"You don't need the internet" says Republican FCC Commissioner - Polidicks

my job literally requires me to communicate with hundreds of different organizations daily, yes this used to be done by telephone, but the telephone paved the way for the internet and now my job relies heavily on it

Why would anyone give up unlimited access to porn? That's all the internet is used for, [I]right?[/I]

[QUOTE=Sableye;48059759]go find a job without the internet today. otherwise Go fuck yourself[/QUOTE] Find a newspaper or go for a bike ride down your local street and go into stores asking for applications. Not exactly that complicated.

There's two right wing assholes named O'Reilly? Are they related?

[QUOTE=catbarf;48059642]He's talking about what role the government should play in regulating the Internet. Here's the full quote. Can anyone get past the knee-jerk reactions and explain what's actually wrong with this? Why should the government treat access to the Internet the same way it treats basic civil rights?[/QUOTE] The same way as its so used and popular among companies and others, it already became a basic civil right. Every single one knows what the Internet is. The whole world already uses it in our daily life, without it we wouldn't be what we are today in terms of technology. So why not treat it like a civil right?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48060108]Find a newspaper or go for a bike ride down your local street and go into stores asking for applications. Not exactly that complicated.[/QUOTE] problem is, unless it's a really rural area, most places forward you to online applications. IE: Fast Food places, restaurants, supermarkets, even gas stations. there's the rare place or two that have paper apps, like mom and pop shops, but those are hard to come by. and most of the time, those places aren't taking.

Is it me or does the wording [quote]“People can and do live without internet access, and many lead very successful lives,” [/quote] sound a bit off. In my head I changed it to “People can and do live without legs, and many lead very successful lives,” This just in folks, having all your limbs isn't a neccesity!

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48060108]Find a newspaper or go for a bike ride down your local street and go into stores asking for applications. Not exactly that complicated.[/QUOTE] Its a lot harder than it used to be. Now in all fairness, many entry level jobs have a job application kiosk on site specifically for that reason. But as time goes on, paper applications are going to become far more of a rarity. Even 5 years ago I when I was looking for my first job, they would just point to their online site. Paper applications just take too much time to sort through, when you can just have a computer skim for certain criteria for you.

I would say that the internet isn't a necessity in the serious sense of just being able to get by, but the fact that it's gotten so big and integrated into our lives gives you a huge leg up like having a telephone or a car which you don't [I]technically[/I] need either.

And we don't NEED that FCC commissioner

[QUOTE=catbarf;48059642]He's talking about what role the government should play in regulating the Internet. Here's the full quote. Can anyone get past the knee-jerk reactions and explain what's actually wrong with this? Why should the government treat access to the Internet the same way it treats basic civil rights?[/QUOTE] At this point, the Internet is a step behind electricity; you don't die without it, but you are cut off from so much of the world. Though I'm not sure what this person's point is being that the FCC has nothing to do with basic necessities, so it isn't like they are diverting resources to regulate the internet from feeding the poor. Furthermore, there is no reason everyone in a "first world" country shouldn't have free access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and medical care should they be unable to afford them themselves, in addition to affordable access to fundamental services, such as power and internet.

I'm prepared to get shit on for saying this, but I agree with him. Sure, it'd be fantastic if everyone had internet-- it'd be fantastic if everyone had a house, a car, three meals a day, and a job that they love too. There are various public resources (eg: libraries) that allow people to have internet access, and it's overly idealistic to be focusing the tax budget on giving people their own [I]internet access[/I] rather than increase focus on providing food and housing for those in need. There are over three and a half million homeless people-- having a home and a daily meal-- those are examples of human rights. Despite what some of you might think, it's possible to survive and even be moderately happy without an internet connection in your own home. I feel like a lot of you are jumping the gun due to his political party, as if his statement says "lol don't give poor people internet" rather than "we have better things to be spending our tax budget on."

