swgohome.com

Anyone versed in this have an opinion on today's FCC ruling?
I am fairly well versed and have a strong opinion most can probably guess, but anyone else care to share theirs?

I never heard of it, but, let me guess. It gives the government powers to snoop?

I'll go one farther. The government said one thing, but in fact, did the opposite?

I suppose it will depend what they want to do. Freedom of speech is something that should be protected for starters...it could get interesting.

Surely the government won't overstep their bounds on this! Why, they've never mislead us before. Maybe we can get them to tell me when to take a crap.

Net neutrality is slightly complicated for those not in the industry. In a nut shell Comcast and friends want to setup a situation where content providers, like ESPN, Walmart, MSN, ..., would pay them money to put their traffic first in line. Content providers who don't pay, Netflix, Google, Skype, P2P, online games like SWBF2 would be put at the bottom of the bucket. The problem with this situation is it would fracture Internet access for the US. There is a recent example of why this is very bad. Comcast cable revenue is plummeting, people are turning off expensive cable TV and signing up for Netflix or Hulu. So Comcast goes to Netflix's Internet provider, Level 3, and through some peering agreement legalese tells Level 3 they have to pay up in three days or all traffic to Comcast would be cut. Had Level 3 not paid, as a back-haul provider, Comcast would have shattered the US Internet in a fundamental way. I will not go into detail, but lets just say a whole bunch of stuff would have been jacked up or stop working for a long time and VoIP would have taken a beating so hard it probably would have died on the spot. Its complicated but there it is.

Normally I prefer market forces deal with issues and the government go sit in a corner. In this case I am all for the FCC stepping in and putting Comcast in their place. As far as government agencies goes, the FCC does a fairly good job of making the right rules to keep things fair. That is if the White House and Congress stay out of it. In the end we have two choices, we can get the Internet the FCC way and everyone is the treated the same. Or we can go the Comcast way and the major ISPs get to make their own version of the Internet. Just my 2 cents.

Duel of Fates wrote:What FCC have you been following? And what do you consider "fair"?

The demarcation regulations, MDU none exclusivity regulations, slicing and dicing of the wireless space, and others

Duel of Fates wrote:Too late for that, White House is the one pushing Net Neutrality, or didn't you know that?

I do know, the only counter to Net Neutrality is "oh no big government again". This isn't about Obama, this is about Comcast and the FCC.

Duel of Fates wrote:[color=#0000FF]Yes, let us throw out the dangerous Capitalism. Let us welcome the safety of Socialism.

You are taking it too far with Socialism. Health Care reform is socialism. Creating rules that regulate an industry is insuring capitalism doesn't go unchecked. Until now the FCC has taken a hands off approach to Internet. It wasn't until Comcast started pulling stunts that the FCC had to step in. This whole situation is the FCC v. Comcast. So we have two choices, the Internet by the FCC or a fractured Internet by Comcast.

toad wrote:

Duel of Fates wrote:What FCC have you been following? And what do you consider "fair"?

The demarcation regulations, MDU none exclusivity regulations, slicing and dicing of the wireless space, and others

Duel of Fates wrote:Too late for that, White House is the one pushing Net Neutrality, or didn't you know that?

I do know, the only counter to Net Neutrality is "oh no big government again". This isn't about Obama, this is about Comcast and the FCC.

Duel of Fates wrote:Yes, let us throw out the dangerous Capitalism. Let us welcome the safety of Socialism.

You are taking it too far with Socialism. Health Care reform is socialism. Creating rules that regulate an industry is insuring capitalism doesn't go unchecked. Until now the FCC has taken a hands off approach to Internet. It wasn't until Comcast started pulling stunts that the FCC had to step in. This whole situation is the FCC v. Comcast. So we have two choices, the Internet by the FCC or a fractured Internet by Comcast.

I have been screaming that Health Care reform in its current condition is nothing more than Socialism!
Bank bailout, Socialism!
Automotive bailout, Socialism!
Social Security is Socialism!
Many of the "programs" of the last 90 or so years have been Socialism!


"So we have two choices, the Internet by the FCC or a fractured Internet by Comcast."

Yes, capitalism is scary to some, but companies will either adapt, overcome, innovate, and prosper, or they die. Nature abhors a vacuum so other companies will rise and fill the niches left behind by the failed companies. That is capitalism. What you are suggesting is that companies that would not survive on their own, must be backed by the government, using tax payer money to keep them alive, because that would be "fair". What that really does is clog up the system with companies that cannot make it on their own.

I am tired of people promoting Socialism in the name of greater good, and then pointing to past programs as proof that Socialism works. It does not.

Duel of Fates wrote:I have been screaming that Health Care reform in its current condition is nothing more than Socialism!

Amen brother, I think Obama got the hint after the midterm election

Duel of Fates wrote:Bank bailout, Socialism!

It was more like a bank buyout and loans. Kind of hard to scream socialism when the government made money on the deal.

Duel of Fates wrote:Automotive bailout, Socialism!
Social Security is Socialism!
Many of the "programs" of the last 90 or so years have been Socialism!

Yep, yep ,and yep. Even with a good economy the government bleeds money.

Duel of Fates wrote:Yes, capitalism is scary to some, but companies will either adapt, overcome, innovate, and prosper, or they die. Nature abhors a vacuum so other companies will rise and fill the niches left behind by the failed companies. That is capitalism. What you are suggesting is that companies that would not survive on their own, must be backed by the government, using tax payer money to keep them alive, because that would be "fair". What that really does is clog up the system with companies that cannot make it on their own.

I am tired of people promoting Socialism in the name of greater good, and then pointing to past programs as proof that Socialism works. It does not.

I agree socialism doesn't work and will never work. Many EU governments are proof of what happens with socialist agendas. What the FCC is trying to do is not socialism, it is very capitalistic. The regulations do not favor any individual company, person, or technology. In a nutshell they are insuring a level playing field for the industry. That way larger companies like Comcast are not able to crush the competition through low blows. As an example, Comcast cutting off Level 3 because they sign-up Comcast's arch rival Netflix. I just don't see this as socialism. Its more like regulating an industry to insure competition and capitalism can continue to grow the industry. I agree with you on socialism I just don't see it here.