Except the ISPs don’t care, so the change is meaningless.
When you get near an argument, hop on.
They cared enough to object to it and fight against it,
Quote:
In a letter sent to the FCC last week, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) made known its objections to any changes to current broadband standards, stating that examples used by supporters of raising the broadband standards "dramatically exaggerate the amount of bandwidth needed by the typical broadband user."
You can start your own electric company. No argument to be had.
Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah, "if you like your plan, you can keep it." Haha politicians love people like you with blind faith.
Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah, "if you like your plan, you can keep it." Haha politicians love people like you with blind faith.
The only reason very few people couldn't keep their plans was because the insurance companies stopped selling that plan. The insurance companies couldn't or didn't want to follow the new rules.
Supposedly Wheeler (head of the FCC) has already decided they will push forward so-called "Net Neutrality" rules, according to a just published piece at Wired.com.
Supposedly Wheeler (head of the FCC) has already decided they will push forward so-called "Net Neutrality" rules, according to a just published piece at Wired.com.
Nothing 'supposedly' or 'so-called' about it.
Quote:
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.
"...lawful content and services" is just one alarming part of this decision. What is "lawful" today may be deemed "unlawful" tomorrow and that "lawfulness" may be determined by the companies providing services that contribute the most to lawmakers. That's not openness. People who actually believe they are getting something for nothing under this need their heads examined.
"...lawful content and services" is just one alarming part of this decision. What is "lawful" today may be deemed "unlawful" tomorrow and that "lawfulness" may be determined by the companies providing services that contribute the most to lawmakers. That's not openness. People who actually believe they are getting something for nothing under this need their heads examined.
Fascinating thought process you have going there. Currently, content does not need to be deemed lawful or unlawful in order to discriminate. But you see this proposal as bad because, under it, even though it would prevent ISPs from discriminating against lawful traffic, they might be able to lobby for content to be declared unlawful for their own benefit. Good catch - definitely a threat to the future of internet freedom.
Fascinating thought process you have going there. Currently, content does not need to be deemed lawful or unlawful in order to discriminate. But you see this proposal as bad because, under it, even though it would prevent ISPs from discriminating against lawful traffic, they might be able to lobby for content to be declared unlawful for their own benefit. Good catch - definitely a threat to the future of internet freedom.
Correct. Think like a lawyer and you'll realize that language is very important. How things are defined is the most important thing there is. It means control and the force of law.
The FCC (and FDA, etc) exist to keep people (corporations have person-hood now in the USA) from harming others.
Without these governmental organizations and some amount of regulation, corruption will run amok, and the middle class (that is approximately a family of four with a yearly income of US $50,000) will get reamed.
I am all for the internet being declared a utility - access to it should not be the play thing of multi-billion dollar entities who are governed by shareholders seeking ever increasing profits, no matter the cost.
***as an aside, since the credit swap defaults of the housing market, investors are bundling sub-prime car loans. still trying to make a buck off the middle class...
Fascinating thought process you have going there. Currently, content does not need to be deemed lawful or unlawful in order to discriminate. But you see this proposal as bad because, under it, even though it would prevent ISPs from discriminating against lawful traffic, they might be able to lobby for content to be declared unlawful for their own benefit. Good catch - definitely a threat to the future of internet freedom.
Correct. Think like a lawyer and you'll realize that language is very important. How things are defined is the most important thing there is. It means control and the force of law.
Before you try to think like a lawyer, I suggest that you just try thinking. Even just a little thought might reduce the amount of embarrassing nonsense that you post.
Before you try to think like a lawyer, I suggest that you just try thinking. Even just a little thought might reduce the amount of embarrassing nonsense that you post.
Personal attacks do nothing to bolster whatever point you think you're making.
Before you try to think like a lawyer, I suggest that you just try thinking. Even just a little thought might reduce the amount of embarrassing nonsense that you post.
Personal attacks do nothing to bolster whatever point you think you're making.
Nothing personal - just pointing out that your posts often appear almost entirely devoid of logic or reason. Even the briefest consideration of your latest argument should have revealed to you that it made absolutely no sense at all. If you stopped assuming up front that everything is some kind of monstrous government conspiracy you might see things more clearly.
