rule or sets it into effect.

Government agencies have to make "regulations" to put laws into effect, but once in effect these "Regulations" have the force of law until or unless the courts find them unreasonable or contrary to the intent of the law. When courts make such decisions the agencies are forced to re-write the regulations to conform to court decisions.

Where agencies dispute the court's decision a ruling may be effective in only one appellate circuit, but if a case goes to the supreme court it is the law of the land. On the other hand, an agency may re-write enforcement instructions for the whole country if convinced that the district court would not be overturned. That would be particularly so if district courts in two or more circuits overturned a regulation. 

There is nothing secret or underhanded about this; it is the way our government has worked forever.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> Boring or not, it shouldn't be a secret...and if this thing is as benign as some suggest, there would be no REASON for secrecy.


FCC regulations aren't a secret. They are all available online. Just Google for what you're interested in.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm amazed that so many people are interested in this issue all of the sudden. I've been following it all along. Interestingly, there are big corporations on both sides of this issue. Their interests dictate which side they will be on.

I live in a nerd cocoon where people have been following this issue all along. Even a few weeks ago nobody cared. This ruling was bound to happen, sooner it later, one way or another, yet conservatives seemed to stay out of it. I suspect that's because they weren't sure which corporations to back.

Now the ruling is all about right-wing fears of a government takeover. Why weren't they lobbying a long time ago? It's because they don't really care, and don't really understand it. All they know is that Obama is coming after our rights.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> There is no secrecy, period. The government (congress) appoints the FCC commissioners, a political act. The commissioners then set the "Regulations" in accordance with the acts of congress.
> 
> The rule-making is a tedious and complicated procedure, but one of the major points is that the public must be allowed its comments before any rule is final. The rules are proposed, the public comments and the agency either amends the rule or sets it into effect.
> 
> ...


Really ???

Then why was congress denied access to the 332 pages. Why did congress ask and why was congress denied ????

Bulloney


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Really ???
> 
> Then why was congress denied access to the 332 pages.


Because those are only proposed regulations that may not be adopted. When the proposed regulations become code then they will be public.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Not the same situation at all.
> 
> They are saying that you get the speed you pay for no matter what you are using it for. Not that you can't charge for a higher speed. That means if I pay for 10 gb and you pay for 10 gb, the ISP can not give you priority because of what you are using that speed for.


I can go along with this.

But why wouldn't they allow the end points to encrypt their data packets such that ISPs cannot determine what the packet contains? Seems that would accomplish the same goal with very little regulation at all. The ISP can't adjust based on content if they can't determine the content.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I can go along with this.
> 
> But why wouldn't they allow the end points to encrypt their data packets such that ISPs cannot determine what the packet contains? Seems that would accomplish the same goal with very little regulation at all. The ISP can't adjust based on content if they can't determine the content.


They would just slow all traffic from a particular sending domain, such as Netflix, regardless of packet type.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The internet is being hijacked by by the UN and turned over to Chinese regulators so to prevent people like me from spreading propaganda.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/china-censorship-sweep-deletes-more-60-000-internet-113610173.html


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/


Never thought I'd see the day where you would cite a Ron Paul link as your source....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Because those are only proposed regulations that may not be adopted. When the proposed regulations become code then they will be public.


Now remember....certain countries companies are already allowed to partake in the creation of the regs.....you know tweaking them....but to congress they ....elected by us......charged with the responsibility to protect our rights,.....those people are barred from reading the new rules.....


I cry bull.


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

Think of it like your phone.
You pay for service. 
The phone company can not charge you more if you call a lawyer and less if you call your mother. 
They can charge you more if you call across the country.

Or like UPS.
You pay to ship a package by weight and distance. They can not charge you more to ship 1 lb of diamonds than they do to ship 1 lb of dirt.

You pay according to speed and bandwidth not content.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm surprised to hear that congress was denied access to the proposed rule. The chairman of the FCC is a democrat; I'll bet if anyone was refused access he was a republican. The fact is, the deliberations of any board are privileged--they do not have to be made public. The ACTIONS of a board are not privileged and must be open.

