Skip to main content

View Diary: FCC to consider rule gutting Net Neutrality (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Be glad it isn't (0+ / 0-)

    If the web were a public utility, then Daily Kos itself would be a regulated site, and would have to be "fair and balanced".

    A free press means that anyone can start a "press" and say what he wants.  "Neutrality" generally means regulating the press. It is not the same as an open network, which allows all voices to be heard.  The FCC is right and the usual liberal side is misguided, because they don't understand the Internet, just how they use it.

    •  I'm sorry....did you miss the end of the fairness (17+ / 0-)

      doctrine?

      It's back there, almost thirty years ago.

      Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

      by JesseCW on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:37:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most brain dead comment of the day (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      You have it exactly upside down.

      The fairness doctrine was applied to the airwaves, because bandwidth was limited, and for everyone to have a fair shot at "saying what he wants", there had to be some regulation to allocate things evenly.

      Net neutrality is not remotely related in any way to the fairness doctrine. No fairness doctrine is needed for the Internet, because it's capable of carrying everything anyone cares to put on it. The fairness doctrine was a regulation that made access content-specific. Net neutrality is precisely a regulation preventing access from being content specific.

      The FCC is falling in line behind Roberts and Alito, declaring that money is speech, and money is and should be access to speech.

      •  I didn't name the fairness doctrine (0+ / 0-)

        The point of "neutrality" is to ensure that ISPs do not have editorial privilege.  The problem is that not having editorial privilege is the hallmark of common carriage.  ISPs are legally "information service providers" and not common carriers.  So are web sites.  So if the government can regulate ISPs, it can regulate web sites -- nobody's safe. And that's even after "neutrality" allows spammers equal rights to wanted content (spam is legal, after all, just unwanted).

        The law is not what you think it is, nor are ISPs.

        •  You described the Fairness Doctrine's operation (0+ / 0-)

          Not net neutrality.

          So you were, whether you knew it or not, talking about the Fairness Doctrine (which no longer exists), and not net neutrality.

          Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

          by Phoenix Woman on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 12:20:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

      Just listen to talk radio on public airwaves. There is no fairness doctrine anymore. Ended in Reagan era.

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 09:08:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who are you replying to? (0+ / 0-)

        JesseCW brought in the Fairness Doctine.  I didn't.  I'm discussing whether common carriage (an ancient doctrine that still applies in some fields, like taxicabs and some phone calls) should be applied to the electronic press.

        •  Again, what you describe IS the Fairness Doctrine (0+ / 0-)

          Which no longer exists, as several people have already pointed out.

          Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

          by Phoenix Woman on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 12:21:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not in the least (0+ / 0-)

            The Fairness Doctrine said that broadcasters (Title III of 47 USC) have to let alternative views be broadcast on their stations.

            I'm describing telecom and internet rules, which are unrelated (Title II).  Common carriers -- think of old home phones -- can't discriminate among similarly-situated customers.  You make a call and you say what you want.  You call any number, same price if same place.  You want a phone, they have to deliver it.  That's common carriage.

            The Internet exists because the telephone companies had to let people call ISPs, and let ISPs lease lines.  Common carriers get no choice.  Nor can they selectively price on what you say or say what you can say, if it's legal.  It's not their business.  So the telephone companies HATED the Internet but HAD to let ISPs on their networks.  The ISPs existed as CUSTOMERS of the common carriers. They never were common carriers.

            Now the telephone and cable companies own their own ISPs and are not required (any more, in the case of telephone, ever in the case of cable) to let other ISPs use them. No more common carriage for the basic services that were always common carriage.  And that is a travesty, which the FCC can fix in a jiffy, and which the Court told them they could fix. But they won't.

            ISPs exist, under law, as the content of the carriers.  Legally, a web site is the same as the broadband ISP to your house, except for the wire portion.  And they made deals, privately, for peering and transit. ISPs never had to be common carriers, and always did things behind the scenes to make it work better.  You never saw it because it made things work; this non-neutrality was and is not nefarious.  The whole thing is technically very fragile.

            The FCC is just now acknowledging what has gone on. Their mistake is doing it openly, since it is always misunderstood and  brings out the CT in people.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site