The internet is a necessity in a way; when it comes to job-searching, application forms had suddenly vanished and so you would have to apply only online for every job going these days.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;48060313]At this point, the Internet is a step behind electricity; you don't die without it, but you are cut off from so much of the world.[/QUOTE] For most of the US I could say the same about personal transportation, which is equally important if not more important than the Internet in securing and working a job, but I haven't seen anyone step up to declare owning a vehicle to be a human right. 'Not a human right' isn't the same as 'not important'. [QUOTE=Monkah;48060401]rather than "we have better things to be spending our tax budget on."[/QUOTE] He's not even saying that. He's just saying that as a regulatory body the FCC shouldn't treat Internet access the way other regulatory bodies treat things we consider to be human rights.

[QUOTE=catbarf;48060520]He's not even saying that. He's just saying that as a regulatory body the FCC shouldn't treat Internet access the way other regulatory bodies treat things we consider to be human rights.[/QUOTE] I don't think the FCC is regulating it as a human right, more regulating it because they know the technology and funds are there to provide infrastructure for something other than third-world speeds at outrageous prices. ISPs get shitloads of money in subsidies in order to "remain competitive", yet their services are lack-luster due to their infrastructure not being able to support the demand, and the new media experiences provided online call for higher bandwidths all-around. So basically: 1) They have the means of being able to modernize their infrastructure because they're being paid to do it via subsidies, but they've been incredibly slacking, so they have nobody to blame but themselves. 2) The connections they DO provide are generally poor quality depending on the type and location, and it's been that way for years, so clearly the public's demand for higher speeds isn't enough to motivate them to remain competitive, particularly when they make a bargain with the other ISPs saying "I'll provide speeds up to this much for $XX/month, if we both stay about in that neighborhood we'll be set". 3) There are so many industries that could benefit from a better internet infrastructure and fair pricing, such as distributed computing (stuff like folding@home, SETI@home, etc), transfer of workloads over long-distances (multimedia, film editing, etc), that the ISP's unreliable, expensive, and out-dated connection speeds are holding these industries back, it's time they stepped up to the plate, and despite receiving subsidies to help them get on track, they've dropped the ball.

why do these old white men try so hard to desperately cling on to the world that obviously isn't for them anymore

Well I guess he is right, you don't need it for survival, but it's a stupid statement to make regardless since it is a necessity for our economy and lifestyle to function.

My job exists because of the internet. Without it I wouldn't have money for food, my skills would be unemployable, and I would starve to death on the street (exaggeration). Seems pretty necessary to me.

[QUOTE=Grimhound;48059800]Americans don't need internet. Just bootstraps. Bootstraps for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.[/QUOTE] i'd ask for a fax number but then i can't send bootstraps over the phone-lines

[QUOTE=Monkah;48060401]I'm prepared to get shit on for saying this, but I agree with him. Sure, it'd be fantastic if everyone had internet-- it'd be fantastic if everyone had a house, a car, three meals a day, and a job that they love too. There are various public resources (eg: libraries) that allow people to have internet access, and it's overly idealistic to be focusing the tax budget on giving people their own [I]internet access[/I] rather than increase focus on providing food and housing for those in need. There are over three and a half million homeless people-- having a home and a daily meal-- those are examples of human rights. Despite what some of you might think, it's possible to survive and even be moderately happy without an internet connection in your own home. I feel like a lot of you are jumping the gun due to his political party, as if his statement says "lol don't give poor people internet" rather than "we have better things to be spending our tax budget on."[/QUOTE] The internet isn't just the thing you use to go online and look at porn/argue/play WoW/etc with. If you've ever made a debit or credit purchase, you've used the internet directly. Indirectly you're using it because stores use the internet to order merchandise and shipping companies use the internet to manage their fleet. The internet is the backbone to our economy, infrastructure, government; modern society simply wouldn't exist without it. It isn't a biological need but even the lives of people who are barely able to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves would be made significantly worse without internet.

