The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Wed May 21, 2014 2:19 am

The decision came down earlier today. They're moving forward with the "fast lane" idea, once again giving corporations a free ride and free reign to do anything they want to do.

1. Is there any way to stop this?

2. Is there any hope left that this will be reversed?

3. Is there anything more we, as internet users, can do to stop this?

I'm starting to think Anonymous is gonna have to deal with this one.

I just read a comment by someone on the news story, and it's very well-spoken and sums this up just nicely.

Socialism or Capitalism? That's the question... People are upset because those people who have more are being offered more (and better) things than those of us who (mal)linger in the low, low, low socio-economic levels can afford! Welcome to unfettered, unbridled, rampant capitalism! If you don't like it, guess what? No one cares! It's the oldest story in the Book. Cain killed Able out of jealousy and arrogance (or perhaps pride would be a better word to use here...). Cain felt entitled to Gods blessing and when he realized that he wasn't going to get it, he killed Able! They've been doing it to the poor ever since. There's no "level playing fields" out here. No parity. No economic morality. Capitalism says, "I make it and I can do whatever I want to with it", end of sentence. Economic Darwinism.

So bonus questions:

1. Is this yet another marked failure of capitalism to help anyone?

2. How many more of these things need to happen before Socialism becomes a force to be reckoned with?

SUPER BONUS! In the United States, if this keeps up and the Tea Party runs their side of the show, will the Tea Party kill the Republican Party, to have it replaced by a Socialist Party, with Democrats becoming more conservative?
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Qu Hui » Wed May 21, 2014 5:36 am

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:The decision came down earlier today. They're moving forward with the "fast lane" idea, once again giving corporations a free ride and free reign to do anything they want to do.

That's not what they're doing. They're putting the idea out there to gather public opinion on the matter. Also, the current FCC actually supports net neutrality, but their definition tends to differ from others. Not to mention that there's been repeated legal rulings that the FCC has no right to enforce net neutrality (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission) and can't force companies to keep their services open to everyone (Comcast Corp. v. FCC).

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:I just read a comment by someone on the news story, and it's very well-spoken and sums this up just nicely.

Link to the original story please.

Socialism or Capitalism? That's the question... People are upset because those people who have more are being offered more (and better) things than those of us who (mal)linger in the low, low, low socio-economic levels can afford! Welcome to unfettered, unbridled, rampant capitalism! If you don't like it, guess what? No one cares! It's the oldest story in the Book. Cain killed Able out of jealousy and arrogance (or perhaps pride would be a better word to use here...). Cain felt entitled to Gods blessing and when he realized that he wasn't going to get it, he killed Able! They've been doing it to the poor ever since. There's no "level playing fields" out here. No parity. No economic morality. Capitalism says, "I make it and I can do whatever I want to with it", end of sentence. Economic Darwinism.

There are a lot of problems with this.
1. He spelled Abel wrong, which is a red flag already. It's not a hard name to get correct.

2. Depending on the version of the story, Cain was spurned on by God's blatant favoritism and refusal of his offerings for no reason. Not to mention that, according to some interpretations, the conflict between Cain and Abel is not literal, but representative of a conflict between nomadic shepherds and settled farmers as societies moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. But such subtlety seems to escape the poster.

3. That's not what Darwinism is. Darwin's original theories stated that the ideal society came about through cooperation not conflict; they were corrupted by people who wanted to use them as a justification for their own selfish views.

4. No one cares, the poster claims...except all of those people, the FCC included, who do, and who are fighting for net neutrality.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:2. How many more of these things need to happen before Socialism becomes a force to be reckoned with?

There's too much lingering stigma associated with socialism in the United States for it to become a significant political force anytime soon, I think.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:SUPER BONUS! In the United States, if this keeps up and the Tea Party runs their side of the show, will the Tea Party kill the Republican Party, to have it replaced by a Socialist Party, with Democrats becoming more conservative?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
My avatar is Roy from Fire Emblem: Binding Blade, as he appears in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Quote of the "Day": "The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before." -Neil Gaiman
User avatar
Qu Hui
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: #SoSZ, 24/7

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Wed May 21, 2014 6:23 am

Qu Hui wrote:That's not what they're doing. They're putting the idea out there to gather public opinion on the matter. Also, the current FCC actually supports net neutrality, but their definition tends to differ from others. Not to mention that there's been repeated legal rulings that the FCC has no right to enforce net neutrality (Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission) and can't force companies to keep their services open to everyone (Comcast Corp. v. FCC).


