It’s official: Deem and Pass Internet regulation is the “Third Way”

I just found this, and I don't know that much about it. Does anyone have any more information? Surely, this can't be what I think it is....

It’s official: Deem and Pass Internet regulation is the “Third Way”
redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/06/22/its-official-deem-and-pass-internet-regulation-is-the-third-way/

Also

infowars.com/obama-ag-choice-advocated-censoring-internet/

Any information will be appreciated.

[quote="Whitacre_Girl, post:1, topic:204891"]
I just found this, and I don't know that much about it. Does anyone have any more information? Surely, this can't be what I think it is....

[/quote]

It seems to be about what is often called "net neutrality". Supporters of this idea want to make sure that internet service providers do not provide lower quality service to websites they dislike. The large ISPs oppose it because it could lead to regulation over the prices they charge and require that they share their lines with smaller ISPs.

So it's proposed changes pits major companies such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon Communications against major companies such as Google and Skype.
voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/06/senior_officials_at_the_federa.html

A court ruling this spring cast doubt on whether the FCC has the authority to regulate the internet service providers. The court said that Comcast was within its right to slow or stop internet service to some customers.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326841659296902.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Now, those articles are a month old. I am not sure what your first link refers to when he says "Its official" because he doesn't supply a link to any news or government source for his claim. I just don't know what he is talking about, and there is no easy way to learn.

I'll admit, I didn't go to the second link because Infowars.com is a conspiracy theory website.

conspiracy theory, eh?

I had someone telling me about taxation and regulation of the internet, so I thought I'd hop on google and see what I could find and these were all I could find. I am hoping some people can shed light on what I heard. Thanks for the input, I know to stay off infowars ;):thumbsup:

My understanding is that it is a way to regulate the internet to control content. There is talk about taxing sites like The Drudge Report. There has also been talk about the President having a a need to have an off switch for the internet in times of cyber attack or emergency. It has mainly looked like another government take over except they are going to have a hard time convincing people that the internet in it current state has been a failure & is in need of government intervention.

[quote="Dale_M, post:2, topic:204891"]
It seems to be about what is often called "net neutrality". Supporters of this idea want to make sure that internet service providers do not provide lower quality service to websites they dislike. The large ISPs oppose it because it could lead to regulation over the prices they charge and require that they share their lines with smaller ISPs.

[/quote]

I think net neutrality is an excellent idea. What I heard is that ISPs want to charge smaller sites more money in order to let their customers access them. Which is capitalistic, but in my opinion they shouldn't have that sort of power. ISPs should be required to give free access to the entire internet (with certain exceptions, such as protecting consumers from known malware/fishing sites), in my opinion.
So for example, tomorrow AT&T might decide that they don't like CAF very much and decide to limit the bandwidth available to people (slowing is down or limiting the number of people who can visit) wanting to visit here unless CAF pays X dollars. But they only do it to CAF and people can still visit fundamentalist or militant atheist website like normal.

The thing about small ISPs is that for the most part the government heavily subsidized the infrastructure that makes up large ISP's holdings (so pretty much the government set up private monopolies). Especially the "last mile", which is the part that goes from "the main hookup" to homes. In some cases (I think Verizon's FIOS would be an example) the companies built the infrastructure themselves, but in a lot of cases it was subsidized.

Here is a CNET article.

news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20008036-266.html

It seems somewhat neutral.

Here is the Huffington Post:

huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/moveon-netroots-fire-warn_b_632929.html

Seems to be the end of the world, in typical huffpo fashion. Nonetheless, if the HP is unhappy with what is happening, then I am happy.

What is the "third way"?

A tidbit from the CNET article: "AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told The Wall Street Journal earlier this week that his company would pull back on its investment in its next-generation broadband network called U-verse if the FCC moves forward with plans to reclassify broadband traffic."

Why the urge to regulate the Internet?

A little history.

The internet began as ARPA-Net, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as a way for scientists to exchange data rapidly. It was then spun off as what we know as the internet today.

Regulation may be necessary because a handful of companies essentially control access. You want the internet? You have to pay AT&T, or Comcast or a few others to get it. They can control the price of access. A lack of competition means the price can remain high. But if Bob's Internet wants in, he'll have to use their infrastructure. It's a monopolistic arrangement. Bob can't lay his own fiber optic cable, he will have to rent somebody elses'.

Next. Everybody wants to monetize it. We've become so used to the internet so what's wrong with charging a few bucks for "premium access"? Next year, if you want access to certain parts of the New York Times, you'll have to pay. Maybe somebody will introduce a tiered structure: Basic Internet for X dollars, Mid-Range Internet for Y dollars, and Premium Internet for Z dollars. Money, money, money.

Then there's control of content. The Recording industry, and the TV and Film industry, don't like seeing billions of dollars of "content" being stolen on the internet. I think they have a case.

Net Neutrality boils down to everybody has access to it and can do what they want without interference from Internet Service Providers, but I think a case can be made for certain activities on the internet that do not qualify as "innovative."

I do not have the technical knowledge to fully understand the potential of a cyber-attack against the United States, but if utilities, for example, are stupid enough to not have the best security in place right now - well, that's just criminally stupid.

