U.S. Senate Rejects Appeal Against Net Neutrality

[Steve the Pocket]

My arguement isn't just that the goverment might abuse the power, but whether any regulation is nessicary here at all, as there is no way to say that potential abuse by one group is any better than potential abuse by another group. I feel there is no reason for the goverment to get involved in something that can already be regulated by the people themselves. Granted private citizens might abuse it, but at the same time the goverment might do so as well, there is no real benefit to having the goverment involved unless you like the idea of big goverment and having it control as much as possible.

How exactly can the behavior or trillion-dollar ISPs be "regulated by the people themselves"? If the ISPs decide to cut off our access to parts of the Internet, what exactly the hell could we do about it? Yes, I'm wary of giving the FCC of all people power over the Internet, but if you want to talk about threats to Internet freedom from the government, allow me to introduce you to E-PARASITE, a bill that essentially gives the government power to cut off access to certain websites that allegedly promote piracy, without having to give any sort of proof, and would effectively create a censored Internet similar to China's or Australia's. And guess what, it doesn't require the provisions of this bill in order to pass, either. See, if a government as big as ours wants to randomly step in and oppress people, it doesn't need a precedent or an excuse or the support of the people; it'll just do it. So the whole "slippery slope" argument doesn't really work. At least, for once, they're passing a bill that has the potential to do some good.

 

[CosmicCommander]

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.

It's good that The Escapist is also pushing for it's always objective policy of the delivery of news, at that.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Congratulations are in order. The internet is safe for now.

Or as safe as it ever was anyway.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I'm glad McCain abstained, I dont know the other guy very well (being a brit) but its a nice suprise to see not all Republicans are fuckwits all the time.

and john mccain? i is surprise.

thank the maker this didn't pass. another reason to remind myself why i am not republican.

Why you surprise? He also supports federal funding for stem cell research
at least he did before...
<spoiler= The Creature>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ahUGAHFYjQY/TXQrgydhA8I/AAAAAAAAA-I/hbgyUnRl_Mo/s1600/sarah-palin-demotivator-fascist.jpg

McCain is actually fairly reasonable, though he adopted more radical stance during his run for president because that's what it takes to win the Republican primary.

And no, the Republicans aren't fascists; they're corporate lapdogs pretending to be fascists.

 

[Therumancer]

My arguement isn't just that the goverment might abuse the power, but whether any regulation is nessicary here at all, as there is no way to say that potential abuse by one group is any better than potential abuse by another group. I feel there is no reason for the goverment to get involved in something that can already be regulated by the people themselves. Granted private citizens might abuse it, but at the same time the goverment might do so as well, there is no real benefit to having the goverment involved unless you like the idea of big goverment and having it control as much as possible.

How exactly can the behavior or trillion-dollar ISPs be "regulated by the people themselves"? If the ISPs decide to cut off our access to parts of the Internet, what exactly the hell could we do about it? Yes, I'm wary of giving the FCC of all people power over the Internet, but if you want to talk about threats to Internet freedom from the government, allow me to introduce you to E-PARASITE, a bill that essentially gives the government power to cut off access to certain websites that allegedly promote piracy, without having to give any sort of proof, and would effectively create a censored Internet similar to China's or Australia's. And guess what, it doesn't require the provisions of this bill in order to pass, either. See, if a government as big as ours wants to randomly step in and oppress people, it doesn't need a precedent or an excuse or the support of the people; it'll just do it. So the whole "slippery slope" argument doesn't really work. At least, for once, they're passing a bill that has the potential to do some good.

Incorrect, the reason being that the big business has to worry about competition from other big business, and is ultimatly only able to get away with pushing people so far as they are willing to continue to spend money to support them. That doesn't seem like much of a limitation, until you consider that when the goverment does something a lot of the time it can't be changed, even if a majority of people are elected into power that actually want to change it.

