Who do you want to regulate the internet?

[Harvey_Dogg]

The internet is like the old west wild, free, and dangerous. There is an explosion of knowledge. It's great for doing research. You can hear radio stations from all over the world without the static and fading. Anyone can broadcast. Everyone can publish anything.
But now along with all the good, the internet also has a dark side. So, eventually, I think the FCC will step in.

 

[TheBigA]

So, eventually, I think the FCC will step in.

Maybe. That's what the president wanted. He wanted the FCC to regulate social media. It's hard for the government to do that and not step on the first amendment. It's easier for independent companies to moderate their sites. But then you get into the current situation where users object to moderation. So it becomes a difficult legal road. The president has been saying they should repeal section 230. However all that would do is allow people to sue social media companies, such as Devin Nunes who wants to sue a parody site about him. It wouldn't address the larger issue of content moderation.

The current FCC Chairman says he won't pursue the section 230 repeal. He's leaving in 9 days. The new FCC Chairman hasn't been announced yet. Under the previous administration, the FCC pursued a policy of net neutrality. That didn't address content, and the FCC has been very careful in regulating broadcasting for content. The only content rules are about indecency. Even in those cases, the courts have ruled that such laws are unfair. So it will be tough for the FCC to come up with anything that won't get shot down in the courts.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

The internet is the future of communications and they are the Federal Communications Commission. I don't expect them to get into censorship but rather to enforce the laws of our country.

 

[TheBigA]

The internet is the future of communications and they are the Federal Communications Commission. I don't expect them to get into censorship but rather to enforce the laws of our country.

Which laws are you talking about? Right now there aren't any laws about the internet. The current administration eliminated net neutrality.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

The winds of change are blowing and the big corporations need regulating.

 

[TheBigA]

The winds of change are blowing and the big corporations need regulating.

The big corporations are just following the laws and their own terms of service. They state very clearly what the rights of users are to their sites, and the users agree to those terms. Everything is following the law. Nothing is illegal.

 

[frankberry]

The big corporations are just following the laws and their own terms of service. They state very clearly what the rights of users are to their sites, and the users agree to those terms. Everything is following the law. Nothing is illegal.

If the Government steps in to regulate these companies, it becomes a First Amendment issue.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's a good article about the Section 230 rule, what it does, and why it actually would lead to more crackdowns by tech companies on users of internet servers and user-based content:

Trump's Twitter ban renews calls for tech law changes by many who don't get tech or the law (nbcnews.com)

The current FCC Chairman believes this needs to be addressed by Congress, not the FCC.

 

[boombox4]

These sorts of concerns have existed long before the internet. The printing press was just as potentially dangerous. I could probably name at least three or four books off the top of my head that conceivably did as much, or more damage to the world than the internet. And they were just books, or sometimes pamphlets. And that might include books that were burned at various times in history.

There may be a solution for the mess we're presently in but bringing the hammer down on big tech probably isn't the best one.

There was a feature on this subject on the BBC Radio News yesterday morning -- some are apparently predicting that big tech might be broken up into several little techs. Some of this attitude is reflected in the article BigA linked. I suppose we'll find out.

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

These sorts of concerns have existed long before the internet. The printing press was just as potentially dangerous. I could probably name at least three or four books off the top of my head that conceivably did as much, or more damage to the world than the internet. And they were just books, or sometimes pamphlets. And that might include books that were burned at various times in history.

There may be a solution for the mess we're presently in but bringing the hammer down on big tech probably isn't the best one.

There was a feature on this subject on the BBC Radio News yesterday morning -- some are apparently predicting that big tech might be broken up into several little techs. Some of this attitude is reflected in the article BigA linked. I suppose we'll find out.

I've been thinking of that old Stamp Act a lot over the years and how the American people protested because it would have put small newspapers out of business.

No one said much in our lifetime when broadcast frequencies were made artificially scarce and expensive.

Up until this time the internet has been pretty free and open. Anyone could broadcast. Anyone could publish. Now some bad actors are putting that freedom at risk.

And it may come down to a choice of whom you trust more. Is it big business?
Or, is it the government?

 

[boombox4]

^^^^^ Exactly. It's complex. I'm glad I'm not one of those who has to decide these things.

 

[davideduardo]

No one said much in our lifetime when broadcast frequencies were made artificially scarce and expensive.

The "scarcity" of broadcast frequencies is caused by the laws of physics, not the rules of mankind.

Because of that scarcity... just like diamonds or gold... the value of the available channels is high. Witness to that fact is the astounding decline in the value of radio stations now that there is a limitless capacity for the same content on the Internet. As an example, and FM in LA went for $300 million about two decades ago; in the last two years there have been several full signal FMs sold for less than $50 million; pure supply and demand.

 

[Kevin]

The internet is the future of communications and they are the Federal Communications Commission. I don't expect them to get into censorship but rather to enforce the laws of our country.

“The internet is the future of communications” I think it’s here and now, and has actually been with us at least the last two decades.

 

[davideduardo]

“The internet is the future of communications” I think it’s here and now, and has actually been with us at least the last two decades.

Yet in my community where we have a "consolidated" school system covering several cities from 5,000 to 80,000 population, when schools were closed due to Covid and online teaching bega,n it was found that over 30% of students did not have connectivity that permitted them to continue school at home.

Not only did they not have connectivity, they did not have a computer or tablet that would allow participation in classes done online.

The "future" may have arrived in your world in Y2K. It's still not here in many other worlds.

 

[TheBigA]

Not only did they not have connectivity, they did not have a computer or tablet that would allow participation in classes done online.

The other issue is who pays? High speed internet isn't free. It's still a for-profit business owned by private companies.

The big telco companies don't like gov't funded wifi plans, but the schools say they need it.

 

[Kevin]

Yet in my community where we have a "consolidated" school system covering several cities from 5,000 to 80,000 population, when schools were closed due to Covid and online teaching bega,n it was found that over 30% of students did not have connectivity that permitted them to continue school at home.

Not only did they not have connectivity, they did not have a computer or tablet that would allow participation in classes done online.

The "future" may have arrived in your world in Y2K. It's still not here in many other worlds.

Maybe one day during the next administration, we can get free internet to low income communities such as yours, so that everyone in the country can have broadband. There has been talk about free internet for most communities. I do believe it was one of President Elect Joe Biden’s promises. As far as the “future” being in my world since Y2K, it’s been in your world as well, but it’s just like anything else some people can afford certain things and some can’t.

 

[TheBigA]

I do believe it was one of President Elect Joe Biden’s promises.

Democrats have been in favor of free wifi. They did experiments with it in some cities during Obama administration. The telecom industry is very opposed to free wifi. It will not be easy to pass. The dangerous thing in this discussion is the concept of "nationalizing" the internet, in other words putting it under government control, rather than private control. That is an extreme point of view. Under normal circumstances it would be branded as "socialist" by conservatives. But right now they don't like big tech. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

For Biden to Solve Inequality, He’ll Need Good Wi-Fi

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last year was painful for many. Along with those who lost loved ones to Covid-19, perhaps no one felt that pain more than the essential worker, the low-income single parent, the isolated, the marginalized. Often they were the same person. Whether Black and poor in a...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[radiocph]

The "scarcity" of broadcast frequencies is caused by the laws of physics, not the rules of mankind.

The FM band (in most of the world) runs from 88-108 MHz.

Where would you put more frequencies?

Can't go higher than 108, that's the airband.

Going lower than 88, that's TV, and they're not interested in moving.

Some places in the world use even decimal channels, like 100.0, 100.2, etc. (North America just uses odd decimal frequencies, 100.1, 100.3 ,etc.) Putting stations on the evens, particularly in major markets, would probably cause problems such as splatter, etc. (and, not all radios can tune these frequencies either!)

Because of that scarcity... just like diamonds or gold... the value of the available channels is high. Witness to that fact is the astounding decline in the value of radio stations now that there is a limitless capacity for the same content on the Internet. As an example, and FM in LA went for $300 million about two decades ago; in the last two years there have been several full signal FMs sold for less than $50 million; pure supply and demand.

There are also AM channels available, but those (for several reasons) are much less valued.