This guy has vested interests in TV & broadcasting so take that as you will. In the early 1900s there were still people that said you didn't need cars. (probably horse salesmen)

Except its a communication tool.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;48061143]The internet isn't just the thing you use to go online and look at porn/argue/play WoW/etc with. If you've ever made a debit or credit purchase, you've used the internet directly. Indirectly you're using it because stores use the internet to order merchandise and shipping companies use the internet to manage their fleet. The internet is the backbone to our economy, infrastructure, government; modern society simply wouldn't exist without it. [/QUOTE] The automobile has been the industrial backbone of our economy for a hundred years, modern society absolutely would not exist without it. The Internet's barely been around for a few decades, and in a recognizable form for no longer than twenty years, and as much as we might miss Amazon we'd get by without it, whereas the loss of our trucking infrastructure would bring society to a crashing halt. The fact that you use the Internet a lot doesn't make it a human right, nor does the fact that it is a common part of modern life. [QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;48061221]In the early 1900s there were still people that said you didn't need cars. (probably horse salesmen)[/QUOTE] A hundred years later and still nobody tries to claim that a car is a [i]human right[/i], even though access to a car is absolutely essential for America's suburban population. Would you like to be the first to claim that access to a car is a human right on par with free speech and the right to due process? Doesn't that sound absolutely ridiculous, no matter how common cars are?

Wasn't it shit like this that caused the revolution? I heard people revolted because the English started to tax paper by the sheet, making newspapers impossible in order to stave off anti-English sentiment, and that was the last straw that broke the camel's back in the revolution. Now I ain't no American, nor did I study revolutionary history, but if what I heard about the revolution is true it's not a stretch to say that the modern-day equivalent of it is Net Neutrality.

[QUOTE=catbarf;48061608]The automobile has been the industrial backbone of our economy for a hundred years, modern society absolutely would not exist without it. The Internet's barely been around for a few decades, and in a recognizable form for no longer than twenty years, and as much as we might miss Amazon we'd get by without it, whereas the loss of our trucking infrastructure would bring society to a crashing halt. The fact that you use the Internet a lot doesn't make it a human right, nor does the fact that it is a common part of modern life.[/quote] I think you underestimate just how much stuff relies on the internet. Life would go on, but losing the internet would be a massive blow to society, and the economy. [quote]A hundred years later and still nobody tries to claim that a car is a [i]human right[/i], even though access to a car is absolutely essential for America's suburban population. Would you like to be the first to claim that access to a car is a human right on par with free speech and the right to due process? Doesn't that sound absolutely ridiculous, no matter how common cars are?[/QUOTE] I don't know how many people are saying the internet should be human right in this thread (in fact I think the person you quoted was suggesting that perhaps the subject of this thread has a vested interest prevent progress towards fixing the horrid state of the US internet), rather that the internet is ingrained into western society at a level on par with, or perhaps even surpassing, vehicles. It is not a necessity to live, but it is a very large part of being able to participate in society, including seeking a job.

[QUOTE=catbarf;48061608]The automobile has been the industrial backbone of our economy for a hundred years, modern society absolutely would not exist without it. The Internet's barely been around for a few decades, and in a recognizable form for no longer than twenty years, and as much as we might miss Amazon we'd get by without it, whereas the loss of our trucking infrastructure would bring society to a crashing halt. The fact that you use the Internet a lot doesn't make it a human right, nor does the fact that it is a common part of modern life.[/QUOTE] And the loss of the internet now would likely result in the loss of our trucking infrastructure for a significant period of time. I think access to both transportation and the internet should be considered rights. Not necessarily that everyone needs to own a computer and car, but public internet access and public transportation should both be available to everyone.

We dont need people like you either to tell us what we need or don't need and to bow down to the dictates of our ISPs, fuck off mr republican

[QUOTE=catbarf;48061608]A hundred years later and still nobody tries to claim that a car is a [i]human right[/i], even though access to a car is absolutely essential for America's suburban population. Would you like to be the first to claim that access to a car is a human right on par with free speech and the right to due process? Doesn't that sound absolutely ridiculous, no matter how common cars are?[/QUOTE] well, i think the internet should be a right, though more of a constitutional one rather than a basic human one, but tbh i don't think the comparison with cars is really that fair. public transportation is still a thing so i don't know if i'd really call them absolutely essential everywhere, and in the places where they are they're already seen as a necessary expense i guess? idk

The same people who think poor people are a scourge on society don't want people to have the best tool in finding employment.

I agree, people should just go back to libraries and books and enjoy having out of date information especially if they're doing some sort of science course.