Obama, internet nanny

[Capt._Ron]

Please elaborate on this "franchise system" and how it eliminates all aspects of competition. I would think that if an ISP censored too much material they would lose business. You know people will deal with a lot of BS but they won't go without their porn. What prevents big brother government from limiting access??? At least there are multiple ISP's. With the government regulating the internet you have no choice. They could basically limit access to anything they deemed "unsafe". I'll take my chances with ISP's who make choices based on the bottom line.

I have no clue what "InfoWars or WND" is but it's probably no worse than your socialist bullshit.

[Total_Blender]

Please elaborate on this "franchise system" and how it eliminates all aspects of competition. I would think that if an ISP censored too much material they would lose business. You know people will deal with a lot of BS but they won't go without their porn. What prevents big brother government from limiting access??? At least there are multiple ISP's. With the government regulating the internet you have no choice. They could basically limit access to anything they deemed "unsafe". I'll take my chances with ISP's who make choices based on the bottom line.

I have no clue what "InfoWars or WND" is but it's probably no worse than your socialist bullshit.

Its obvious you have no idea how cable and phone companies operate so let me explain it to you. A cable company makes a contract with the county/city government to provide cable service for X number of years. No other cable provider is allowed to operate in this area until the contract expires. This is called a "franchise".

The cable system works on a franchise because the gear to run cable to each home is hellaciously expensive. Since the cable provider puts up the cash to set up and maintain the cable system they want to protect their investment from competition. Likewise, the cities don't want scads of cables and gear all over the place so it benefits them to have a single provider.

The phone lines work pretty much the same way. A landline phone company (Bellsouth, AT&T, Verizon Landline, etc) is granted a monopoly to operate in a certain area.

The system works the same way for utilities. If you don't like your service with GA Power, you can't just up and switch to Greystone. GA Power owns the grid that supplies power to your home. If you don't like them becuse they aren't giving you the service you want... tough shit you're stuck with them.

So as a consumer you are limited to one cable provider and one phone provider. There are other options like satellite ISP (Hughesnet, etc), but its in its early stages and the technology just isn't there yet. You are limited in your choices of ISP's. As far as ISP's losing business because of them censoring too much material... when they've got the market cornered with a monopoly people really don't have much of a choice but to buy their product or do without.

As far as InfoWars or WND the less you know about those shithole sites the better.

[Capt._Ron]

Its obvious you have no idea how cable and phone companies operate so let me explain it to you. A cable company makes a contract with the county/city government to provide cable service for X number of years. No other cable provider is allowed to operate in this area until the contract expires. This is called a "franchise".

The cable system works on a franchise because the gear to run cable to each home is hellaciously expensive. Since the cable provider puts up the cash to set up and maintain the cable system they want to protect their investment from competition. Likewise, the cities don't want scads of cables and gear all over the place so it benefits them to have a single provider.

The phone lines work pretty much the same way. A landline phone company (Bellsouth, AT&T, Verizon Landline, etc) is granted a monopoly to operate in a certain area.

The system works the same way for utilities. If you don't like your service with GA Power, you can't just up and switch to Greystone. GA Power owns the grid that supplies power to your home. If you don't like them becuse they aren't giving you the service you want... tough shit you're stuck with them.

So as a consumer you are limited to one cable provider and one phone provider. There are other options like satellite ISP (Hughesnet, etc), but its in its early stages and the technology just isn't there yet. You are limited in your choices of ISP's. As far as ISP's losing business because of them censoring too much material... when they've got the market cornered with a monopoly people really don't have much of a choice but to buy their product or do without.

As far as InfoWars or WND the less you know about those shithole sites the better.

Ok, good deal....I knew how cable worked but I didn't know that the contract with a municipality was considered a franchise. Thank you for the explanation. That being said, I think internet is a different story than cable. First of all you touched on satellite internet as an alternative, but there is also all of the phone companies (T-mobile, sprint, verizon, att) who don't need a contract with a city to provide internet and only need pockets of land (for towers and the like) for their infrastructure. Cable is not the future of internet and I think the competition is there for internet service. The government stepping in will only muddle and decrease that competitiion.

