Proposed Fcc Control Of The Internet

[wetatnight]

If the proposal to have the FCC control the internet becomes law, what will happen to sites like DD or other abdl sites?

will we still be able to have our online community?

Will the Government be able to know who's on these sites and how often?

will we still be able to purchase ab/ dl items online?

Scary stuff.

[freswith]

China has tried it, and largely failed.

The trouble is that if you criminalise everybody, you tend to get rather lonely.....and very angry when they finally lynch you.

This happened to the Puritans when Charles II was restored, and more recently to Gordon Brown and his cronies.

[acemanner]

chinas great firewall failed. and in a country with a vast amounts more technology, they would have to be fools to think they could stop people from getting what they want.

[Mischa]

I read an article about this so-called "control" and from what I gather, it is more on price of service vs. content.

so no, DD isn't going away. ANY attempt to circumvent first-amendment rights by the government would be met with vehement opposition by the Press....regardless of slant, on this issue they're all gonna speak with one voice imo....they'd be impacted too. Because the way this political system works, they're soon gonna be the ones on the outside of the power-base and be the ones bitching.

[D_Rainger]

The Golden Age of the web is over anyway.

-DR

[lil_baby_wet_n_squishy]

I thought the proposal on the table was to allow ISPs to prioritize and limit certain content.. IE the death of netflix, hulu, and other online tv content that effects the bottom line of Cable companies that are the number one provider of broadband in the usa.

[belinda_sue_fox]

wet n squishy..on the ball.

Others... what are you on about, certainly not what the subject is covering.

[jeremy12312]

The FCC is not taking control of the internet. The issue at stake is just "net neutrality". The ISP's want not only to collect money from you for your internet connection, but also from content providers to get priority on the network. Sort of like Mafia protection. "That sure is some nice data you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

[binkydiaperboy]

If the proposal to have the FCC control the internet becomes law, what will happen to sites like DD or other abdl sites?

will we still be able to have our online community?

Will the Government be able to know who's on these sites and how often?

will we still be able to purchase ab/ dl items online?

Scary stuff.

"Becomes Law"? The government has no plans of drafting, voting or signing a bill into law. This is being done through the simple power of the FCC with the blessing of President Barrack Obama. In 2001 Liberals were screaming daily about the "Patriot Act" (which was passed by the legislative process) and its invasion of privacy. Now they are nowhere to be found. Very telling!

[LuvsGurl]

I thought the proposal on the table was to allow ISPs to prioritize and limit certain content.. IE the death of netflix, hulu, and other online tv content that effects the bottom line of Cable companies that are the number one provider of broadband in the usa.

Nah, won't go down that way. Cable and Satellite TV is on the way out anyways, just like printed newspapers and books. By 2020 "TV" will just be another channel on the internet, and the device hanging on your wall will double as a personal computer and gaming system all-in-one.

What will happen, however, is bandwidth restrictions based on what package you purchase from your provider. In reality though this won't effect most of us. If you do a little traffic analysis the vast majority of the internet's available bandwidth is being used up by downloaders and torrenters. People who download hundreds of gigabytes of music, movies and games every day, most illegally. Crack down on those people and a lot of the internet will be freed up for many more people.

[ldatsea]

well i have not read the "bill" but the FDA just got "Sweeping NEW Powers" over the food supply now more powers to the FCC.... its not right.... ben franklin said...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"...

[Little-Daddy-Toa]

Crack down on those people and a lot of the internet will be freed up for many more people.

If would not matter if we cracked down on it or not. As hackers can get around it. Just like theft happens all the time granted it is less but not zero. It happens and will happen everyday. Just like gangs getting their hands on illegal guns or people dealing drugs. It happens it doesn't matter what you do it just happens.

As for the FCC controlling the net.....I highly doubt it could be done. There are millions of people on the net everyday all day.

[dogpiss]

The way government does things this has been screwed up. The Net Neutrality law has produced a edict that is anything but... The way to have done it right would to have been to introduce a SIMPLE bill stating ALL PACKETS ARE CREATED EQUAL. And that transport of these packets is blind. The only throttling you get is what you expect based on your service agreement (you pay for X mbps, you get up to >= X mbps for any/all content)... none of this these can be faster these can be slower/blocked because they take too much bandwidth. But it has turned into a cluster frack by a bunch of government bureaucrats who would have problems making a bootable flash drive if their life depended upon it! But hey, introducing a law to give government LESS power has never been government's strong suit.

[ThomasInWVa]

Actually, sites like these are at risk. In the past ISPs did NOT filter traffic based on content or destination. When they tried there was a PR and legal backlash. With this new ruling, an ISP would be able to block traffic to all "porn" or "fetish" sites on the rationale that it was a bandwidth issue, in that porn has no economic value to them.