Identity theft is supposedly, a part of this. It's been proposed that there should be some sort of identification system in place to protect consumers and companies from scammers. Complaints against this idea involve some vague invasion of privacy concerns.

God bless,
Ed

[quote="edwest2, post:9, topic:204891"]
Next. Everybody wants to monetize it. We've become so used to the internet so what's wrong with charging a few bucks for "premium access"? Next year, if you want access to certain parts of the New York Times, you'll have to pay. Maybe somebody will introduce a tiered structure: Basic Internet for X dollars, Mid-Range Internet for Y dollars, and Premium Internet for Z dollars. Money, money, money.

[/quote]

That's what my fear would be. Pay the "basic" and you get Google, MSN, Yahoo, and MSNBC. Pay a couple dollars more and you get Fox and CNN. Pay a couple more and you get "approved religious websites". It's a really bad path to go down. The Chinese have shown that it's absolutely doable to block certain parts of the internet to certain people (during the Olympics, places like hotels had "full" access to the internet while ordinary citizens get the scrubbed version, things like no access to stories on Tiananmen Square or the uprisings in Tibet).

[quote="edwest2, post:9, topic:204891"]
Identity theft is supposedly, a part of this. It's been proposed that there should be some sort of identification system in place to protect consumers and companies from scammers. Complaints against this idea involve some vague invasion of privacy concerns.

[/quote]

Does that mean they've found a way to protect people against their own stupidity? ;)

Seriously, the only way to eliminate identity theft would be to make the process of paying for anything (or entering personal information) so convoluted that it would be easier to fly halfway around to world than to enter it.

[quote="edwest2, post:9, topic:204891"]
A little history.

The internet began as ARPA-Net, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as a way for scientists to exchange data rapidly. It was then spun off as what we know as the internet today.

[/quote]

Yes, technically. The original idea was from J.C.R Licklider, who was working in the private sector and came up with it then was appointed to the DoD.

Regulation may be necessary because a handful of companies essentially control access. You want the internet? You have to pay AT&T, or Comcast or a few others to get it. They can control the price of access. A lack of competition means the price can remain high. But if Bob's Internet wants in, he'll have to use their infrastructure. It's a monopolistic arrangement. Bob can't lay his own fiber optic cable, he will have to rent somebody elses'.

Is 50 bucks a month too high? Who decides what "too expensive" is? These companies have the capital to hire the people necessary to lay fiberoptic, Bob does not.

Next. Everybody wants to monetize it. We've become so used to the internet so what's wrong with charging a few bucks for "premium access"? Next year, if you want access to certain parts of the New York Times, you'll have to pay. Maybe somebody will introduce a tiered structure: Basic Internet for X dollars, Mid-Range Internet for Y dollars, and Premium Internet for Z dollars. Money, money, money.

What is wrong with this? The internet has been a huge job creator because people are making money off of it. I'd reckon NYT is just trying to keep from going bankrupt. There has been tiered internet service since they got past 56kbps days. Right now you can get dial up cheap as dirt, my ISP offers a 40/50/60 dollar service. I live out in the boonies where 56kbps was all I could get for a long time. High speed is a breath of fresh air with all the new internet content out there today.

Then there's control of content. The Recording industry, and the TV and Film industry, don't like seeing billions of dollars of "content" being stolen on the internet. I think they have a case.

That's been settled as far as I know.

Net Neutrality boils down to everybody has access to it and can do what they want without interference from Internet Service Providers, but I think a case can be made for certain activities on the internet that do not qualify as "innovative."

Should we provide free gasoline so people can do what they want without interference of oil companies? People who would like basic information can get dial up still, if they can't afford that then they probably can't afford a PC.

I do not have the technical knowledge to fully understand the potential of a cyber-attack against the United States, but if utilities, for example, are stupid enough to not have the best security in place right now - well, that's just criminally stupid.

Yes, the utilities need to be highly secured. But for years computer security has been reactive, not proactive. I'm not an expert there so I don't know what exactly they can do to protect it.

Identity theft is supposedly, a part of this. It's been proposed that there should be some sort of identification system in place to protect consumers and companies from scammers. Complaints against this idea involve some vague invasion of privacy concerns.

Very complex issue. People really need to educate themselves on what to do an not to do. Then they need to control their kids habits on the internet. Clicking an unknown link in their favorite forum can lead to everything they type on the keyboard being recorded.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:11, topic:204891"]
What is wrong with this? The internet has been a huge job creator because people are making money off of it. I'd reckon NYT is just trying to keep from going bankrupt. There has been tiered internet service since they got past 56kbps days. Right now you can get dial up cheap as dirt, my ISP offers a 40/50/60 dollar service. I live out in the boonies where 56kbps was all I could get for a long time. High speed is a breath of fresh air with all the new internet content out there today.

Should we provide free gasoline so people can do what they want without interference of oil companies? People who would like basic information can get dial up still, if they can't afford that then they probably can't afford a PC.

[/quote]

Bandwidth tiers aren't the worry, content tiers are. Curlycool89 covers that concern pretty well in his comment I think.