The thing is that the worst excesses of the goverment, at least in the US, can be stopped by not supporting the bills. Both E-Parasite, and the current Net-Neutrality bill are bad, maybe E-Parasite is worse, but in the end neither of them should be passed.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, but in a situation where there are not going to be any good guys, I'd rather the bad guy be big business than the goverment.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Net Neutrality is just another tool of control, in another sense. Basically in essence the gov't can override your personal preferences and force you to see content you don't wish to or ban access to content you do wish to see. The internet is the one place left where we do still have total freedom of speech and Net Neutrality can be abused to strangle that, and if you don't think the US Government won't abuse that power, I have some nice Arizona beachfront property I'd like to sell you...
All content on the web is absolutely available to those who want to view it as it stands now.
The major problem I have with this "bill" is that its way too broad in its scope and can (and most likely) will be used not in our best interests.
Please people, take off the rose-colored glasses for a moment, realize that the liberal parts of government are just as much politicians as the conservatives, have their own agendas, and are just as afraid of people having opposite opinions as the other side. Censorship will be the rule, not the exception in the end.
I may not agree with people like the WBC, but they still have the right to voice their opinions without someone regulating how it is said and this bill will give the government broad powers over things like that... mark my words.
The best type of government is one that rules with a gentle hand, not an iron fist and this folks is an iron fist.

EDIT: Net Neutrality is the interweb version of "everyone gets a trophy" philosophy. Competition breeds innovation, when you take away the ideal of competition you lose the innovation and everything becomes stagnant. Thus why communism fails in the end because no one really has any real incentive to work hard. Why excel at something when doing the bare minimum gets you the same result?

Damn, here was going to come on here and start arguing against this, and you've basically summed up all my points. Congratulations to you sir. Broad, ill-defined jurisdiction in a bill is a dangerous thing indeed. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just ensuring that legislation properly defines the basis of government authority.

Erm... from what I understand the bill lays out negative powers. It says what internet providers can't do. I guess the government could use it for censorship indirectly by deciding which companies violate the rules: i.e. a republican appointed FCC (remember it's the government appointed bureaucrats that actually carry out the legislation, not the politicians) would choose to ignore conservative ISP providers and prosecute the ones that speed up access to liberal content. But that's still pretty indirect. There's no way that the government can directly control the content of the internet (through this bill at least).

As to the old capitalism/libertarianism vs. communism/liberalism argument I have two things to say:

1) Free market capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies in certain areas, which hurts the consumer. The irony is that in order for 'free' market capitalism to function the way it's supposed to it needs constant government intervention. Otherwise we would have 1 oil company, 1 steel company, 1 electric company, 1 phone company and 1 internet provider. To be sure, some things won't lead to monopoly: Coke will probably never buy out Pepsi because it comes down to different tastes. One really isn't a 'better' product than the other. However, the internet is DEFINITELY a natural monopoly because it comes down to infrastructure wherein the biggest company will have the advantage.

2) Anyone who thinks tyranny can only come through the government is, in the words of Yahtzee, pants-on-head-retarded. Listen and listen closely: there is no inherent difference between the power that a government can have and the power that a corporation can have. A corporation can have it's own freaking military for god's sakes! They're called private military contractors.

WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND GIVEN ENOUGH TIME A CORPORATION CAN BECOME POWERFUL ENOUGH TO BE A DIRECT THREAT TO HUMAN FREEDOM.

I'm not saying that business is evil. What I am saying is this: power is power. I don't understand why you would think that the government is out to censor the internet, but that business are somehow incapable of this. It baffles my mind. What's more is the fact that we live in a democracy where the government is supposed to answer directly to the people. Businesses have no such obligation. If we were to entrust the freedom of the internet to anyone it would be the government. The government was created for the explicit purpose of protecting our freedoms. I'm not saying that it is incapable of corruption, it is. But the burden of eliminating this corruption comes down to the voters.