[ldatsea]

in that porn has no economic value to them.

now thats funny porn is the biggest money maker on the net... but your right however ISP can ban traffic to site... what this really does is allow them to charge more money....

[messyman]

It's time like this that you guys have your wonderfull second amendment.

[redneck diaper boy]

This is bad news.

Here is my Congressman's take on the issue.

http://stearns.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=218480

[diaperbrownie]

I imagie diaper fetish forums would be top of the list for watcdogs when it came to fetish websites. Feeders/Stuffers (those who like to be fat for sexual reasons) don't pose a potential threat to anyone.

However a lifestyle devoted to diapers, with regular talk abotu babies and what it's like to be a baby, would be scrutinized because of the public's close connection between the lifestyle and sexual predators/child rapists/molestors.

We aren't any of that here, but the "front" for potential activity of the criminal nature is there. The topic to be discussed itself (wanting to be a baby and wearing and using diapers to feel like a baby) is enough lead to go on for internet wathdogs to cast a wary eye upon.

Sad, but oh so true. The double standard is enough to make me want to wet my diaper in worry (even though it's already warm and soaked).

[redneck diaper boy]

It doesn't look like it will happen. There are already plans to stop it!

Washington, Dec 21 - Since its inception, the Internet has thrived and grown without any federal regulation,

[FretaBWet]

This whole issue boils down to money. Comcast was complaining that Netflix users downloading movies online was taking a large percentage of the overall bandwidth. This is no suprise since the size of the data file of a full length HD movie is considerable. To deal with that they started slowing down Netflix data files and prioritizing traffic from companies that paid Comcast $$$$$ for that priority. The whole point was that if Netflix wanted to pay them for priority they would stop slowing down the content. Netflix cried foul which should be no surprise, they're in business to make money for themselves not Comcast. This is why the FCC stepped in.

Now look at the FCC. The three Democrats on the board voted to prohibit Comcast and all other ISP's from prioritizing data except in certain circumstances where there are legitimate technical reasons like in wireless. The 2 Republicans on the board voted against it.

If something wasn't done to prevent ISP's from charging fees for data sent through the internet they would have ended up making money on both ends. You would be paying a monthly fee for your internet connection. If you want to use that to download a netflix movie instead of driving to a video store or having one mailed to your home, Netflix would have had to pay a fee to Comcast for every movie. Netflix would have passed that fee onto it's customers because hell it's not coming out of their profit. So you as the customer would have to pay comcast to have your internet connection but you'd end up paying Comcast for your movies on top of that.

The bottom line is the Democrats voted to have ISP's not be able to choose what you can download by adjusting the speed down on companies that don't pay them. Republicans voted to let them steal more money out of your pocket by letting the cable companies do the same thing the Mafia does.

Hugs,

Freta

[Bettypooh]

Boy, how twisted the story becomes Here's the real unadulterated poop:

The "Net Neutrality" part will prohibit cable and phone services from discriminating in regards to data traveling over their services. Some have restricted speeds of torrent sites, Skype, and video sites because they use a lot of bandwidth. Such favoritism must now cease- nobody's traffic may be slowed to favor anyone else's- even the ISP's own traffic Wireless companies will have more leeway in making decisions since their bandwidth is more limited but cable companies won't have that option. Wireless companies may decide to block some high data sites, but cable companies will not be able to block any legal sites. DD is a legal relatively low bandwidth website so we'll still be here

These ISPs can manage data on their networks any way they wish so long as they make public the specifics of their policies and hold all traffic to the same standards. If they do something you don't like you can go elsewhere with your cash, which means they are not going to do anything drastic That would drive customers away which businesses are hesitant to do

Many smaller companies that use these bigger ISP's to give internet access to their customers could only watch as the big players let their own traffic through while slowing the smaller companies traffic. People in areas that didn't have direct access to the bigger companies directly were adversely affected. That is what brought about these rulings- the big companies were acting like thugs

The FCC doesn't have the resources to investigate these events on a case-by-case basis. Their position when it comes to the internet itself is to be as uninvolved as possible since the technology moves so fast that their rules would need constant reviewing to prevent them from stifling innovation. All they want to do is to make sure that broadband ISP's are playing fairly, legally, and openly so that the people aren't forced to deal with unfair companies just to go online. The FCC's head, Julius Genachowski, stated that it is their intent "to preserve the open internet as it exists today."

Lawsuits will fly over all this, as they always do when big companies lose their power to control the market That should tell you something about what's really going on!