[quote="logic_oriented, post:12, topic:204891"]
Bandwidth tiers aren't the worry, content tiers are. Curlycool89 covers that concern pretty well in his comment I think.

[/quote]

Yep, bandwidth tears are fine. We were with Shaw for years and had a limit of 60GB. If you pay more you get more data, it's the same with cell phone and iPhone plans. My issue is that I want to be able to surf wherever I want for the whole 60GB (within legal and moral reason of course), not to be told that access to CAF comes "at the next tier".

[quote="logic_oriented, post:12, topic:204891"]
Bandwidth tiers aren't the worry, content tiers are. Curlycool89 covers that concern pretty well in his comment I think.

[/quote]

After rereading it, it sounds to me like he is discussing both. The problem is, you have an internet provider who has to make money and you have a content provider who has to make money. To suggest that government should step in and force a company to provide a service for free just because you do not feel like paying for it is just ignorant. If that did happen, you can bet people will be losing their jobs. NYT has every right to charge for what they will. If you don't like it, don't pay it and watch them go under. Someone will meet market demands, if there is a demand.

[quote="curlycool89, post:13, topic:204891"]
Yep, bandwidth tears are fine. We were with Shaw for years and had a limit of 60GB. If you pay more you get more data, it's the same with cell phone and iPhone plans. My issue is that I want to be able to surf wherever I want for the whole 60GB (within legal and moral reason of course), not to be told that access to CAF comes "at the next tier".

[/quote]

Not sure how long you have been around, but there has been a couple of time where CAF has been desperate for donations just to stay online. In other words if it weren't for the forum supporters who donated their money, you might not have CAF. I would not blame CAF, and I would probably sign up, if they charged 5 bucks a month to keep things going. I guess they would just come across as greedy to some here though.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:15, topic:204891"]
Not sure how long you have been around, but there has been a couple of time where CAF has been desperate for donations just to stay online. In other words if it weren't for the forum supporters who donated their money, you might not have CAF. I would not blame CAF, and I would probably sign up, if they charged 5 bucks a month to keep things going. I guess they would just come across as greedy to some here though.

[/quote]

Well, not greedy, but people without much money would have to leave. I couldn't be here if they wanted to charge $5 a month.

[quote="Whitacre_Girl, post:16, topic:204891"]
Well, not greedy, but people without much money would have to leave. I couldn't be here if they wanted to charge $5 a month.

[/quote]

And that would be expected. However, if it meant that some people behind CAF was able to keep their job and the forum were to stay around a bit longer it would be the right thing to do.

From what I'm gathering they want the feds to regulate the internet so that if CAF needed to charge in order to keep the forums live, they would not be allowed to do so.

As of right now, you and I have those who have donated their hard earned money to keep CAF up and running to thank. And we should watch out for those promoting more regulations by government because they want something for nothing.

Think of all the web development/design/webmaster jobs that would be lost if they had their way.

Let's make a firm distinction between the internet and content. The internet is just a pipeline.

When I first got Internet service, back in the days of dial-up, that's all I got--a connection. When I logged on to my ISP, I was connected to the Internet. That was all. No homepage, no content, no display, nothing else. I was free to access Google, or Yahoo, (or CAF) or any number of Internet content providers, free or otherwise. You could connect to whichever search engine you wanted to use.

It's the same today. You don't really need a portal which is loaded down with content. Personally, I'd rather have a plain connection, and go where I want.

Content providers ought to be able to charge for their services. In practice, many use advertising rather than consumer subscription to pay for the content. That could change too. And Internet providers can charge for the connection. I'd rather see a break between the two.

No, no. I think you’ve gotten things confused here. I (and others) have nothing against the NY Times charging for access or anything like that. I have a problem when AT&T starts charging the NY Times so that AT&T customers can access it at all (so they get an error otherwise). If CAF wants to, they can charge whatever (that’s they’re decision to make, not mine). The problem comes when CAF has to charge us $5 not for the upkeep of the website, but so AT&T will let you access it at all. I think that’s wrong. Yes, it’s anti capitalistic (there, I said it. Get over it).

[quote="curlycool89, post:19, topic:204891"]
No, no. I think you've gotten things confused here. I (and others) have nothing against the NY Times charging for access or anything like that. I have a problem when AT&T starts charging the NY Times so that AT&T customers can access it at all (so they get an error otherwise). If CAF wants to, they can charge whatever (that's they're decision to make, not mine). The problem comes when CAF has to charge us $5 not for the upkeep of the website, but so AT&T will let you access it at all. I think that's wrong. Yes, it's anti capitalistic (there, I said it. Get over it).

[/quote]

Exactly. Put another way, I think there would be more than a few folks on here who have no problem paying a few bucks extra on gas for their trucks, but who would be up in arms if they had to pay more to take their trucks on the roads than somebody with a hybrid (in this case the cars are the content, the roads are the service providers).

Looking at the roads analogy a different way, maybe you'd have no problem paying $40 to get in to an amusement park, but wouldn't you be annoyed if the only road to get there charged a $10 toll, and the owners of the road were in no way affiliated with the amusement park? And, if the amusement park owners had no way of building their own alternate road, don't you think they'd have every right to be annoyed with the road owners as well?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.