Do you trust these courts to have the best interests of Americans in mind? This Supreme Court gave us "Citizens United", the most blatantly un-American decision in American history. The Supreme Court even doubled down on that horrendous decision that is universally panned worldwide.

Their rulings that the FCC can't enforce net neutrality is a blatant pro-corporate decision to help Republican backers.

Qu Hui wrote:Link to the original story please.

There are a lot of problems with this.

1. He spelled Abel wrong, which is a red flag already. It's not a hard name to get correct.

2. Depending on the version of the story, Cain was spurned on by God's blatant favoritism and refusal of his offerings for no reason. Not to mention that, according to some interpretations, the conflict between Cain and Abel is not literal, but representative of a conflict between nomadic shepherds and settled farmers as societies moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. But such subtlety seems to escape the poster.

3. That's not what Darwinism is. Darwin's original theories stated that the ideal society came about through cooperation not conflict; they were corrupted by people who wanted to use them as a justification for their own selfish views.

4. No one cares, the poster claims...except all of those people, the FCC included, who do, and who are fighting for net neutrality.


The FCC is not fighting for net neutrality. Democrats are selling out and have written opinions to the FCC against net neutrality and the FCC rendered a decision today. The opinion-gathering now happening is only pre-implementation. We need a lot of luck to get them to change their decision now.
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed May 21, 2014 10:10 pm

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:The decision came down earlier today. They're moving forward with the "fast lane" idea, once again giving corporations a free ride and free reign to do anything they want to do.


As QH said, not what happened. Catchy but misleading topic title.

1. Is there any way to stop this?


Go on the FCC's site and voice your opinion on the matter during the open window. Or hire a lawyer and try to find an argument.

2. Is there any hope left that this will be reversed?


Yes. As QH said this matter isn't settled entirely in court (I'd expect a prolonged legal battle), state's themselves could weigh in, and consumer's may voice somewhat with their choices. Not to mention the press will have its say.

3. Is there anything more we, as internet users, can do to stop this?


Answer to #1.

I'm starting to think Anonymous is gonna have to deal with this one.


Anonymous is capable of many thing but I'm not sure what lobbying sway they possess.

I just read a comment by someone on the news story, and it's very well-spoken and sums this up just nicely.

Socialism or Capitalism? That's the question... People are upset because those people who have more are being offered more (and better) things than those of us who (mal)linger in the low, low, low socio-economic levels can afford! Welcome to unfettered, unbridled, rampant capitalism! If you don't like it, guess what? No one cares! It's the oldest story in the Book. Cain killed Able out of jealousy and arrogance (or perhaps pride would be a better word to use here...). Cain felt entitled to Gods blessing and when he realized that he wasn't going to get it, he killed Able! They've been doing it to the poor ever since. There's no "level playing fields" out here. No parity. No economic morality. Capitalism says, "I make it and I can do whatever I want to with it", end of sentence. Economic Darwinism.


This is pretty inane. Not sure why you give it credence, I concur with what QH said about the post as well as its entirely incorrect characterization of the battle as one between socialism and capitalism.

1. Is this yet another marked failure of capitalism to help anyone?


Quite the opposite. This is how the system works. There are alot of forces at play here, as there is with almost any major economic and legal decision.

2. How many more of these things need to happen before Socialism becomes a force to be reckoned with?


None. Our system of government and our economic success is largely built around capitalism, not socialism. We incorporate certain socialistic programs to aid our people. This isn't a socialism vs. capitalism issue.

SUPER BONUS! In the United States, if this keeps up and the Tea Party runs their side of the show, will the Tea Party kill the Republican Party, to have it replaced by a Socialist Party, with Democrats becoming more conservative?


