Bamster wants to control internet

[Avro]

If the law represents the principle of Net Neutrality, yes. No, if it contains provisions other then that.

This discussion got side tracked in a dozen different ways when cflisthebest started spouting off on how we need government internet monitors so we don't watch anything PG13, which has nothing to do with net neutrality.

What's your take on this bill?

 

[gerryh]

uh no.

I am saying that it doesn't take statistics for the general public to see that many teenagers and even kids today are poorly parented and run wild.

that comment has nothing to do with the Govt infringing on our privacy and rights.

The reason you won't quote any statistics for your comments, is because the stats would not support your BS contentions.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Here are some bullet points of the main objectives of the draft bill, seems pretty reasonable to me. Although, this is the Oct 2009 draft, not sure if it has changed since then.
FCC proposes network neutrality rules (and big exemptions)

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice

• Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

• A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner
• A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Exceptional rules

Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.
First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.
Network management is reasonable if it is used

• To manage congestion on networks
• To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)
• To block unlawful content (child porn)
• To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)
• For "other reasonable network management practices"Overall it

Overall the intent seems pretty balanced, it takes in both consumer & business needs without unduly favoring one over another. Allowing customers to have a choice in the market place and also an internet connection that is not arbitrarily tampered with. On the business side, they are still allowed to manage their networks but with the caveat that it's transparent and follows guidelines.

Definitely a step in the right direction, if only the schmucks in Canada would do the same. As it is, Rogers, Bell, Telus etc dictate policy to the CRTC, not the other way around.

 

[Avro]

Then you and I have nothing to argue about.;-)

 

[Risus]

I'm talking in my career, not some casual internet browsing all day when you should be outside getting some exercise or spending time with your family.

I'm on the internet for work every day too, so I guess I know just as much about it as you...

 

[Bar Sinister]

Here is a detailed article on the issue. Contrary to Walter's alarming thread title it appears that the FCC is attempting to make sure that ISPs do not deny access to the net to users or impose online censorship except in a few areas such as child pornography and copyright infringement, both of which are already illegal in any case.

FCC sets Internet regulation in motion | Signal Strength - CNET News

 

[AnnaG]

different circumstances you know that!

the reason the govt does what they do, is because they know that the majority of the parents out there today don't police and discipline their children.. by watching what they do, who they interact with, what laws they follow and break..

Some parents out there don't deserve to be parents because they don't parent the child!

Really? Then explain why the vast majority of kids turn out to be pretty good people. Hint: I can guarantee it isn't because gov't sticks its beak into each and every home to guide the kids along.

pfft, you don't need government stats to figure this one out.. :roll:

Lame avoidance of having to produce anything to back up what you say with evidence rather than gibbering hearsay.

So, conservatives don't want to restrict internet? Check this out.

Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police | Politics and Law - CNET News

"Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations."

If this Republican effort had succeeded, EagleSmack and other loyal Republicans would be keeping a log as to which websites they visited, to aid the police investigations. But if the law had been passed by Republicans, I assume loyal conservatives would have no problem with that, they would have done it without complaint.

Or this attempt by McCain to restrict internet.

ISPs pressed to become child porn cops - Security- msnbc.com

I have no idea whether Obama wants to restrict internet. However, when it comes to restricting internet, conservatives have absolutely no credibility, they have tried their level best to limit, to restrict internet to reflect their own political philosophy.

Who cares what you say? You're just shifting focus from Obama to the Reps. Off-topic.

To be fair, many ISP's already do that.

.......regardless of the party in power.

uh no.

I am saying that it doesn't take statistics for the general public to see that many teenagers and even kids today are poorly parented and run wild.

that comment has nothing to do with the Govt infringing on our privacy and rights.

You say "many" but refuse to show what "many" actually stands for.

I am saying that Parents need to be in control of what their kids are looking at on the internet and the Govt needs to be working with the Internet Providors to make sure that the parents have the right tools neededs to accomplish this, but they also need to make sure the Providors are not allowing illegal Internet activity to exist online and regulate it.

Which is what's going on right now. It works. Increasing gov't intrusion will simply create more problems. (Besides making gov't itself more expensive to upkeep).

Here is a detailed article on the issue. Contrary to Walter's alarming thread title it appears that the FCC is attempting to make sure that ISPs do not deny access to the net to users or impose online censorship except in a few areas such as child pornography and copyright infringement, both of which are already illegal in any case.

FCC sets Internet regulation in motion | Signal Strength - CNET News

Looks that way to me, too.