FCC approves net neutrality rules, for better or for worse

[Emil]

The US Federal Communications Commission has adopted new rules that will govern how Internet providers treat Web traffic and services. The first enforceable Net neutrality rules, led by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, will prohibit Internet service providers from blocking access to lawful content and websites. The rules passed with three votes against two, and now have to go before Congress for final approval.

The move marks the government's biggest move yet in a long debate between companies providing access to the Web and consumer groups advocating for an open Internet. Unfortunately, it appears that the only group that seems to be especially happy about the proposed rules is the one consisting of telecom companies. Many conservatives see any net neutrality ruling as a federal overreach and liberals denounce this particular set of rules as inadequate. The rules reserve the possibility for phone companies to charge more for certain kinds of high-speed traffic: "paid prioritization." Wireless carriers could thus block or charge more for other types of Internet applications, such as video or social networking services.

"As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected," Genachowski said in a statement prior to the vote. "No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage and invest in broadband networks. That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order." You can read his full speech below.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/41674-fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-for-better-or-for-worse.html

 

[Guest]

The first part seems alright, the second part however, not so much...

 

[yRaz]

Guest said:
The first part seems alright, the second part however, not so much...

if any part of it is bad, it's all bad. If i understand what is going on correctly, they are changing rules already set in place. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Can someone clear something up for me, is this for wireless only? I think that wireless(edge, 3g, ect...) internet is a bit silly and that really only business users need it. Pisses me off when I see 14-15 yr/old kids walking around with smartphones. Please remind me, why do kids need a smartphone?

I have a cheap texting phone and a zuneHD, that's all I need.

 

[Prosercunus]

It is a little sketchy to regulate any part of the internet, granted some of the ideas are good and maybe will give consumers some much needed help, however there are always unintended consequences. It starts with good ideas and ends with horrible ideas and unfair regulation.

I just rather they leave it alone, because this will set a precedent on the governments rights to regulate things on the internet and with anything the government regulates it for the most part never ends well. Today's good regulation is tomorrows bad regulation.

 

[SeiveD]

yRaz said:
I think that wireless(edge, 3g, ect...) internet is a bit silly and that really only business users need it. Pisses me off when I see 14-15 yr/old kids walking around with smartphones. Please remind me, why do kids need a smartphone?

I have a cheap texting phone and a zuneHD, that's all I need.

Who cares? If they have the money and are willing to pay for it (or if someone else is willing to cough it up for them), let them have it. That's what freedom is. It's absolutely none of your business whether a teenager has a smart phone.

 

[Prosercunus]

SeiveD said:

yRaz said:
I think that wireless(edge, 3g, ect...) internet is a bit silly and that really only business users need it. Pisses me off when I see 14-15 yr/old kids walking around with smartphones. Please remind me, why do kids need a smartphone?

I have a cheap texting phone and a zuneHD, that's all I need.

Who cares? If they have the money and are willing to pay for it (or if someone else is willing to cough it up for them), let them have it. That's what freedom is. It's absolutely none of your business whether a teenager has a smart phone.

Agreed. Although I think letting your teenager or child have a smart phone is extremely brain dead parenting, it is however really nobodies business, besides our economy thrives on morons wasting as much money as humanly possibly on shiny new objects, hell I was guilty of it once. I looked around my house and realized I only used about 40% of these overpriced gadgets. I ended up selling/returning a bunch of them.

 

[yRaz]

SeiveD said:

yRaz said:
I think that wireless(edge, 3g, ect...) internet is a bit silly and that really only business users need it. Pisses me off when I see 14-15 yr/old kids walking around with smartphones. Please remind me, why do kids need a smartphone?

I have a cheap texting phone and a zuneHD, that's all I need.

Who cares? If they have the money and are willing to pay for it (or if someone else is willing to cough it up for them), let them have it. That's what freedom is. It's absolutely none of your business whether a teenager has a smart phone.

