Link One, which explains exactly what a Common Carrier is, and what Title II does.
Link Two, which explains that the industry has been regulated in the past, and has only been unregulated for a relatively short amount of time.
Link Three shows when DSL was converted from Title II to Title I.
Link Four, which shows that sometimes ISPs will classify themselves under Title II for tax breaks and benefits.
Link Five is a Wikipedia article explaining exactly what Net Neutrality is.
Sure, you can claim they don't, you can say they're drivel, but you can't say I haven't provided links that back up everything I've said. Claiming otherwise just makes you look petty. Like you don't want to admit you're wrong.
There's nothing in there that addresses yours and other claims that:
1> They can't regulate the Internet (or even cable television for that matter) for content under current decency laws if cable's new classification under title 2 now makes it in essence a public broadcast spectrum that it has never been before. Current standards according to the FCC themselves have been based upon the idea that cable (and therefore broadband) is a PRIVATE SUBSCRIPTION network. It has just been reclassified as public. You seem to think that has no effect, but don't show any evidence for that what-so-ever.
2> That Net Neutrality won't slow down or even break live video services
when bandwidth is under load as opposed to non-live services that can wait (the primary reason some of us aren't gung-ho for net neutrality). This also includes the possibility of making even more important things like phone calls (that could be a safety concern) take priority. A SMARTER law would be more appropriate.
3> That the FCC has EVER engaged in any form of active regulation of the Internet prior to the 21st Century despite your claim that it has been regulated since its inception (apparently by defacto phone line use).
4> Your claim that I should have for some unknown bizarre reason complained in 2005 or earlier (despite the fact they DE-regulated DSL to Title 1, not regulated it more).
It seems to me that this constitutes the majority of the claims made and I see NO mention of those items in those links or anywhere else (other than people calling me "willfully stupid"). On the contrary, I've provided links to backup my assertions and given reasons why Net Neutrality isn't necessarily as great as it's claimed to be. I never said there weren't problems with companies abusing power, but that doesn't mean the answer is no prioritization of traffic what-so-ever even on higher cost network providers.
Stop asking me to prove it. It is you who has made allegations that the FCC is going to do stuff they haven't said they will. There is no reason to believe that won't do exactly what they said and no more. All I've seen from you is scaremongering. As you have said... Pathetic.
And I've provided links that back up my assertions, most of which don't say they WILL abuse that power, only that they COULD. You have done NOTHING but make an opinion into a fact and provided no evidence and then complained again about being called on it. Yes, that IS pathetic. Either put up or drop it.
You seem to feel confident that a clear voice (unencrypted) telephone conversation to a PUBLIC phone number over a 'common carrier' is a "PRIVATE conversation". Now, I don't disagree. However you seem to be the know-it-all here so what, in your view, establishes that confidence of yours? I mean, is there specific case law or specific legislation or some specific understanding you know about that, in your mind, establishes phone calls to be (your words) "PRIVATE conversations"?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying because the NSA or some other law enforcement authority might be listening in or tapping your phone that it's not "private" ? If that's what you mean, I could agree on technicality. However, I'm referring to the ability for any child to just tune into your house and listen in to your conversations and hear something that might harm them. In that sense, it's not a public call, but only to one number (save 3-way calling to two numbers).
Please correct me here, but "over the air" TV (public TV) and regular AM / FM broadcasts are subject to "decency" because they can viewed or listened to by anyone with an antenna.
You need a receiver (television or radio) and modern receivers have V-chips for the option of blocking inappropriate broadcasts. One might actually argue that the assumption that public airwaves could just be tuned in on any modern tv by a child aren't necessarily true, although it would require the parent to set up the block. At the very least, you need a digital receiver to get the TV transmissions these days and all modern sets are required to carry the V-chip. However, so far, the FCC hasn't changed its policy there.
Cable TV isn't subject to decency because there is no public way to view it. That is, you as a customer, have to have a cable line individually installed from the cable provider to your house. You have to choose to allow the content from the cable provider into your house. You don't have that choice with "over the air" public TV. It is delivered to your house whether you want it or not. Hence the need for "decency". Internet access is
First of all, it is the FCC (not me) that has re-classified cable/broadband as a common (i.e. public) carrier. So if you want me to say that cable is a private subscription network, I *AGREE*. That is precisely WHY I don't support re-classifying cable/broadband as a PUBLIC carrier. But whether it matters or not is a matter of perspective, especially given the above modern requirements for digital television.
Yes, you MUST have a cable subscription (short of pirating it) to get "cable", but a LOT of people already HAVE cable and they also HAVE kids. Unless they set their cable boxes to BLOCK inappropriate channels (the same as a modern TV with V-CHIP for over the air broadcasts), it could be viewed by any kid that picks up a remote in that home. Blame the parent? Yes, and who buys TVs for a house even before the era of V-chip? You can't watch public broadcasts without a TV! Thus, if anything, I find the old law somewhat moot.
After all, you can argue with V-CHIP and digital transmission there is no longer any "generic" possibility that a child in a house with parents could just watch any show unless the parent allows it. Likewise, if they have cable or satellite, most modern receivers there also allow channels to be blocked. As long as the network provides the correct classification for a broadcast, one should not run into such "indecent" content. Thus, the law doesn't seem to be needed anymore.
OTOH, one can also make arguments in the other direction because cable is now classified as a common (public) carrier (and again, I don't think it SHOULD be), one can argue that any broadcast service (whether over cable or the air) should be subject to the law. The FCC themselves have explained that one of the only reasons they don't enforce it on cable is that it's a private network. But how is it any more private than the airwaves when all modern digital TVs have V-chips?
Satellite TV and satellite radio, unless I am mistaken (and please do correct me), on the other hand while delivered "like it or not" is not publicly viewable. That is, it is encrypted and viewing or listening to it requires
hardware that is purchasable only from the satellite TV or radio provider. i.e.
You need hardware to view television too, remember and it's all now digital so your old analog TVs won't work without a converter box (that could be equipped with the same blocking controls).
You have to choose to subject yourself to the content. Your child just can't tune their AM / FM radio and listen to Howard Sterns XM radio show. Or change the channel on the TV and view some satellite TV program.
You have to choose to watch over-the-air broadcasts too and they can now be blocked, so again, there's not as much difference as there was in the past. Again, you could argue either way as above, but people just carte blanche saying that making cable a common carrier CANNOT and WILL NOT affect things like the decency laws that are enforced by the same FCC cannot possibly KNOW that for certain. That has been my WHOLE POINT.
These people THINK this
only means they are getting Net Neutrality, but Mark Cuban's point was they just opened a potential can of worms by doing it this way rather than a specific targeted law (let alone the court cases that will most surely try to reverse it). They seem to say everyone who agrees with Mr. Cuban is basically an idiot because he doesn't know what he's talking about. But everything I've read thus far (and I have YET to see ANY posted evidence to the contrary) indicates Mr. Cuban has a point.
It may NOT happen, but it COULD happen and for the reasons indicated. And IF I'm wrong, how am I wrong? Renzatic's links aren't the proof he thinks they are. Hey, I'd LIKE to be wrong, but I just don't see the argument that it CANNOT do the things Cuban talked about proven at all. Defining Net Neutrality doesn't prove that putting cable/broadband under Title II (public common carrier) won't have those effects and that's the point. They didn't pass a Net Neutrality law. They simply made it possible for the FCC to ram it down our throats at their pleasure!
It can and almost certainly will end up in court and trying to predict the courts these days is a lot like playing the lottery.
Likewise, if you don't want your child to have access to internet porn you can choose to not have internet delivered to your house. Just like you can choose to not to have cable and / or satellite TV or Radio. Your hysterics over this are unfounded.
Have you never run into PUBLIC Wi-Fi anywhere in your life so far? I can just walk down the street and find open publiclly available WiFi all over the place (hell even on my own street as most people don't even password protect their home WiFi). Go to McDonalds even. Your child's iPod Touch just became capable of surfing all kinds of adult stuff. And while you can block a lot of stuff on the Net, you CANNOT block it ALL. That is what they have Net Nanny type stuff that doesn't so much block out the bad sites so much as it ONLY ALLOWS known safe sites for kids.
I'm simply saying there is no real difference these days between over-the-air cable and WiFi (since it's now digital) and cable or satellite. You need digital receivers in both cases, whether you "subscribe" or not and they have parental controls on them. AM/FM is still analog (with some stations broadcasting additional digital signals) so yeah, it's still the old system.