As far as taking up arms again the government....no need...2012 will be here soon enough. I don't think anyone can make the case that Obama has done a "good job" as president and that will show in the next election. What he has done is give a voice the conservatives who would normally be sitting at home while the "young liberals" protested, and this is a good thing.

[bu villain]

The government stepping in will only muddle and decrease that competitiion.

I think you are still confused about what is being proposed. The only issue is whether your ISP can treat some internet traffic differently than others. No one is proposing that the government be given the power to censor any part of the internet. That has never been part of the discussion. I know the words "government" and "regulation" can instantly scare some people but this is one of those times where regulation really is a good thing!

[Capt._Ron]

I think you are still confused about what is being proposed. The only issue is whether your ISP can treat some internet traffic differently than others. No one is proposing that the government be given the power to censor any part of the internet. That has never been part of the discussion. I know the words "government" and "regulation" can instantly scare some people but this is one of those times where regulation really is a good thing!

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.

I fully understand that this topic was brough up because a Large ISP was regulating the amount of bandwidth to certain applications. I wouldn't want this to happen to me but fortunately I have several options for internet service and if one doesn't provide the service I want I will go to another. My issue lies is that rarely does the government de-regulate anything (thank goodness they did for radio). The FCC may begin its regulation with the best intentions but the govenment is not in the habit of gaining power and then giving it back. I think this will end up being a way for the government to wring more money out of the ISP's.

[Total_Blender]

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.
. .

I don't think the FCC are nearly as bad as you claim they are... if they were on top of their shit Glenn Beck and others of his ilk would have taken a permanent vacation from the airwaves some time ago. Granted I have my own grievances with the FCC but when these far right wingnuts are able to broadcast seditious rhetoric daily without the slightest fear of reprimand you can't really argue that they are heavy handed toward either side when it comes to regulation.

What do you think will happen to discussion of political topics when the internet is only open to those who pony up the extra $$$ for unrestricted access? Isn't the so called "tea party/Ron Paul Revolution/9-12 project Glenn Beck Tyte Yo/John Birch Society" movement supposed to be about grassroots and the power of the internet to organize? Remember that the ISP's will be working out deals with the so called "liberal media" that will effect what sites you can access.

I really don't understand why conservatives are against Net Neutrality... they always baselessly claim to be disenfranchised by the media and then when the people of America really are about to get disenfranchised, they are all in favor of it.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't think the FCC are nearly as bad as you claim they are... if they were on top of their shit Glenn Beck and others of his ilk would have taken a permanent vacation from the airwaves some time ago. Granted I have my own grievances with the FCC but when these far right wingnuts are able to broadcast seditious rhetoric daily without the slightest fear of reprimand you can't really argue that they are heavy handed toward either side when it comes to regulation.

Do you feel the same about the left wing wackos out there on the radio too? How about MSNBC, should they be held accountable for their record during the Bush administration? Should the 'Fairness Doctrine' also be used when conservatives are in power? Use the oppressive power of govt to completely stamp out and kind of liberal speech? That is all that the 'Fairness Doctrine' is about, eliminating any type of opposition to a liberal agenda. Stamp out any semblance of truth in the quest to socialize this country?


You really are so far out in left field Mao couldnt even find you.

[bu villain]

No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.

I fully understand that this topic was brough up because a Large ISP was regulating the amount of bandwidth to certain applications. I wouldn't want this to happen to me but fortunately I have several options for internet service and if one doesn't provide the service I want I will go to another. My issue lies is that rarely does the government de-regulate anything (thank goodness they did for radio). The FCC may begin its regulation with the best intentions but the govenment is not in the habit of gaining power and then giving it back. I think this will end up being a way for the government to wring more money out of the ISP's.

I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.

[Capt._Ron]

I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.

That would be nice...a FCC the enforces neutrality without controlling content or a true competitive markey with many options for every consumer.

I think the debate comes down to a few major questions

1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?