In a certain sense, businesses are incapable of corruption because their only goal is to acquire profits. Thus censorship, shoddy safety practices, deliberate intent to influence the government, hell, even the violation of human rights: none of these are really acts of corruption for a business as long as they help the business increase it's profit margins. The burden of stopping these practices are placed upon the consumer: if you don't agree with a companies' practices, then don't buy their product. However, lest one forget, the consumer is also a voter, and so voting for a representative who intends to regulate business is perfectly in line with free market capitalism: it's just another power the consumer has.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Incorrect, the reason being that the big business has to worry about competition from other big business, and is ultimatly only able to get away with pushing people so far as they are willing to continue to spend money to support them. That doesn't seem like much of a limitation, until you consider that when the goverment does something a lot of the time it can't be changed, even if a majority of people are elected into power that actually want to change it.

The thing is that the worst excesses of the goverment, at least in the US, can be stopped by not supporting the bills. Both E-Parasite, and the current Net-Neutrality bill are bad, maybe E-Parasite is worse, but in the end neither of them should be passed.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, but in a situation where there are not going to be any good guys, I'd rather the bad guy be big business than the goverment.

These libertarian principles are nice in theory, but you're forgetting one simple fact: consumers are also voters. You seem to be unaware of the fact that the vast majority of monopolies have been broken up by the government, not by boycotts. You can call this an act of tyranny I suppose, but remember that the American people voted for the government. If anything it would be a tyranny of the majority, but if this applies to democracy then it certainly applies to capitalism as well. You may have loved your Dreamcast and thought that SEGA made the best consoles, but the majority of consumers has spoken. Libertarians fail to consider the possibility that a consumer can exercise his power not only by boycotting products, but by voting for candidates who run on the position that they will increase regulation.

Your very argument rests on the idea that the government is somehow its own entity that imposes its will on the people, rather than being a servant of the people. Ultimately I think your position is incoherent for the following reason: if you're point is that it is up to the consumers to regulate business, then the same has to go for the government. You can't say that what businesses get away with is alright because the consumers let them do it and then immediately turn around and say that the government is evil and must be stopped. The government is elected by the people, and thus the same argument holds: it's up to the people to stop the government practices they don't agree with by voting.

 

[Therumancer]

Incorrect, the reason being that the big business has to worry about competition from other big business, and is ultimatly only able to get away with pushing people so far as they are willing to continue to spend money to support them. That doesn't seem like much of a limitation, until you consider that when the goverment does something a lot of the time it can't be changed, even if a majority of people are elected into power that actually want to change it.

The thing is that the worst excesses of the goverment, at least in the US, can be stopped by not supporting the bills. Both E-Parasite, and the current Net-Neutrality bill are bad, maybe E-Parasite is worse, but in the end neither of them should be passed.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, but in a situation where there are not going to be any good guys, I'd rather the bad guy be big business than the goverment.

These libertarian principles are nice in theory, but you're forgetting one simple fact: consumers are also voters. You seem to be unaware of the fact that the vast majority of monopolies have been broken up by the government, not by boycotts. You can call this an act of tyranny I suppose, but remember that the American people voted for the government. If anything it would be a tyranny of the majority, but if this applies to democracy then it certainly applies to capitalism as well. You may have loved your Dreamcast and thought that SEGA made the best consoles, but the majority of consumers has spoken. Libertarians fail to consider the possibility that a consumer can exercise his power not only by boycotting products, but by voting for candidates who run on the position that they will increase regulation.

Your very argument rests on the idea that the government is somehow its own entity that imposes its will on the people, rather than being a servant of the people. Ultimately I think your position is incoherent for the following reason: if you're point is that it is up to the consumers to regulate business, then the same has to go for the government. You can't say that what businesses get away with is alright because the consumers let them do it and then immediately turn around and say that the government is evil and must be stopped. The government is elected by the people, and thus the same argument holds: it's up to the people to stop the government practices they don't agree with by voting.

I never called the goverment evil, indeed I'm very pro-goverment and law enforcement on a lot of issues that piss people off on these forums.

It all comes down to a matter of reality and practicality rather than theory. On paper your correct, but in practice the business interests are the lesser of evils. As I pointed out, the goverment in many cases cannot change even if the people in it want it to. The people could vote in officials to change things, and even if you had a clear majority, they might not be able to actually change the laws, but depending on the way they were set up it might not be possible. This is why "putting the genie back in the bottle" is so difficult. In comparsion business interests can be influanced through their bottom line, or simply competing with other businesses.

