The L.A. Times just linked to their coverage of this, and here's what they wrote:
"Do you use the Internet? Then here's why you should care about today's "net neutrality" vote: New rules prohibit Internet service providers from charging more to speed up data delivery for some, which of course means slowing it down for others"
Once people fully realize the depth and breadth of this ruling, they are going to be very disappointed (or they should be!).
Boy-oh-boy, did you pick a topic to stumble in to...
I believe so.
My comment would be something like, "If you have to go back to the 1930's to pass Regulations for 2015, there might be a problem, apart from not placing the secret Regulations online for everyone to look at.
I'm not sure but I don't think the 332 paged document is written. It is still being written. But I'm not sure on that.
The L.A. Times just linked to their coverage of this, and here's what they wrote:
"Do you use the Internet? Then here's why you should care about today's "net neutrality" vote: New rules prohibit Internet service providers from charging more to speed up data delivery for some, which of course means slowing it down for others"
Once people fully realize the depth and breadth of this ruling, they are going to be very disappointed (or they should be!).
Can you provide a link to this story I'd like to read it? I looked on their site but could not find it.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor. This is why there should always be as little Federal regulation as possible.
I think that that is a good summary of what happened today.
A couple of years ago, the FCC put out some less-specific rules about what today is labeled as "net neutrality". Against the advice of all of their friends, Verizon decided to file suit to overturn these rules on the basis that they weren't regulated (that specific part) and so the FCC had overstepped its bounds. The Court of Appeals agreed and overturned the FCC rules.
Today's rules are the rather predictable result of Verizon's "victory". They're the least Federal regulation possible that will accomplish the goal of an internet where "Content" is free (as in "open", not no-cost) and "Access" is unfettered by being tied to Content.
I have made the point several times before that this is a less-than-satisfactory solution. And that the one I prefer is simpler, in one way, yet more complex in another. That way is to separate Content and Access so that a single company doesn't do both. This is similar to the setup in many states where energy companies (electricity, gas etc) can do generation (power stations, gas wells etc) or distribution (poles and wires) but not both. So in today's situation, it means that Comcast, for example, would become two separate companies. One ("Content") would own TV assets, movie studios etc and the other ("Access") would be the ISP. The Content company would not be regulated - as many here have argued today, while the Access company would be under Title II, as appropriate for "communications services".
My comment would be something like, "If you have to go back to the 1930's to pass Regulations for 2015, there might be a problem, apart from not placing the secret Regulations online for everyone to look at.
I'm not sure but I don't think the 332 paged document is written. It is still being written. But I'm not sure on that.
That's when the Act was passed. Should we throw out the Constitution to because it's too old? The 332 page document is Tom Wheeler's plan which was not voted on. Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority.
Communications Act of 1934
In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission, including in it also the telecommunications jurisdiction previously handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Title II of the Communications Act focused on telecommunications using many concepts borrowed from railroad legislation and Title III contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927.
Great for consumers, great for America and if the shareholders of the cable companies don't like it they can sell their stock. They should hire CEOs that know how to build and create rather than those that want to profit by throttle.
So requiring that a company be upfront with customers and giving them what they pay for is somehow 'anti-freedom'? Or that negating ISP-sponsored laws prohibiting municipalities from offering their citizens internet service like they do water and sometimes power and garbage collection is anti-American? Sheesh!
What's to stop the FCC from banning certain types of data?
Here come the astroturfing trolls and Obama haters.
You say that now, but what happens when an ultra conservative president gets elected and starts overstepping his bounds with the FCC. What ever the government does can go both ways, politically speaking.
I find a certain degree of irony in entrusting the FCC to uphold freedom of speech on the internet.
The same FCC that fines radio stations $100,000 every time someone utters a curse word.
The same FCC that censors television.
The same FCC that has been slapped down OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER again by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The same FCC that is refusing to allow the public to even SEE these regulations - that are so good for you and I - until AFTER they have been passed
The same FCC that is staffed by a laundry list of former Comcast and media execs.
What could possibly go wrong?
I knew you were odd, but never realized you were deranged.
Folks should keep in mind that the "unregulated internet' we have had so far, has delivered to us some of the crappiest, lowest bandwidth, most expensive internet access in the developed world. Meanwhile it's been very profitable for the telcos. No wonder they hate so much even the slightest regulation.
Deregulation: What would a pro football game look like if we got rid of the referees?
You say that now, but what happens when an ultra conservative president gets elected and starts overstepping his bounds with the FCC. What ever the government does can go both ways, politically speaking.
Because Title II, which is what ISPs now fall under, doesn't give them the power to do so.
Comments
Hello to the Forum.
I've been a member since 2006, and I think this might be my first post.
I use to hangout on Macworld.
Anyway, this is also a test to see if I'm posting correctly.
Yes, you are. Welcome.
You are being extremely presumptive and offensive.
You didn't address any of his questions.
I find your ignorance offensive and frankly dangerous to a healthy and free democracy.
You didn't address any of his questions.
I find your ignorance offensive and frankly dangerous to a healthy and free democracy.
Why in the world would I want to address anyone who starts their comments by calling me an idiot? Would you?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Just remember to use the little "Quote" button (lower right hand corner) when you are replying to someone specific.
