IIRC most people were in support of this. I said from the beginning it was a bad idea, the state ought to get out of the way. But no, the general public was convinced the state was on their side here and that the corporations were bad--the ones with state involvement mucking things up already.
So effectively the state is going to continue to consolidate control over this form of communication, and will continue to do so until it's a China situation, where you have one choice of service provider, the national ISP corporation--likely given for "free" at the cost of tax money--which the public will celebrate as giving everyone a "basic human right/need". Of course, the standard issues with monopolization will come into play, and it won't be long until accepted opinion is mandatory on the web; dissent will be crushed and any hopes of free speech will be completely slashed. Only hope after that is mesh nets and similar technology, which may be considered "underground" at that point, perhaps even illegal--wouldn't want anyone to support terrorist activity or to share CP, after all.
In between now and then, smaller ISPs will struggle to afford the regulations imposed on them until they either get merged into the existing big ones--TWC, Comcast, etc.--or close their doors. The problems with the oligopoly will continue to push the public to want a solution to their woes, and if they don't wise up to how the state's going to fuck them in the end, then the problems are going to be met with increasingly severe problems, requiring more "solutions" which worsen the situation further. It's a never ending feedback loop, outside of rejection of state 'assistance', but the general public is either too stupid or too ignorant to do that.
Topic: "The FCC’s Plan To Take Over The Internet Has Begun" (Read 322 times)
Ya knew it was coming...
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-fccs-plan-to-take-over-the-internet-has-begun/
And sure enough, at least one service is complaining about entangling regulations.
If you want to paint this, er, "pivot" with a broad brush, you can say that FedGov got the suckers to swallow the King's Shilling once again.
But look at it with a more detail-oriented eye and you see the FCC essentially acting as muscle for one faction at the expense of another. And as is almost customary, the faction that gets the muscle has been branded as "the consumers."
It's fascinating. Consumerism, if you will, is standard policy in a business country. The general maxim of business is, "The customer is always right." And yet, FedGov frequently uses its muscle on the side of "the consumer." Fascinating how the two dovetail.
Are you one of those who decry consumerism? Well if so, you stand athwart not only "business" but also the federal government.
Quote from: John Merline
The FCC’s Plan To Take Over The Internet Has Begun
"It's not a government takeover of the Internet.” That was the mantra of those who backed the Federal Communication Commission’s “net neutrality” rules, which the FCC approved a little over a year ago.
“Not only are the new rules not a government takeover,” argued one supporter in Variety, “they are well in keeping with how communications have been successfully fostered and regulated in America in the past.”
The rules were only meant to keep the Internet “free and open,” advocates said. All the government was doing was blocking ISPs from discriminating against users by charging more for faster speeds.
But to impose “net neutrality,” the FCC reclassified the Internet so that it could regulate it in the same way it regulated the telephone monopolies. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler promised that — despite the fact the FCC had just granted itself wide-ranging control over ISPs — it would use a “light touch” when it came to regulating ISPs.
But now, 12 months later, the FCC tipped its heavy hand with a proposal for a new set of regulations that could, as the Morning Consult put it, “reshape the tech industry.”
The proposed new rules don’t have anything to do with “net neutrality.” They are about privacy. Now that the FCC can do so, Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided that the government should impose what it determines are the appropriate privacy protections on all Internet service providers....
"It's not a government takeover of the Internet.” That was the mantra of those who backed the Federal Communication Commission’s “net neutrality” rules, which the FCC approved a little over a year ago.
“Not only are the new rules not a government takeover,” argued one supporter in Variety, “they are well in keeping with how communications have been successfully fostered and regulated in America in the past.”
The rules were only meant to keep the Internet “free and open,” advocates said. All the government was doing was blocking ISPs from discriminating against users by charging more for faster speeds.
But to impose “net neutrality,” the FCC reclassified the Internet so that it could regulate it in the same way it regulated the telephone monopolies. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler promised that — despite the fact the FCC had just granted itself wide-ranging control over ISPs — it would use a “light touch” when it came to regulating ISPs.
But now, 12 months later, the FCC tipped its heavy hand with a proposal for a new set of regulations that could, as the Morning Consult put it, “reshape the tech industry.”
The proposed new rules don’t have anything to do with “net neutrality.” They are about privacy. Now that the FCC can do so, Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided that the government should impose what it determines are the appropriate privacy protections on all Internet service providers....
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-fccs-plan-to-take-over-the-internet-has-begun/
And sure enough, at least one service is complaining about entangling regulations.
If you want to paint this, er, "pivot" with a broad brush, you can say that FedGov got the suckers to swallow the King's Shilling once again.
But look at it with a more detail-oriented eye and you see the FCC essentially acting as muscle for one faction at the expense of another. And as is almost customary, the faction that gets the muscle has been branded as "the consumers."
It's fascinating. Consumerism, if you will, is standard policy in a business country. The general maxim of business is, "The customer is always right." And yet, FedGov frequently uses its muscle on the side of "the consumer." Fascinating how the two dovetail.
Are you one of those who decry consumerism? Well if so, you stand athwart not only "business" but also the federal government.
I have a thread about this subject a long time ago. I could not believe bitcoiners were not following this closer but... No one cared.
Ya knew it was coming...
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-fccs-plan-to-take-over-the-internet-has-begun/
And sure enough, at least one service is complaining about entangling regulations.
If you want to paint this, er, "pivot" with a broad brush, you can say that FedGov got the suckers to swallow the King's Shilling once again.
But look at it with a more detail-oriented eye and you see the FCC essentially acting as muscle for one faction at the expense of another. And as is almost customary, the faction that gets the muscle has been branded as "the consumers."
It's fascinating. Consumerism, if you will, is standard policy in a business country. The general maxim of business is, "The customer is always right." And yet, FedGov frequently uses its muscle on the side of "the consumer." Fascinating how the two dovetail.
Are you one of those who decry consumerism? Well if so, you stand athwart not only "business" but also the federal government.
Quote from: John Merline
The FCC’s Plan To Take Over The Internet Has Begun
"It's not a government takeover of the Internet.” That was the mantra of those who backed the Federal Communication Commission’s “net neutrality” rules, which the FCC approved a little over a year ago.
“Not only are the new rules not a government takeover,” argued one supporter in Variety, “they are well in keeping with how communications have been successfully fostered and regulated in America in the past.”
The rules were only meant to keep the Internet “free and open,” advocates said. All the government was doing was blocking ISPs from discriminating against users by charging more for faster speeds.
But to impose “net neutrality,” the FCC reclassified the Internet so that it could regulate it in the same way it regulated the telephone monopolies. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler promised that — despite the fact the FCC had just granted itself wide-ranging control over ISPs — it would use a “light touch” when it came to regulating ISPs.
But now, 12 months later, the FCC tipped its heavy hand with a proposal for a new set of regulations that could, as the Morning Consult put it, “reshape the tech industry.”
The proposed new rules don’t have anything to do with “net neutrality.” They are about privacy. Now that the FCC can do so, Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided that the government should impose what it determines are the appropriate privacy protections on all Internet service providers....
"It's not a government takeover of the Internet.” That was the mantra of those who backed the Federal Communication Commission’s “net neutrality” rules, which the FCC approved a little over a year ago.
“Not only are the new rules not a government takeover,” argued one supporter in Variety, “they are well in keeping with how communications have been successfully fostered and regulated in America in the past.”
The rules were only meant to keep the Internet “free and open,” advocates said. All the government was doing was blocking ISPs from discriminating against users by charging more for faster speeds.
But to impose “net neutrality,” the FCC reclassified the Internet so that it could regulate it in the same way it regulated the telephone monopolies. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler promised that — despite the fact the FCC had just granted itself wide-ranging control over ISPs — it would use a “light touch” when it came to regulating ISPs.
But now, 12 months later, the FCC tipped its heavy hand with a proposal for a new set of regulations that could, as the Morning Consult put it, “reshape the tech industry.”
The proposed new rules don’t have anything to do with “net neutrality.” They are about privacy. Now that the FCC can do so, Chairman Tom Wheeler has decided that the government should impose what it determines are the appropriate privacy protections on all Internet service providers....
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-fccs-plan-to-take-over-the-internet-has-begun/
And sure enough, at least one service is complaining about entangling regulations.
If you want to paint this, er, "pivot" with a broad brush, you can say that FedGov got the suckers to swallow the King's Shilling once again.
But look at it with a more detail-oriented eye and you see the FCC essentially acting as muscle for one faction at the expense of another. And as is almost customary, the faction that gets the muscle has been branded as "the consumers."
It's fascinating. Consumerism, if you will, is standard policy in a business country. The general maxim of business is, "The customer is always right." And yet, FedGov frequently uses its muscle on the side of "the consumer." Fascinating how the two dovetail.
Are you one of those who decry consumerism? Well if so, you stand athwart not only "business" but also the federal government.
Jump to: