FCC votes to enforce net neutrality by regulating ISPs, unleashes municipal broadband

2456719

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 376
    The best news in decades.
  • Reply 22 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mubaili View Post



    so content providers cannot pay for fast lane but consumer can pay for fast access? I am confused. I would prefer FCC enact a minimum speed rule instead, say the slowest speed cannot be less than 80% of the fastest.



    This is about prioritization of bandwidth.  Cable providers cannot slow down Netflix or a future video provider if those providers are not willing to pay extra.  Content providers will have to compete for consumers coming and wanting to use their content.  New content providers can enter the market without huge barriers to entry.

  • Reply 23 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

     

    <Tallest Skil> Sooo you want to leave it in the hands of a monopolistic ISP's to decide what you can and cannot see/hear?

     

    Ya that'll be in our best interest!   NOT!




    Tallest Skil is either an astroturfer or is seriously blinded by his hatred for the current administration. Either way, you aren't going to have a civil discussion with him/her. Case in point look at his/her knee-jerk responses to your posts.

  • Reply 24 of 376

    Step 1: FCC takes control over internet

    Step 2: FCC enacts new internet access taxes to fund FCCs unlawful takeover and monitoring of the internet

    Step 3: FCC begins enacting regulations that control what you can and can not say on the internet.

    Step 4: FCC rules that you obtain an FCC permit to create websites

    Step 5: FCC shuts down any website that FCC does not approve of, to shift according to which political party is in power.

     

    Never, ever, ever trust your government.  If you do, you are a fool, and on the fast track to servitude.

  • Reply 24 of 376
    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

    Tallest Skil is either an astroturfer or is seriously blinded by his hatred for the current administration.

     

    Keep your delusions to yourself.

     

    If you had any actual rebuttal to what I’ve said, you’d have posted it.

     

    Oh, and I find your comment to be ‘harmful’ to me, so under this new legislation the comment must be removed by the owner of the site, otherwise the site will be blocked from public access. Please note that I don’t actually want that to happen, but that’s what the law says. You don’t want to be in violation of the law, do you?

  • Reply 26 of 376
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post



    I am an attorney

    Nuf said!

  • Reply 27 of 376
    Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

    Nuf said!



    Oh, the irony.

  • Reply 28 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post



    Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.



    The most accurate and forboding assessment yet.  Even the horror that I can accurately predict (like imminent taxation and speech regulation) will pale in comparison to what we can not predict the government will do.

    Shame on the people who support this heinous power grab.

  • Reply 29 of 376
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Oh, the irony.


    Oh, the idiocy.

  • Reply 30 of 376
    Well, we tried. Stick a fork in America the free, it's done.
  • Reply 31 of 376
    jetlawjetlaw Posts: 156member
    krreagan wrote: »
    Nuf said!

    Sure, after all, why would anyone in their right mind want to hear a legal opinion from someone who is actually trained in the law. I'm guessing you don't believe in vaccinations, either, since the only people who are proponents of them are those annoying doctors. Keep drinking the Kool Aide.
  • Reply 32 of 376

    Wait. Did we win? I am genuinely astonished. I am reading this correctly am I not? The corporations lost and we won? I need to sit down somewhere quietly and digest this.

  • Reply 33 of 376
    mystigo wrote: »
    Wait. Did we win? I am genuinely astonished. I am reading this correctly am I not? The corporations lost and we won? I need to sit down somewhere quietly and digest this.

    In what world do you consider this a victory? This is the worst thing imaginable for consumers.

    I hope you don't vote.
  • Reply 34 of 376
    So can someone dumb down what this all means to the consumer? I am not sure I understand at the moment. Once I understand then I will comment further.
  • Reply 35 of 376
    The comparison to electical power transmission is completely false. The ISPs don't generate internet the way an electical utility generates electical power.
  • Reply 36 of 376
    Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

    Oh, the idiocy.

     

    You realize you’re agreeing with him for believing the opposite of what you claim to support, right?

     

    Just more irony.

     

    Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

    Wait. Did we win?



    No.

     

    The corporations lost and we won?




    Everyone but the government lost.



    Corporations “winning” and persons “winning” are not mutually exclusive.

  • Reply 37 of 376
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,164member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    What does this mean for the average consumer?




    It means higher prices mainly form new taxes and fees that will be added.

  • Reply 38 of 376
    "Sitting before the commission in support of the new rules were Chad Dickerson, the co-founder and CEO of Etsy, and Veena Sud, creator of television drama The Killing, which was saved from a premature death by Netflix."

    Ha! Saved by Netflix who is well-known to have paid Comcast (maybe other providers) for priority access on its network! This is a pile of horse manure. More regulation gets us closer to a big brother nanny state. If that's what you want, move to Europe. This is the land of the free (or was).
  • Reply 39 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mehran View Post

     



    This is about prioritization of bandwidth.  Cable providers cannot slow down Netflix or a future video provider if those providers are not willing to pay extra.  Content providers will have to compete for consumers coming and wanting to use their content.  New content providers can enter the market without huge barriers to entry.




    Bandwidth has a cost. Bad things always happen when you attempt to divorce cost from price.

  • Reply 40 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     



    It means higher prices mainly form new taxes and fees that will be added.




    Followed by the FCC deciding which content is proper and which is not.

Sign In or Register to comment.