Further, there are two republicans on the board. If they wanted congress to have a look-see at their deliberation process they could easily have leaked any document.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

They are following the normal course of business with regards to the proposed rules. Nothing has changed because this is happening during Obama's time in office.

Big stink about nothing. The proposed regs will be posted in a couple of weeks after they have done the final edits. they still will not be law for another 60 days after that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wlover said:


> They are following the normal course of business with regards to the proposed rules. Nothing has changed because this is happening during Obama's time in office.
> 
> Big stink about nothing. The proposed regs will be posted in a couple of weeks after they have done the final edits. they still will not be law for another 60 days after that.


And there will be plenty Of Law Suits before those regs take place. And THAT could take a Very Long Time and this could in the end be gone after a few months to years because it will be in litigation so long. i Love That.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I watched the video that Nevada supplied, I fear unintended consequences, just like obama-care caused the loss of full time jobs to be replaced by part time, so companies didn't have to supply insurance. So until we see what the changes are we won't know for sure. For example, The video implied that all would have the same speed. At what cost? A company or blog that needs only a tiny bandwith and doesn't need the speed will now have it, and a place like Netflix who needs speeds will have it also. So what is the cost to the small company verses Netflix? Same speed, same access, same costs? Costs a small company or blog can't afford? It was Hillery Clinton who just complained that different media are dividing the country, will this "equal speed" crush the small outlet for ideas, like alternative news? Maybe, maybe not, we won't know till we see the rules and the unintended (maybe intended) consequences of the rules. 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-blames-different-media-for-dividing-country/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And there will be plenty Of Law Suits before those regs take place. And THAT could take a Very Long Time and this could in the end be gone after a few months to years because it will be in litigation so long. i Love That.


Exactly. This is not law yet.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Their current actions may be harmless and even beneficial to some, but once they really take the reins and implement all their "bright ideas" and more and more regulations for good sounding reasons but have unforeseen consequences, look out! It is inevitable. Every thing that has ever come under government control has gone that way, from local right on up to the feds. 

Someday in the future, we'll be telling our grandkids about the days when the internet was still running wild and free.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> I'm surprised to hear that congress was denied access to the proposed rule. The chairman of the FCC is a democrat; I'll bet if anyone was refused access he was a republican. The fact is, the deliberations of any board are privileged--they do not have to be made public. The ACTIONS of a board are not privileged and must be open.
> 
> Further, there are two republicans on the board. If they wanted congress to have a look-see at their deliberation process they could easily have leaked any document.


So, why are certain private business .......Privileged enough to see what the 300 plus pages are to tweet it.

Folks please help me with the links....hit the blaze.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Their current actions may be harmless and even beneficial to some, but once they really take the reins and implement all their "bright ideas" and more and more regulations for good sounding reasons but have unforeseen consequences, look out! It is inevitable. Every thing that has ever come under government control has gone that way, from local right on up to the feds.
> 
> Someday in the future, we'll be telling our grandkids about the days when the internet was still running wild and free.....


Was that our experience with the FCC regulating phone service?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Was that our experience with the FCC regulating phone service?


It was for millions when the government said they had a monopoly. My personal email is still "pacbell.net". It also cost more and there were more taxes and fees, especially fees.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

The comments by the dissenting commissioners was very telling! It's all about control and taxes.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JillyG said:


> Think of it like your phone.
> You pay for service.
> The phone company can not charge you more if you call a lawyer and less if you call your mother.
> They can charge you more if you call across the country.
> ...


Yes, but how was that any different from yesterday? I pay speed and bandwidth now and there were no 300 pages telling my provider how to do this. So I ask again....

What else is different with this law?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Was that our experience with the FCC regulating phone service?