There is no good way for this to turn out, I just happen to think the goverment is the greater evil is all.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Haha the funniest part of all this is that people still have this crazy idea that the world governments already DON'T control the internets.

I recently read about how our U.S. government has recently put in place a system where in the event of an emergency they can effectively hit a button and shut DOWN the internet.

Who do you think controls the satellites in orbit?
Who do you think controls the power grids and fiber optic systems your internet signals travel on?
Do you think the internet just transmits data magically through space?
Who controls the servers and arrays and the whole damned infrastructure and system?

Wake up, fools. This is all just smoke and mirrors and funny little games. The government ALREADY controls the internet. They always have.

 

[erztez]

Haha the funniest part of all this is that people still have this crazy idea that the world governments already DON'T control the internets.

I recently read about how our U.S. government has recently put in place a system where in the event of an emergency they can effectively hit a button and shut DOWN the internet.

Who do you think controls the satellites in orbit?
Who do you think controls the power grids and fiber optic systems your internet signals travel on?
Do you think the internet just transmits data magically through space?
Who controls the servers and arrays and the whole damned infrastructure and system?

Wake up, fools. This is all just smoke and mirrors and funny little games. The government ALREADY controls the internet. They always have.

No...just...no
The US govt. has the option to AT BEST severely disrupt net connectivity IN THE US.
The sats in orbit? Owned by corporations, and unless the US wants to detonate nukes in space(read: WW3), they're gonna keep running.
The grids and the cables? Owned by corporations. While i don't doubt that the US govt. could shut down the systems INSIDE the US, they can do fuck all about the rest of the planet, unless, again, nukes.
Well...actually, there's nothing magical about 2.4Ghz wireless transmissions. Unless you're a US politician.
The infrastructure? US controls the primary DNS servers. That's IT. There's alternatives. Hell, you don't even NEED to use a DNS server, if you can remember a shitload of IPs

The last time the US government controlled the internet was when DARPA was brainstorming it in an office.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

These libertarian principles are nice in theory, but you're forgetting one simple fact: consumers are also voters. You seem to be unaware of the fact that the vast majority of monopolies have been broken up by the government, not by boycotts. You can call this an act of tyranny I suppose, but remember that the American people voted for the government. If anything it would be a tyranny of the majority, but if this applies to democracy then it certainly applies to capitalism as well. You may have loved your Dreamcast and thought that SEGA made the best consoles, but the majority of consumers has spoken. Libertarians fail to consider the possibility that a consumer can exercise his power not only by boycotting products, but by voting for candidates who run on the position that they will increase regulation.

Your very argument rests on the idea that the government is somehow its own entity that imposes its will on the people, rather than being a servant of the people. Ultimately I think your position is incoherent for the following reason: if you're point is that it is up to the consumers to regulate business, then the same has to go for the government. You can't say that what businesses get away with is alright because the consumers let them do it and then immediately turn around and say that the government is evil and must be stopped. The government is elected by the people, and thus the same argument holds: it's up to the people to stop the government practices they don't agree with by voting.

I never called the goverment evil, indeed I'm very pro-goverment and law enforcement on a lot of issues that piss people off on these forums.

It all comes down to a matter of reality and practicality rather than theory. On paper your correct, but in practice the business interests are the lesser of evils. As I pointed out, the goverment in many cases cannot change even if the people in it want it to. The people could vote in officials to change things, and even if you had a clear majority, they might not be able to actually change the laws, but depending on the way they were set up it might not be possible. This is why "putting the genie back in the bottle" is so difficult. In comparsion business interests can be influanced through their bottom line, or simply competing with other businesses.

There is no good way for this to turn out, I just happen to think the goverment is the greater evil is all.

As I said elsewhere, the bill seems to lay out negative laws that restrict companies from selectively speeding up and slowing down access to particular content. It hardly allows the government to control what's on the internet. If it included positive powers for an agency to determine what content companies are able to provide access to then it would be a different matter. But it t doesn't disallow any content. It tells companies what they can't restrict, not what they can provide access to. So I really don't see what the concern is about.