Bettypooh

[DL88]

The bottom line is the Democrats voted to have ISP's not be able to choose what you can download by adjusting the speed down on companies that don't pay them. Republicans voted to let them steal more money out of your pocket by letting the cable companies do the same thing the Mafia does.

I Lol'd at that.

Comparing the GOP to the mafia is petty and low even for the likes of you Freta. Grow up and stop drinking the Kool-aid, Jim's been gone a long time.

[diaperliz]

Net Neutrality is being pushed heavily by Google (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html). Notice the creative language they use to describe the evil cable companies.

This should make anyone who has been following Google suspicious. Google has a track record of ignoring the public's best interest (Google Buzz, Street View, etc).

Things to keep in mind:

Comcast has consistently been an embarrassment to the business world. Legislation should never be made because of Comcast's alleged plans.

The FCC was a terrible thing for television.

The FCC has no legal authority over the internet.

The FCC is acting without public or representative vote of any kind. Which should be a crime.

The FCC has consistently been 20 years behind the rest of the world. They are an outdated, useless bureaucracy that is desperately trying to justify its existence by inventing false threats.

That being said I encourage everyone to research the issue thoroughly from both sides and come to your own conclusion. This could change the world (for better or worse) forever.

[Bettypooh]

....Comcast has consistently been an embarrassment to the business world....

....The FCC was a terrible thing for television....

....The FCC has no legal authority over the internet....

....The FCC is acting without public or representative vote of any kind....

....The FCC has consistently been 20 years behind the rest of the world....

....That being said I encourage everyone to research the issue thoroughly from both sides and come to your own conclusion. This could change the world (for better or worse) forever.

Addressing these:

-Comcast was who first began thugging by intentionally slowing down "Bit Torrent" downloads. This resulted in a court case where Comcast was ordered to cease and desist doing that, but the ruling only applied to BitTorrent- the Courts were wary of making a general ruling in an area they didn't really understand

-The FCC was treading on a lot of new ground in the beginning of TV. Their RCA/Dumont decision about color TV was hotly debated at the time because their ruling was based more on which company was more likely to be able to stay in business long enough to develop it than which system was actually better. As TV grew they were faced with a number of issues they hadn't encountered previously in broadcasting. Most of these were due to the then-fact that many areas had only one or two TV stations, thus creating a market monopoly. Much later they began ruling on content because TV programming was trying content that had never been broadcast before, and some of it was seen as detrimental to the general public

-The FCC does have legal authority over all public wired and wireless communications in the U.S. as was given them by Congress in the Commutations Act of 1934, amended by the Telecom act of 1996. This is why they began regulating TV content- it's their job to act in the best public interest in all the areas they are responsible for. The amending act specifically gives them internet oversight

-The FCC has a mechanism to allow public input and comment. In all the major decisions they make they have two comment periods where anyone has input-one when they announce they are considering an issue and the other when they create the draft ruling they intend to implement. The window of opportunity for these is small and published. Unless you look for this info you're not likely to find it as they don't "broadcast" it, but it is made public. I've taken part in this process myself so I know it exists

-The FCC does lag behind in about everything they do. IMHO this is mainly due to the fact that FCC Commissioners are politically appointed, and not selected by actual knowledge or merit. This is the traditional American way concerning huge numbers of Federal positions and is a large part of the power a President is given upon election. I wish that would end as I feel better results would happen with better people selected through merit, not friendship or political affiliation

-Everyone should do their own research, but as this thread shows again most people just sheepishly follow and repeat what someone they like tells them which is often inaccurate- even when you hear it on national media. Spin, twisting of words, and outright lies abound these days because it is perfectly legal to do that based on the First Amendment. Unless you look for yourself you cannot know that your belief is the truth

Freedom of speech is a two-edged sword but must be allowed for a free society to exist and grow. Coupled with a society having the means to control it's government under any circumstances, this is the basis of all other freedoms My intent here is not to bash anyone, but to educate against misconceptions and misinformation. And please do look for yourself regarding my answers. I happen to have some long-term interest in the FCC concerning things I do not speak of openly here which makes me more knowledgeable than the average person regarding them and their methods I don't particularly like them and all that they do, but creating order and fairness out of potential chaos and anarchy happens to be their job and I'm darn glad someone is trying to do that! I just wish it were done better

Bettypooh

[lilannie]

From what I understand, the FCC having control over the internet is a much better option for the average user then a corporation (i.e, comcast, time warner) having control over it.

Net neutrality prevents the big corporations from having control over what bandwidth you use, and I don't see why people would argue with that. Everybody benefits with net neutrality whereas when the corporations have control, they're the only ones who benefit.

=)