I had something else I wanted to say, but then I saw that freedom statement. It's stuff like that that is contributing to the lack of education in our kids. What that said to me is "who cares if our kids get dumb as long as we can pay for them to BE dumb."

 

[w3b0n]

IMO, we should use tools to make a better world and internet is a great tool to advance in this field. I mean, why not tracking down websites where they promote brutality, rapes, pedophile and such distorted (to not say f$#% up up) mind movers.

If we get spammed and scammed why cant we use the same smart techniques like tracing down those websites and HUNT THAT PEOPLE DOWN. Yes im a radical person but also im sick of knowing that this kinds of stuff are being ignored when this "ruling the net" comes out.

lawful sites are not just torrents or file sharing,.. there are some real sick things on the web that should get banned and traced down asap.

 

[Guest]

The article is correct. Read this story on CNBC business news. This is a win for the large telecom companies and the market is going to reward them. http://www.cnbc.com/id/40769415

 

[Guest]

Consider the source. CNBC... not as honest or reliable as I would hope if I were getting my information from them.

This is just the first step in fully regulating the internet like China has. This is a slippery slope, I warn you now. Call me crazy, but this is WRONG.

 

[SeiveD]

yRaz said:
I had something else I wanted to say, but then I saw that freedom statement. It's stuff like that that is contributing to the lack of education in our kids. What that said to me is "who cares if our kids get dumb as long as we can pay for them to BE dumb."

I don't accept the premise that having a smart phone in your teens makes you "dumb."

Nevertheless, whether you try to make the issue be education or not, it's still not your business, or the government's.

 

[ramonsterns]

yRaz said:
I had something else I wanted to say, but then I saw that freedom statement. It's stuff like that that is contributing to the lack of education in our kids. What that said to me is "who cares if our kids get dumb as long as we can pay for them to BE dumb."

They call people like you hypocrites nowadays.

Stop passing your opinion as fact/

 

[foreverzero89]

Guest said:
Consider the source. CNBC... not as honest or reliable as I would hope if I were getting my information from them.

This is just the first step in fully regulating the internet like China has. This is a slippery slope, I warn you now. Call me crazy, but this is WRONG.

don't get any of your news for the mainstream media, it's just a propaganda machine for the gov't. and "regulating" the internet WILL lead to censoring the internet. we need to fight to keep the internet FREE and OPEN!

 

[princeton]

ramonsterns said:

yRaz said:
I had something else I wanted to say, but then I saw that freedom statement. It's stuff like that that is contributing to the lack of education in our kids. What that said to me is "who cares if our kids get dumb as long as we can pay for them to BE dumb."

They call people like you hypocrites nowadays.

Stop passing your opinion as fact/

*claps* He's a hypocrite alright

@yRaz. I'm so sorry you feel people don't need portable internet and that teenagers don't need smartphones. When I was 16 I payed for my own phones and payed my cell bills. It was my choice and it's none of your business whether or not kids today should have cell phones. If they can afford it and they want it, then they can do it, you have no right to criticize their decisions.

Also guys. It's funny how every time I see a post like the ones yRaz made and the poster ALWAYS has under 100 posts.

 

[KBerger]

*claps* He's a hypocrite alright

@yRaz. I'm so sorry you feel people don't need portable internet and that teenagers don't need smartphones. When I was 16 I payed for my own phones and payed my cell bills. It was my choice and it's none of your business whether or not kids today should have cell phones. If they can afford it and they want it, then they can do it, you have no right to criticize their decisions.

Also guys. It's funny how every time I see a post like the ones yRaz made and the poster ALWAYS has under 100 posts.

And how old are you now? Already 17 or maybe even 18?

"...If they can afford it and they want it, then they can do it, you have no right to criticize their decisions." Doesn't sound like you have your own kids yet.

 

[Guest]

any time the government tries to fix something they break it. any time the government regulates something they destroy it..........

 

[KBerger]

Well, I'd say it's not always the government to blame. Sometimes it is the system itself... and the people's attitude as part of it.