 

[Calbeck]

"The idea that your internet service provider could be paid to direct you towards and away from content of your own choosing"

Given that this is already the default state of things --- net neutrality currently doesn't exist as law, but is in fact the way the Internet already tends to regulate itself --- that's a "Chicken Little" attitude.

My problem with putting this sort of thing into codified law, is that laws can be and are loopholed/exploited to hell and gone. And they work both ways, not always just the way you'd like them to.

For example, does Yahoo's email spam-filter count as "suppressing the rights" of a spammer who wants you to receive daily updates on his Viagra deals? Even if you're in control of how the filter's configured, it's provided by Yahoo and could be argued by the spammer as hindering their ability to "communicate" with you.

Devils, details, and politics --- only the naive forget that these three things are one and the same.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Even for the rest of us Non-Americans, this is great news. Overturning in American means it doesn't have a footwork in more conservative places like...Australia.

They really don't need another limiting factor in their games playing.

Conservative? How little you know:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fMN9kFm14[/youtube]

 

[Therumancer]

[
As I said elsewhere, the bill seems to lay out negative laws that restrict companies from selectively speeding up and slowing down access to particular content. It hardly allows the government to control what's on the internet. If it included positive powers for an agency to determine what content companies are able to provide access to then it would be a different matter. But it t doesn't disallow any content. It tells companies what they can't restrict, not what they can provide access to. So I really don't see what the concern is about.

The Bill gives the goverment the power to directly control what people on the internet can do with their products, interest, and services. The intent doesn't really matter.

It's sort of like the video game legislation we saw going through before. There was nothing fundementally wrong with the idea of keeping games oriented at adults out of the hands of kids. The problem was when the goverment was to gain control over the media to actually enforce this. Nobody was under any illusion that these powers were going to stop there or only be used towards that end. It was the first step towards greater regulation.

By allowing Net Neutrality your establishing the goverment's right to engage in regulation and control of the media. The goverment should not be involved here any more than they should have been involved in setting and enforcing game ratings. It's differant face of exactly the same issue... the goverment looking for footholds into electronic media that can be branched out into other things.

 

[Redingold]

Well, I'm glad that at least some part of the American government has sense.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, I'm glad that at least some part of the American government has sense.

Did you just accuse the Democrats in the Senate of having sense?

That's...New. I don't think you can find many people who share that opinion, and I live in an ulta-blue state.

>.>

 

[HyenaThePirate]

No...just...no
The US govt. has the option to AT BEST severely disrupt net connectivity IN THE US.
The sats in orbit? Owned by corporations, and unless the US wants to detonate nukes in space(read: WW3), they're gonna keep running.
The grids and the cables? Owned by corporations. While i don't doubt that the US govt. could shut down the systems INSIDE the US, they can do fuck all about the rest of the planet, unless, again, nukes.
Well...actually, there's nothing magical about 2.4Ghz wireless transmissions. Unless you're a US politician.
The infrastructure? US controls the primary DNS servers. That's IT. There's alternatives. Hell, you don't even NEED to use a DNS server, if you can remember a shitload of IPs

The last time the US government controlled the internet was when DARPA was brainstorming it in an office.

I'm glad you're that optimistic about what the U.S. government can and cannot do.
I, on the otherhand, am FAR less convinced. There are levels of our government whose sole GOAL are to plot how we can best mitigate and control EVERY situation. Again.. airwaves can be controlled because signals can be blocked. Power can be cut. Sources can be traced. Satellites can remotely be shut down.. trust me, we don't send anything up into orbit the U.S. government can't control in some fashion.. or simply shoot down. I have no doubt that the Star Wars program and whatever behemoth it has evolved into over the past 20 years is alive, well, and running on all cylinders.

But if it makes you feel more comfortable to think that we have choices and that we aren't living in a glass cage, then more power to you. I only feel sorry for you on that day when things don't work out so well.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Conservative? How little you know:

Explain please?