FCC Chairman's Proposal Will Radically Change The Rules Of The Internet

[Gasser64]

How is that any different than you thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a "scummy lib"? You all get so caught up in which side of the line people are on, that you won't even listen to their argument unless they are on the same side as you. It's fucking childish.

Well you make an interesting point. Its just that once someone can be identified as one or the other, its pretty easy to understand where their arguments are coming from. Say you're arguing with Bill Maher. And you're talking about entitlements. He may cite all the "facts" he wants, but you know that the only reason he's doing it is because he wants wealth to be redistributed to poorer people. Because he "has a heart". It all goes back to his basic principles.

[Craizie]

Well you make an interesting point. Its just that once someone can be identified as one or the other, its pretty easy to understand where their arguments are coming from. Say you're arguing with Bill Maher. And you're talking about entitlements. He may cite all the "facts" he wants, but you know that the only reason he's doing it is because he wants wealth to be redistributed to poorer people. Because he "has a heart". It all goes back to his basic principles.

I see it all the time when people debate politics. Even if a Dem/Rep comes up with a clearly good idea the other side won't recognize it because they didn't come up with it.

Eventually we have all have to live in the gray and see an idea for what it is and not who thought of it.

[exlude]

I see it all the time when people debate politics. Even if a Dem/Rep comes up with a clearly good idea the other side won't recognize it because they didn't come up with it.

Eventually we have all have to live in the gray and see an idea for what it is and not who thought of it.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say I wish Obama hadn't said anything about it. It made it political. It's funny, before he said anything, there was little talk about "the government running the internet", "taxing the internet", etc. and said rhetoric that did exist was coming only from Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. I'd verge on saying that had he not said anything, this thread wouldn't even be here.

[exlude]

Well you make an interesting point. Its just that once someone can be identified as one or the other, its pretty easy to understand where their arguments are coming from. Say you're arguing with Bill Maher. And you're talking about entitlements. He may cite all the "facts" he wants, but you know that the only reason he's doing it is because he wants wealth to be redistributed to poorer people. Because he "has a heart". It all goes back to his basic principles.

You're basically saying that in classifying someone, you can make assumptions about their argument. The assumption isn't even really about the argument, but about why the person is making the argument. This is the basis of poor debate. You're looking for ways to discredit the author vs. evaluating their argument. This is, in a way, what Crazie was saying in the first place.

[Gasser64]

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say I wish Obama hadn't said anything about it. It made it political. It's funny, before he said anything, there was little talk about "the government running the internet", "taxing the internet", etc. and said rhetoric that did exist was coming only from Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. I'd verge on saying that had he not said anything, this thread wouldn't even be here.

I disagree with that conclusion. We hated the patriot act too. The left doing it, the right doing it, we hate all of it. We want them both to sit down and shut up.

This is the basis of poor debate.

Not necessarily, it depends on the argument. If Bill Maher is arguing that it really is necessary to raise taxes in order to fund welfare, then knowing what side of the isle he sits on is really quite helpful. But if he wanted to refill a drained lake so that a certain species of bird will come back to the area, that might actually warrant further investigation.

[exlude]

Not necessarily, it depends on the argument. If Bill Maher is arguing that it really is necessary to raise taxes in order to fund welfare, then knowing what side of the isle he sits on is really quite helpful. But if he wanted to refill a drained lake so that a certain species of bird will come back to the area, that might actually warrant further investigation.

Knowing your source is important as it can help decipher rather criticism is warranted, but it can't be the foundation for an argument. For example, the side of the isle someone sits on can help you decide if you want to investigate his claims, but it can't be the basis for which you reject his claims. Even then, you'd have to be careful of any confirmation bias you may carry while only investigating "that side of the isle's" claims.

[racrguy]

You're basically saying that in classifying someone, you can make assumptions about their argument. The assumption isn't even really about the argument, but about why the person is making the argument. This is the basis of poor debate. You're looking for ways to discredit the author vs. evaluating their argument. This is, in a way, what Crazie was saying in the first place.

I love me some ad-hom's.

[big_tiger]

https://medium.com/backchannel/the-historical-record-of-net-neutrality-747286cbde62

Though reclassifying broadband Internet access providers under Title II allows the FCC to treat them as “common carriers,” that reclassification in and of itself does not now mean that the Internet is treated like a public utility. As John Bergmayer from Public Knowledge explains:
This misapprehension comes about because the most prominent telecommunications common carriage service of the past—telephone service—also was regulated as a utility. But utility regulation typically carries with it a number of features not present in any current proposals for broadband—most notably, thorough price regulation and detailed local regulation of service quality, customer service responsiveness, and so forth.

Is there any truth to this? Anyone found the infamous 300 page proposal?

[exlude]

https://medium.com/backchannel/the-h...y-747286cbde62

Is there any truth to this? Anyone found the infamous 300 page proposal?

We won't see the full document until it has been rubber stamped through it's approval processes. But the FCC released a fact sheet regarding the matter a short while back.

 Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:
o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation

and further stated:

The proposed order does not include utility-style rate regulation
 No rate regulation or tariffs
 No last-mile unbundling
 No burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.

It's a quick, 4 page read:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf

[Gasser64]

You can't trust them. Trusting them not to screw us over is like asking someone to believe a 9x convicted felon won't do it the 10th time. The government is no different than a multiple convicted felon when it comes to this. You'd judge that guy based on his history, and you'd damn well better if you know what's good for you and if you care about the people around him once he's released. Yet with the government, you're all a too ready to just give them the benefit of the doubt this time. You feeling lucky? Personally I'm not a gambler, and those odds are worse than you get at the casino.

[Forever_frost]

The "market is not truly free" argument. Truly free markets lead to monopolies lead to the same problem we're in now. Next.

Wait, if truly free markets lead to monopolies and we have monopolies but not free markets, how do you figure sports fans? There is government oversight out the ass and we have monopolies. Tell me how that works out. All that happens is the monopolies go to government to ensure they don't have competition.

[Forever_frost]

He can't create an agency out of thin air, regardless of what he attempts to do via executive order.

How do you think the EPA and Department of Education started? Executive Order.

[ftp]

Ron Paul is spot on with this.


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 – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – 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’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 – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Ron Paul is spot on with this.

.... without the vote of Congress

Is this the same congress that cant balance the budget because of the amount of pork the members put into it, and the same congress he is a member of?

[Sean88gt]

How do you think the EPA and Department of Education started? Executive Order.

The EPA was, but had to be ratified by both house and senate. The DoE was re-created by the Dept. Of Education organization act.