Hello to the Forum.
I've been a member since 2006, and I think this might be my first post.
I use to hangout on Macworld.
Anyway, this is also a test to see if I'm posting correctly.
Boy-oh-boy, did you pick a topic to stumble in to...
The L.A. Times just linked to their coverage of this, and here's what they wrote:
"Do you use the Internet? Then here's why you should care about today's "net neutrality" vote: New rules prohibit Internet service providers from charging more to speed up data delivery for some, which of course means slowing it down for others"
Once people fully realize the depth and breadth of this ruling, they are going to be very disappointed (or they should be!).
Just remember to use the little "Quote" button (lower right hand corner) when you are replying to someone specific.
Thanks,
I found that out after I didn't reply to you.
Boy-oh-boy, did you pick a topic to stumble in to...
I believe so.
My comment would be something like, "If you have to go back to the 1930's to pass Regulations for 2015, there might be a problem, apart from not placing the secret Regulations online for everyone to look at.
I'm not sure but I don't think the 332 paged document is written. It is still being written. But I'm not sure on that.
The L.A. Times just linked to their coverage of this, and here's what they wrote:
"Do you use the Internet? Then here's why you should care about today's "net neutrality" vote: New rules prohibit Internet service providers from charging more to speed up data delivery for some, which of course means slowing it down for others"
Once people fully realize the depth and breadth of this ruling, they are going to be very disappointed (or they should be!).
Can you provide a link to this story I'd like to read it? I looked on their site but could not find it.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor. This is why there should always be as little Federal regulation as possible.
I think that that is a good summary of what happened today.
A couple of years ago, the FCC put out some less-specific rules about what today is labeled as "net neutrality". Against the advice of all of their friends, Verizon decided to file suit to overturn these rules on the basis that they weren't regulated (that specific part) and so the FCC had overstepped its bounds. The Court of Appeals agreed and overturned the FCC rules.
Today's rules are the rather predictable result of Verizon's "victory". They're the least Federal regulation possible that will accomplish the goal of an internet where "Content" is free (as in "open", not no-cost) and "Access" is unfettered by being tied to Content.
I have made the point several times before that this is a less-than-satisfactory solution. And that the one I prefer is simpler, in one way, yet more complex in another. That way is to separate Content and Access so that a single company doesn't do both. This is similar to the setup in many states where energy companies (electricity, gas etc) can do generation (power stations, gas wells etc) or distribution (poles and wires) but not both. So in today's situation, it means that Comcast, for example, would become two separate companies. One ("Content") would own TV assets, movie studios etc and the other ("Access") would be the ISP. The Content company would not be regulated - as many here have argued today, while the Access company would be under Title II, as appropriate for "communications services".
I believe so.
My comment would be something like, "If you have to go back to the 1930's to pass Regulations for 2015, there might be a problem, apart from not placing the secret Regulations online for everyone to look at.
I'm not sure but I don't think the 332 paged document is written. It is still being written. But I'm not sure on that.
That's when the Act was passed. Should we throw out the Constitution to because it's too old? The 332 page document is Tom Wheeler's plan which was not voted on. Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority.
Communications Act of 1934
In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission, including in it also the telecommunications jurisdiction previously handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Title II of the Communications Act focused on telecommunications using many concepts borrowed from railroad legislation and Title III contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927.
Our willingness to give up freedom of speech is alarming.
So requiring that a company be upfront with customers and giving them what they pay for is somehow 'anti-freedom'? Or that negating ISP-sponsored laws prohibiting municipalities from offering their citizens internet service like they do water and sometimes power and garbage collection is anti-American? Sheesh!
What's to stop the FCC from banning certain types of data?
Here come the astroturfing trolls and Obama haters.
You say that now, but what happens when an ultra conservative president gets elected and starts overstepping his bounds with the FCC. What ever the government does can go both ways, politically speaking.
Well, this.
I find a certain degree of irony in entrusting the FCC to uphold freedom of speech on the internet.
The same FCC that fines radio stations $100,000 every time someone utters a curse word.
The same FCC that censors television.
The same FCC that has been slapped down OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER again by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The same FCC that is refusing to allow the public to even SEE these regulations - that are so good for you and I - until AFTER they have been passed
The same FCC that is staffed by a laundry list of former Comcast and media execs.
What could possibly go wrong?
I knew you were odd, but never realized you were deranged.
Folks should keep in mind that the "unregulated internet' we have had so far, has delivered to us some of the crappiest, lowest bandwidth, most expensive internet access in the developed world. Meanwhile it's been very profitable for the telcos. No wonder they hate so much even the slightest regulation.
Deregulation: What would a pro football game look like if we got rid of the referees?
You say that now, but what happens when an ultra conservative president gets elected and starts overstepping his bounds with the FCC. What ever the government does can go both ways, politically speaking.
Because Title II, which is what ISPs now fall under, doesn't give them the power to do so.
The main problems with the current broadband internet provider structure in the US is that:
1) Generally it is too slow and easily overloaded
2) Unlimited data is abused by some companies and consumers
3) There is no reasonable choice of providers in most areas unlike cell
4) It is too expensive
With blackjack and hookers!