Not sure this is relevant, but none of these things are happening. If anything the Tea Party is faltering and 'establishment' Republicans are rallying. No one is killing the Republican party (Except maybe shifting demographics). Good luck with your hopes for socialism.



DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Do you trust these courts to have the best interests of Americans in mind? This Supreme Court gave us "Citizens United", the most blatantly un-American decision in American history. The Supreme Court even doubled down on that horrendous decision that is universally panned worldwide.


If by 'the best interests of Americans?' means objectively applying the principles of constitutional jurisprudence to the best of their ability? Then yes I do think they have the best interest of the Americans in mind.

Their rulings that the FCC can't enforce net neutrality is a blatant pro-corporate decision to help Republican backers.


Based on this discussion alone this conclusion is kind of far-fetched. You start the entire thread with the premise that 'the FCC is killing net neutrality', indicating you think they intend to police information carriers. You get a court of appeals ruling saying they can't do this (which isn't entirely accurate description), so should make you happy as it gives a obvious window for legal challenges to go to SCOTUS in hopes of protecting information providers. I feel like you're on two sides of the battlefield here.

The FCC is not fighting for net neutrality.


As QH said, this is dependent upon how you define net neutrality. I haven't followed the story immensely close, but from what i can tell the FCC is taking a very slow and middle of the road approach. For instance, even the FCC's own proposed rules prohibit ISP's from slowing down normal internet users access to sites (this one for example).

Democrats are selling out and have written opinions to the FCC against net neutrality and the FCC rendered a decision today.


Link (to these sell-out democrats).

The opinion-gathering now happening is only pre-implementation.


True, but that is how any agency rulemaking body operates. We can voice our opinions, and its possible they may be swayed by good arguments and consumer protection interests.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4315
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Qu Hui » Wed May 21, 2014 10:45 pm

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Do you trust these courts to have the best interests of Americans in mind? This Supreme Court gave us "Citizens United", the most blatantly un-American decision in American history. The Supreme Court even doubled down on that horrendous decision that is universally panned worldwide.

1( You just confirmed that you didn't even bother reading up on either court case. If you had, you would have known that the Supreme Court wasn't involved and that both decisions were handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

2( Are you talking about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? You should probably be more clear on that.

3( Please don't throw around the term un-American, it's not helping your case any.

4( To play devil's advocate, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had legal basis; from a legal point of view, the government was attempting to regulate how private citizens could spend their money, a power they are not granted by the Constitution.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Their rulings that the FCC can't enforce net neutrality is a blatant pro-corporate decision to help Republican backers.

Or it could be because the court decided, based on legal precedent and the FCC's own prior decisions, that the FCC was not acting within its authority in either case?

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:The FCC is not fighting for net neutrality.

If that was true, Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and Comcast Corp. v. FCC wouldn't have gone to court in the first place.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Democrats are selling out and have written opinions to the FCC against net neutrality

Link to these opinion or a source that proves they were made please.

Shikanosuke wrote:If anything the Tea Party is faltering and 'establishment' Republicans are rallying. No one is killing the Republican party (Except maybe shifting demographics). Good luck with your hopes for socialism.

Actually, I just saw something on the New York Times website about that while I was doing research for this article. Mitch McConnell and a bunch of other "establishment" Republicans won a lot of Republican primaries over Tea Party candidates.

Shikanosuke wrote:I haven't followed the story immensely close, but from what i can tell the FCC is taking a very slow and middle of the road approach.

The article I read in the New York Times seemed to imply that the major concern seemed to be that the FCC wasn't considering peering arrangements made between companies to fall under the umbrella of net neutrality.
My avatar is Roy from Fire Emblem: Binding Blade, as he appears in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Quote of the "Day": "The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before." -Neil Gaiman
User avatar
Qu Hui
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: #SoSZ, 24/7

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Thu May 22, 2014 2:00 am

This debate is pointless because you two are only arguing within the confines of existing law whereas I'm arguing for changes in the laws or to stop certain other changes.

The Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions basically allow elections to be bought. Heck, what sense is there in determining that corporations are people? This is RETARDED. If our legal framework allows or demands this, then our legal framework needs to be demolished and re-built from the ground up. Corporations do not help people at all, they're beacons of greed and self-interest that leaves the poor in the dust.

If you two can't join the debate properly, and only wanna discuss current law, then we have nothing to talk about. As for the FCC, they took comments before they made the decision, and they ignored them. Why should anyone think they'll listen to this round of comments by the people? They didn't before.

As for the 20 Democrats that wrote in supporting the fast lane BS the FCC is putting out, I read the news when I read it, through newsletters and the like. I didn't make bookmarks. I was under the impression that people knew how to do their own research. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

The industry-backed letter was signed by Representatives Gene Green (D-TX), John Barrow (D-GA), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Bill Owens (D-NY), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Albio Sires (D-NJ), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Lacey Clay (D-MO), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Scott Peters (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), and David Scott (D-GA).

Here's one link that talks about it. This is the last time I go looking for a link I don't have on hand. I don't pander to the lazy. I do my research and report on that research when I post. If you want to know more about something I post, look it up your damn self. I don't like being called a liar. Knock it off.

http://www.occupy.com/article/how-activ ... nal-agenda
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu May 22, 2014 2:52 am

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:This debate is pointless because you two are only arguing within the confines of existing law whereas I'm arguing for changes in the laws or to stop certain other changes.


The confines of American law, yes. Crazy concept.

The Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions basically allow elections to be bought.


Not really.

Heck, what sense is there in determining that corporations are people? This is RETARDED.


If i recall correctly, it harkens back to civil procedure issues in making personal service on companies. Maybe first amendment rights as well, not sure.

If our legal framework allows or demands this, then our legal framework needs to be demolished and re-built from the ground up. Corporations do not help people at all, they're beacons of greed and self-interest that leaves the poor in the dust.


Thanks for the college-age seminar. Far out.

If you two can't join the debate properly, and only wanna discuss current law, then we have nothing to talk about.


Seriously? You leap in here with a misleading title and a weak grasp on the situation and then accuse us of improperly handling the debate because we show a basic familiarity with American case law? Jesus. I'm...just impressed.

As for the FCC, they took comments before they made the decision, and they ignored them. Why should anyone think they'll listen to this round of comments by the people? They didn't before.


Can you say they won't? Link to where they took comments before? I've been part of State & Local government committees where we promulgated rules and took public comments, many people voiced their opinions, and we changed our minds.

As for the 20 Democrats that wrote in supporting the fast lane BS the FCC is putting out, I read the news when I read it, through newsletters and the like. I didn't make bookmarks. I was under the impression that people knew how to do their own research.


:lol: Screw sourcing my argument, you're all lazy!

I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.


Oh. My apologies. I didn't know that.

Here's one link that talks about it. This is the last time I go looking for a link I don't have on hand. I don't pander to the lazy. I do my research and report on that research when I post. If you want to know more about something I post, look it up your damn self. I don't like being called a liar. Knock it off.


You either are amazingly overly emotional, or haven't participated in an academic debate before. But it's basic courtesy and credibility-building to source your arguments. When I write a legal brief for a judge or superior, I cite my sources. I don't say 'hey judge, look it up yourself! if i say it is truth!'. What malarky.

EDIT: Seriously though, in case you thought I was just being too critical, asking for a source is not the equivalent of calling someone a liar.

http://www.occupy.com/article/how-activists-put-protection-internet-back-national-agenda


Any sources not from an overly biased source? Or is that asking too much? Pardon.
Last edited by Shikanosuke on Thu May 22, 2014 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4315
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Qu Hui » Thu May 22, 2014 3:22 am

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:This debate is pointless because you two are only arguing within the confines of existing law whereas I'm arguing for changes in the laws or to stop certain other changes.

How does current or past law not affect what changes can or can't be made? That's how American law works; past and existing law are always taken into consideration.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Heck, what sense is there in determining that corporations are people? This is RETARDED.