Nothing personal - just pointing out that your posts often appear almost entirely devoid of logic or reason. Even the briefest consideration of your latest argument should have revealed to you that it made absolutely no sense at all. If you stopped assuming up front that everything is some kind of monstrous government conspiracy you might see things more clearly.
Not that such a post deserves any response, but it has nothing to do with conspiracies, it has everything to do with how laws are made and whose interests are served. Laws don't come about absent of influence and Washington is nothing if not a place where influence is peddled. Just think things through.
"If you like your Internet provider you can keep your Internet provider." OR maybe not. You may see the price just jump by 25%, OR we'll need to shut down the internet one day a week because we are loosing money. OR you can't carry that programming on the Government internet as it violates our standards. Liberals love crazy ideas.
"If you like your Internet provider you can keep your Internet provider." OR maybe not. You may see the price just jump by 25%, OR we'll need to shut down the internet one day a week because we are loosing money. OR you can't carry that programming on the Government internet as it violates our standards. Liberals love crazy ideas.
Ugh... where to start with a post like this. None of it makes sense. I haven't seen anyone mention a price hike, especially a specific one of 25%. Can you provide a source? Nobody can shut down the internet because they're 'loosing' money. The government doesn't own the internet. There are very, very few actual liberals in the government and Obama is far from being one of them. Yes crazy ideas like healthcare, a living wage, a clean environment, free education, and a fair chance for all.
"If you like your Internet provider you can keep your Internet provider." OR maybe not. You may see the price just jump by 25%, OR we'll need to shut down the internet one day a week because we are loosing money. OR you can't carry that programming on the Government internet as it violates our standards. Liberals love crazy ideas.
Ugh... where to start with a post like this. None of it makes sense. I haven't seen anyone mention a price hike, especially a specific one of 25%. Can you provide a source? Nobody can shut down the internet because they're 'loosing' money. The government doesn't own the internet. There are very, very few actual liberals in the government and Obama is far from being one of them. Yes crazy ideas like healthcare, a living wage, a clean environment, free education, and a fair chance for all.
What he and others are saying, of course, is "think of all these terrible things that could happen". The fact that those terrible things are entirely unconnected with the proposals under discussion, except in as much as some of them would become even less likely to occur if the proposals were accepted, is of no consequence at all. These posters either lack even basic comprehension and logic, or are spreading politically motivated FUD. Or possibly both. And they cannot be reasoned with.
Comments
Except the ISPs don’t care, so the change is meaningless.
When you get near an argument, hop on.
They cared enough to object to it and fight against it,
You can start your own electric company. No argument to be had.
They cared enough to object to it and fight against it,
About. What. You. Claim. They. Will. Do. In. Response. To. This. New. Regulation.
Context.
When you get near an actual argument, hop on.
About. What. You. Claim. They. Will. Do. In. Response. To. This. New. Regulation.
Context.
When you get near an actual argument, hop on.
When you get near an actual argument, hop on.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
Mind taking Trollest Skil with you? I'm tired of reading his idiotic comments.
Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah, "if you like your plan, you can keep it." Haha politicians love people like you with blind faith.
Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah, "if you like your plan, you can keep it." Haha politicians love people like you with blind faith.
The only reason very few people couldn't keep their plans was because the insurance companies stopped selling that plan. The insurance companies couldn't or didn't want to follow the new rules.
Supposedly Wheeler (head of the FCC) has already decided they will push forward so-called "Net Neutrality" rules, according to a just published piece at Wired.com.
Nothing 'supposedly' or 'so-called' about it.
"...lawful content and services" is just one alarming part of this decision. What is "lawful" today may be deemed "unlawful" tomorrow and that "lawfulness" may be determined by the companies providing services that contribute the most to lawmakers. That's not openness. People who actually believe they are getting something for nothing under this need their heads examined.
Nothing 'supposedly' or 'so-called' about it.
"...lawful content and services" is just one alarming part of this decision. What is "lawful" today may be deemed "unlawful" tomorrow and that "lawfulness" may be determined by the companies providing services that contribute the most to lawmakers. That's not openness. People who actually believe they are getting something for nothing under this need their heads examined.
