Thread: Sorry everyone on my squad last night!

You were still impressive last night as an SL and SM. :9

Before I begin, I ask you to read up on the subject after you are done reading my post by following the further reading/sources links at the bottom.

While the announcement was made a while ago, I thought I might bring the issue to this forum as I recall a very successful thread about net neutrality posted several months back. This issue has taken several turns since September of last year (the date of the original post), and I feel it important to differentiate the situation of now with the situation of then.

For one, the proposed "Net Neutrality" rules as far as I know have been scrapped. The ideas behind them, and the general policy the FCC takes, has been around since the beginning, and will continue to be around. These policies and ideas being that the FCC should regulate the internet as little as possible, while maintaining a free, open network that can be accessed by as many Americans as possible in a free, competitive market. In other words, to do as little as possible so that the internet itself is not regulated by any authority or company, and that the customers aren't getting screwed

More importantly, Comcast won their appeal for the Comcast v. FCC case. A case in which the FCC ordered Comcast to stop filtering bit torrent content, and Comcast sued claiming the FCC did not have the authority. The courts agreed with Comcast. However, it would not deter the FCC.

As of the 6th of May, the FCC has proposed what they call a "Third Way" to approach the issue; the first way being doing what they are already doing, and the second to put all the regulations that are imposed on telephone companies on ISPs. Neither of these were acceptable ways, as the first was not doing enough as shown by Comcast v. FCC, and the second would have gone far beyond what anyone (least of all the FCC) wanted.

This "Third Way" is to keep what they call Title I regulations on the actual content that is transmitted/stored/used on the internet, while putting the way in which this data is transmitted under some (not all) Title II regulations. Put simply, the FCC can not touch what we view/use/enjoy on the internet, and if this "Third Way" goes into effect, neither will the ISPs (Internet Service Providers). In addition it would push ISPs to provide access to more people.

In my opinion, I could not ask for a better solution. I applaud the FCC for taking an approach to keep the internet as we know it while promoting more transparency from the ISPs. The ISP market is in poor condition: ISPs lie about the actual speed, overcharge consumers, and corner high-speed markets. Someone needs to kick their butts, because right now we're stagnating as a nation when it comes to expanding and innovating broadband internet.




I expect a huge backlash, however, because I know there are many impassioned anti-government posters on here. I humbly respect your opinion, and ask that you keep a few things in mind as you respond to me:


1. I am, for the most part, on your side.

I am staunchly against the government overextending itself. I consider myself an individualist, and concentrate on the core of the American Experiment as laid out by our founding fathers when it comes to government. What this brings with it, however, is some government intervention. But, I only want as much as is needed.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

-Alexander Hamilton


2. The FCC's goals actually match up with yours.

Remembering back from the previous thread (which I will not dig up for several, very good reasons), I recall many of you were afraid of government intervention on the internet. You envisioned an almost China-esque filtering. However, that is precisely what the FCC is trying to avoid. What you are afraid the government might do, the government is afraid the ISPs most certainly will do.


3. These rules are not final.

If you are discontent on the direction the FCC is taking, or perhaps would change a few details, voice your opinion. This is just the initial approach, and a lot can change before the final policy decisions are made. There a couple things you can do to voice your opinion.

You can directly contact the FCC to let them know what you would change before their final proposal. You can also spread the word (like I am doing here), and help facilitate a healthy debate on the subject; something which is the heart of good American Politics.



So I implore you to voice your opinions, and voice them loudly. This is a democratic republic with a mixed economy. The people have the power, and the government is there to check both itself and companies to make sure it stays that way.



Sources/Further Reading:

The Third Way: A Narrowly Tailored Broadband Framework - Broadband.gov

FCC outlines new 'third way' internet regulatory plan, will split access from content -- Engadget

A Third-Way Legal Framework For Addressing The Comcast Dilemma - Broadband.gov

This actually looks like it could be a damned good system. I'll have to keep an eye on it's progress and, specifically, it's reception internationally.

Brilliant post, Red, I might respond in a bit more depth when I've had a chance to read through those links when I'm not so tired.

Originally Posted by redfuzzy

This is a democratic republic

MNDF, quick! Before Texas and Glenn Beck some storming in on this forum and get it shut down for using the word democratic and referring to the USA as democratic! Oh sweet Jesus, what have you done, Red?