- Forums
- General Discussion
- Uncategorized
- Forum Post
One Year Ago Today, the FCC [Did Not] Kill the Internet
- skolvikings
- Dec 17, 2018
-
74
Thoughts? http://reason.com/blog/2018/12/14/one-year-ago-today-the-fcc-killed-the-in
I pretty much agree with the general premise. The sky hasn’t fallen since the end of Net Neutrality. The fear mongering was real, and it was wrong.
Conversation 74 comments
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383708">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>The Constitution is a lot older than Title 2. Should we abandon it because it's old?</p><p><br></p><p>There's little point in Federal Agencies if all they do is sit around and wait for Congress to take action. The FCC has a mandate and it has authority. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383916">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Pro Tip: If you're going to say "go back and read what I said" you need to point out an inconsistency or a misrepresentation of what you said.</p><p><br></p><p>The prior FCC classified the Internet under Title 2 and the current FCC reverse it. Neither of those actions would be legal if the FCC had zero authority over the Internet.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384237">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>These agencies were created by Congress so I'm not sure they could be classified as "extraconstitutional". If you're looking for examples where Congress has effectively given away it's power, the best example concerns military action. "Congress shall declare war" yet today a President can take military action without Congressional pre-approval. Even after Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt knew he needed to ask Congress to declare war if he wanted the US to attack Japan.</p><p><br></p>
-
Thom77
<blockquote><em><a href="#383707">In reply to Usman:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>But They were doing that before Net Neutrality. They also have been involved in the <span style="color: rgb(34, 31, 31);">Netflix Open Connect program which was free and helped ISP's traffic complaints before Net Neutrality.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(34, 31, 31);">So using your same logic … why even make Net Neutrality to begin with if they were doing it to begin with?</span></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383918">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Easy: a women's right to make decisions about her own body, people's sexual orientation or identity, etc.</p><p><br></p><p>A somewhat oversimplified description of party goals would be that Democrats want to put limits on institutions and Republicans want to put limits on people.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383992">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>I admit Republicans do want to control some institutions, but primarily people.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383989">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Is anyone complaining about being Netflix being throttled today?"</p><p><br></p><p>Is that your criteria? It's not happening today so it's not going to be a problem? </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384100">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>As has already been established there was an actual problem. You can't logically argue both that net neutrality is unnecessary because providers won't do anything inconsistent with it and also that it will stifle business decisions if it's enforced. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383863">In reply to Bob_Shutts:</a></em></blockquote><p>GOP officials have made several proposals to eliminate social security and replace it with something else. They may continue to fail to pass these ideas into law, but that doesn't change their intentions.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383954">In reply to Bob_Shutts:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, they didn't pass a law eliminating SS if that was your point. Did prominent members of the GOP talk about? Yes, plenty. If they believe the charge that they want to eliminate or replace SS is unfair, why do they keep talking about it? </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383998">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Did you use a conspiracy building app? You know, where you just enter terms like "Obama", "Clinton Foundation" and "Google" and it creates a new conspiracy theory?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384058">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>I assume you mean their campaigns which has nothing to do with RDS or the Clinton Foundation. Not to mention that Obama and Bill Clinton as a former presidents and Hillary Clinton as a non-president have no power over the fate of Google or RDS. And of course none of them has held positions of authority in California.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384300">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes, companies make contributions to political parties, not exactly news. Democrats can have opinions of course, but they haven't passed any laws to silence conservative voices. And of course, there are tons of conservative voices on the Internet that can be just as easily found with Google as liberal voices. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384080">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>People from industry have been taking jobs in Presidential administrations for many decades and most of them were Republicans when they went to work for Republican Presidents and Democrats for Democratic Presidents. Nothing to see there.</p><p><br></p><p>The primary motivation of the vast majority of tech companies is to make money and any social or political considerations are given minimal consideration. Twitter in particular allows Trump to violate the rules simply because he makes them a lot of money even though they are supposedly "liberal".</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384099">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not a fan of Farakan but how many people have been put in danger because of lies he told? I would have banned Jones the first time he spread his BS. Among other things he claimed 911 was an inside job, that Sandy Hook was a hoax, that Obama was going to put people in concentration camps and promoted the absurd pizzagate theory. If Farakan has done similar things he should be banned too.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384301">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Are you under the miss-impression that Farrakhan is a liberal? </p><p><br></p><p>https://medium.com/s/story/no-farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-d2d1a37e1162</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#383859">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>There's no connection between net neutrality and taxing text messages. In fact, text messages have nothing to do with the net at all. Any other random complaints about Democrats you want to inject into this discussion?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384376">In reply to JimP:</a></em></blockquote><p>For most of that time streaming and subscription services weren't a mainstream activity, so there was no profit motive for favoring one site over another. </p>
-
Bats
<p>The bottom line is this: INTERNET TECH BLOGGERS ARE DUMB.</p><p><br></p><p>Let's get real here. It's those guys like the boneheads from Ars Technica, Tech Crunch, etc…. that really know nothing. They're not "movers and shakers." Rather, they're just story-tellers who live in a utopian fantasy world that they create in their heads while wearing the jeans, hoodies, and sneakers to work. I'll never forget the time when they demanded that wireless carriers drop "contracts" believing that if they did, our phone bills will be lower. I swear, those people are so stupid.</p><p><br></p><p>Good post, thanks for reminding me.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384117">In reply to Bats:</a></em></blockquote><p>Embracing stereotypes much? </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384823">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sometimes my water company charges me for more MBs than I actually used.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#384782">In reply to lordbaal1:</a></em></blockquote><p>No, it's my opinions that every level headed person agrees with, so you must be wrong.</p>
Newsletter
Stay up to date with the latest tech news from Thurrott.com!
"*" indicates required fields
-
Sections
-
About Thurrott
-
Contact
-
Our Other Sites
-
Subscribe
© 2023 BWW Media Group