Fascinating thought process you have going there. Currently, content does not need to be deemed lawful or unlawful in order to discriminate. But you see this proposal as bad because, under it, even though it would prevent ISPs from discriminating against lawful traffic, they might be able to lobby for content to be declared unlawful for their own benefit. Good catch - definitely a threat to the future of internet freedom.
Correct. Think like a lawyer and you'll realize that language is very important. How things are defined is the most important thing there is. It means control and the force of law.
Without these governmental organizations and some amount of regulation, corruption will run amok, and the middle class (that is approximately a family of four with a yearly income of US $50,000) will get reamed.
I am all for the internet being declared a utility - access to it should not be the play thing of multi-billion dollar entities who are governed by shareholders seeking ever increasing profits, no matter the cost.
***as an aside, since the credit swap defaults of the housing market, investors are bundling sub-prime car loans. still trying to make a buck off the middle class...
Fascinating thought process you have going there. Currently, content does not need to be deemed lawful or unlawful in order to discriminate. But you see this proposal as bad because, under it, even though it would prevent ISPs from discriminating against lawful traffic, they might be able to lobby for content to be declared unlawful for their own benefit. Good catch - definitely a threat to the future of internet freedom.
Correct. Think like a lawyer and you'll realize that language is very important. How things are defined is the most important thing there is. It means control and the force of law.
Before you try to think like a lawyer, I suggest that you just try thinking. Even just a little thought might reduce the amount of embarrassing nonsense that you post.
Personal attacks do nothing to bolster whatever point you think you're making.
Before you try to think like a lawyer, I suggest that you just try thinking. Even just a little thought might reduce the amount of embarrassing nonsense that you post.
Personal attacks do nothing to bolster whatever point you think you're making.
Nothing personal - just pointing out that your posts often appear almost entirely devoid of logic or reason. Even the briefest consideration of your latest argument should have revealed to you that it made absolutely no sense at all. If you stopped assuming up front that everything is some kind of monstrous government conspiracy you might see things more clearly.
Not that such a post deserves any response, but it has nothing to do with conspiracies, it has everything to do with how laws are made and whose interests are served. Laws don't come about absent of influence and Washington is nothing if not a place where influence is peddled. Just think things through.
"If you like your Internet provider you can keep your Internet provider." OR maybe not. You may see the price just jump by 25%, OR we'll need to shut down the internet one day a week because we are loosing money. OR you can't carry that programming on the Government internet as it violates our standards. Liberals love crazy ideas.
"If you like your Internet provider you can keep your Internet provider." OR maybe not. You may see the price just jump by 25%, OR we'll need to shut down the internet one day a week because we are loosing money. OR you can't carry that programming on the Government internet as it violates our standards. Liberals love crazy ideas.
Ugh... where to start with a post like this. None of it makes sense. I haven't seen anyone mention a price hike, especially a specific one of 25%. Can you provide a source? Nobody can shut down the internet because they're 'loosing' money. The government doesn't own the internet. There are very, very few actual liberals in the government and Obama is far from being one of them. Yes crazy ideas like healthcare, a living wage, a clean environment, free education, and a fair chance for all.
Why not start by comprehending it?
ACA.
1. USPS.
2. The government has a kill switch.
What a terrifying worldview you have.
When you have something other than strawmen and appeals to pity, let us know.
"If you like your Internet provider you can keep your Internet provider." OR maybe not. You may see the price just jump by 25%, OR we'll need to shut down the internet one day a week because we are loosing money. OR you can't carry that programming on the Government internet as it violates our standards. Liberals love crazy ideas.
Ugh... where to start with a post like this. None of it makes sense. I haven't seen anyone mention a price hike, especially a specific one of 25%. Can you provide a source? Nobody can shut down the internet because they're 'loosing' money. The government doesn't own the internet. There are very, very few actual liberals in the government and Obama is far from being one of them. Yes crazy ideas like healthcare, a living wage, a clean environment, free education, and a fair chance for all.
What he and others are saying, of course, is "think of all these terrible things that could happen". The fact that those terrible things are entirely unconnected with the proposals under discussion, except in as much as some of them would become even less likely to occur if the proposals were accepted, is of no consequence at all. These posters either lack even basic comprehension and logic, or are spreading politically motivated FUD. Or possibly both. And they cannot be reasoned with.