First, the ableist language is not appreciated nor appropriate. Second, that's not how corporate personhood works. Corporate personhood (at least as much as I understand it) grants very limited rights, mostly regarding contract law, to corporations under the justification that corporations are groups of people working together and it would be unconstitutional to deny them those very specific rights. (If there are any legal experts in the audience, feel free to correct me.)

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:If our legal framework allows or demands this, then our legal framework needs to be demolished and re-built from the ground up.

Good luck convincing people that they need to scrap the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because those are the laws that both decisions you mentioned used to make their decisions.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:If you two can't join the debate properly, and only wanna discuss current law, then we have nothing to talk about.

You do not get to dictate what the "proper" debate is. Dismissing our concerns like this is not helping your case, and neither is your combative tone and language.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Here's one link that talks about it. This is the last time I go looking for a link I don't have on hand. I don't pander to the lazy. I do my research and report on that research when I post. If you want to know more about something I post, look it up your damn self. I don't like being called a liar. Knock it off.

You made a claim; the burden of proof lies with you. If you refuse to provide the proof, we have no reason to believe you. And as Shikanosuke said, asking for evidence is not the same as calling someone a liar.

Shikanosuke wrote:Can you say they won't? Link to where they took comments before?

There was a hearing a few years ago where they took suggestions from Congress and it got them into the mess they're in now. Can't find any case where they took public opinion and ignored it, though.

Shikanosuke wrote:Any sources not from an overly biased source?

Here is an article on the FCC opening the plan to comments and here is a summary on the hearing on Tuesday and FCC chairman Tom Wheeler promising to reconsider the FCC's position on peering arrangements, both taken from the New York Times. If you need more, I'm sure I can find some.
Last edited by Qu Hui on Thu May 22, 2014 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My avatar is Roy from Fire Emblem: Binding Blade, as he appears in Fire Emblem: Awakening
Quote of the "Day": "The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before." -Neil Gaiman
User avatar
Qu Hui
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:34 pm
Location: #SoSZ, 24/7

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu May 22, 2014 11:01 am

I don't know enough about the topic to join in the debate but some things need to be said

1) Use of derogatory terms like retarded or retard or such like is unacceptable on this forum and any further use of it will be a straight out warning. Thank you.

Now onto less matter:

2)
Here's one link that talks about it. This is the last time I go looking for a link I don't have on hand. I don't pander to the lazy. I do my research and report on that research when I post. If you want to know more about something I post, look it up your damn self. I don't like being called a liar. Knock it off.


DreamGoddess, that isn't how debates work. At least on any forum I have been too and not here.

If someone claims something that surprises others or seems new and so on, others are able to ask for a source. It is up to the person to make the claim to provide the source. It is basic internet etiquette, that the person making a claim to then be able to provide sources if asked. It isn't calling a specific person a liar but a simple method to keep debates credible and polite.

So your not being called a liar but the others aren't being lazy, they are only asking for proof or a source of your claim as per the usual etiquette. Hope that clarifies things and makes you feel better about the request
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15745
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: The FCC just killed Net Neutrality

Unread postby Jordan » Sun May 25, 2014 10:09 am

"The Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions basically allow elections to be bought."

Not really


Bought might not be the right word, but I definitely agree with Lindsey that Citizens United was pretty BS. It's pretty stupid how much money interest groups, corporations, etc. can throw at politicians to sway elections. Elections have become a big business circlejerk and almost are beginning to seem like they're some kind of investment gamble. It starts to be a problem because politicians feel indebted not to the people who voted for them but to the businesses or PACs which helped fund campaigns to get citizens to vote for them.

It's been awhile since I studied that specific court case personally, but I remember that it was a pretty big slap in the face to previous legislative attempts to rein in interest group meddling in politics such as the McCain Feingold Act.

This may not seem relevant to the topic but it's very relevant. The campaigns for SOPA and other bills challenging net neutrality were definitely lined up with interest groups on both sides. The pro net neutrality politicians were probably pocketing some money from internet corps. like Google and the pro SOPA people were getting funded by Hollywood and other corporate interests that stood to gain from attacking net neutrality.

http://maplight.org/content/72896

gives an example of how corporate interests fund both sides of the debate.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5884
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Next

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved