4 ms·

Something everyone is forgetting is the FCC regulation of radio. It was a little like Net-neutrality today. Radio stations needed to be regulated because they

Something everyone is forgetting is the FCC regulation of radio. It was a little like Net-neutrality today. Radio stations needed to be regulated because they could crank up the wattage and overpower smaller radio stations. It needed to be regulated and the intent was to just focus on the infrastructure, not the content. What happened? Speech deemed immoral is banned from the radio waves and content is clearly being regulated. I fear the same thing will eventually start happening with the Internet, which I personally do not want.

zymhan 12y ago
Radio waves are different than wireline Internet. The FCC regulates radio because there is a limited amount of usable frequencies, and these are supposed to belong to the people, so they need to be distributed and managed by a central organization. Any since the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to enforce censorship, we're stuck with it. Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV. The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  "Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV." It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of people. Twitter, Facebook, and even HN are broadcast mediums. "The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?" The Phone is not a broadcast medium and does not have the same power as the Internet. "The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. " Although I don't think content is regulated, we still haven't seen any of the regulations passed today. *edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app. edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet? Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments.
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      "Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app." Even from this statement, I can tell you don't know what I am even talking about. Using is much different than broadcasting. "Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments." Down voting is not disagreeing. It's silencing. Disagreeing would be actually having a point and having a civil debate. I see none of that here. Saying it is a "fallacy" doesn't count. I'm tired of arguing with people that want their rights taken away. When and if it happens, I will have enough money to just buy what I need anyway.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. Also, I have no difficulty in reading your posts despite the downvotes they have received, so I'm not sure why you feel you're being silenced. Clearly, this conversation isn't going anywhere, though.
        paulhauggis 12y ago
        "I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. " I suppose you sign contracts before looking at them? If so, let's do business! This is essentially what has happened with the American people and you have nothing to say about it..except personally attacking me. I find this suspect. Everything I have said is fact: There are 700 regulations, which will control the state of Internet in the US, which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being passed into law. This is scary. I'm still unsure why there are so many people that just don't care. We can have Net Neutrality in less than 700 regulations. The foolishness of the American people is why I have lots of money saved to get out of the country when it finally implodes due to pure laziness. I have no sympathy going forward..and yes, if there are undesirable consequences, it is your fault.

zymhan 12y ago

Radio waves are different than wireline Internet. The FCC regulates radio because there is a limited amount of usable frequencies, and these are supposed to belong to the people, so they need to be distributed and managed by a central organization. Any since the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to enforce censorship, we're stuck with it. Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV. The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?

paulhauggis 12y ago
"Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV." It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of people. Twitter, Facebook, and even HN are broadcast mediums. "The FCC doesn't censor phone calls now, why would they censor the Internet using the same rules?" The Phone is not a broadcast medium and does not have the same power as the Internet. "The Internet is totally different. No one has (reasonably) claimed that Title II regulation provides for the FCC to censor what is transmitted. " Although I don't think content is regulated, we still haven't seen any of the regulations passed today. *edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app. edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet? Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    "Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app." Even from this statement, I can tell you don't know what I am even talking about. Using is much different than broadcasting. "Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments." Down voting is not disagreeing. It's silencing. Disagreeing would be actually having a point and having a civil debate. I see none of that here. Saying it is a "fallacy" doesn't count. I'm tired of arguing with people that want their rights taken away. When and if it happens, I will have enough money to just buy what I need anyway.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. Also, I have no difficulty in reading your posts despite the downvotes they have received, so I'm not sure why you feel you're being silenced. Clearly, this conversation isn't going anywhere, though.
      - paulhauggis 12y ago
        "I understand perfectly well what you are talking about. I just think your ideas are foolish. " I suppose you sign contracts before looking at them? If so, let's do business! This is essentially what has happened with the American people and you have nothing to say about it..except personally attacking me. I find this suspect. Everything I have said is fact: There are 700 regulations, which will control the state of Internet in the US, which absolutely have not been seen by the American public before being passed into law. This is scary. I'm still unsure why there are so many people that just don't care. We can have Net Neutrality in less than 700 regulations. The foolishness of the American people is why I have lots of money saved to get out of the country when it finally implodes due to pure laziness. I have no sympathy going forward..and yes, if there are undesirable consequences, it is your fault.