Well when they broke up Ma Bell, my employer was having phone issues and we ended up in a 3 way finger point between AT&T, SW Bell and our phone equipment vendor. Office manager was pulling her hair out, this was before everybody had email and we were missing or losing important calls not to mention data transmittals. So she set up an appointment with all 3 of them at the same time, basically put them in the utility room and said nobody's leaving until it's fixed! My grandmother ended up paying about $600 for a standard dial phone because SW Bell billed a "lease" for AT&T and she paid $15 a quarter for years and years for that stupid phone. I happened to get a look at her phone bill and put a stop to that but it had gone on for years previously.

And just look at all those little oddly named fees and surcharges on the phone bill. Just more taxes they snuck in, it adds up to big money but since the phone companies collect it and take the heat from the customers for it, the beauracrats couldn't be happier.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Well when they broke up Ma Bell, my employer was having phone issues and we ended up in a 3 way finger point between AT&T, SW Bell and our phone equipment vendor. Office manager was pulling her hair out, this was before everybody had email and we were missing or losing important calls not to mention data transmittals. So she set up an appointment with all 3 of them at the same time, basically put them in the utility room and said nobody's leaving until it's fixed! My grandmother ended up paying about $600 for a standard dial phone because SW Bell billed a "lease" for AT&T and she paid $15 a quarter for years and years for that stupid phone. I happened to get a look at her phone bill and put a stop to that but it had gone on for years previously.
> 
> And just look at all those little oddly named fees and surcharges on the phone bill. Just more taxes they snuck in, it adds up to big money but since the phone companies collect it and take the heat from the customers for it, the beauracrats couldn't be happier.


 And that is why many now are just Dumping land lines at a record pace. Even my best friend is thinking about dumping his land line and just keeping a cell phone. And those Huge and many fees is his complaint., Way to many and I may even do the same thing if those fees get any higher. Bye Bye Land Line.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Hmmmmm


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They would just slow all traffic from a particular sending domain, such as Netflix, regardless of packet type.


My understanding is that 'net neutrality' is about the large bandwidth carriers and will still allow different rates to be applied to end point customers. If that's the case then the Netflix domain would be buried inside the routing packet from Netflix's isp. If that was inaccessible then they could not adjust the rate as you say.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> My understanding is that 'net neutrality' is about the large bandwidth carriers and will still allow different rates to be applied to end point customers. If that's the case then the Netflix domain would be buried inside the routing packet from Netflix's isp. If that was inaccessible then they could not adjust the rate as you say.


All ISPs will be regulated with Net Neutrailty, even cell phone providers who offer data services.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> All ISPs will be regulated with Net Neutrailty, even cell phone providers who offer data services.


I'm sure that's true, but that's not what 'net neutrality' is about.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*I support Net neutrality, but that is not what the FCC just did*
Commentary: The new regulatory action by the FCC has sweeping implications for the Internet, and the price we will pay over time for this radical shift will be severe.


> In the short term, the Internet will not work differently. But the price we will pay over time for this radical shift in regulation will be severe.





> What will this mean for American consumers? In the short term, the Internet will not work differently. We will continue to enjoy the same open Internet experience that we do today. *But the price we will pay over time for this radical shift in regulation will be severe.* Consumers are likely to see higher bills from new taxes and fees and expenses related to regulatory compliance, along with a host of unintended consequences. They will wait longer to receive faster next-generation services. Internet providers, which spend massive capital to dig up streets, hang wires and connect homes, will see this intense chain of activity subjected to regulatory second-guessing that will slow the dynamic improvements we all desire.



http://www.cnet.com/news/i-support-net-neutrality-that-is-not-what-the-fcc-just-did/#ftag=YHF65cbda0


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

^^ pretty much what I said a few pages back. The consumer is going to end up paying more in fees and taxes.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

No problem here I will just wifi at McDonalds


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

sidepasser said:


> ^^ pretty much what I said a few pages back. The consumer is going to end up paying more in fees and taxes.


The whole way through this thread I kept hearing Reagan in the back of my head, saying "I am from the government and I am here to help you".


----------

