The internet is a national asset -- like roads and bridges and the electric grid. And, like those things, it's health and well being is essential to the future of this nation. With a solid infrastructure we can thrive. Without it we will whither...
The MAGA people had a choice on whether to make America great -- or make Comcast and Verizon rich. The former Verizon exec they put in charge of regulating Verizon chose the latter. Why is that a surprise?
This will likely be followed by their "infrastructure" plan to sell our roads and bridges to the highest bidder -- or the lowest if he's a Republican.
Some confuse making the rich richer with keeping America great.
I hope you realize four out of the five FCC commissioners are Obama appointees.
Oh, this again.
Wikipedia said:
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman.
Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.
So, while it's true they were appointed by Obama, he had to maintain the balance of Democrats and Republicans. I understand that he is advised on the appointees by the relevant party leadership, in Ajit Pai's case I believe it was Mitch McConnell who recommended him. I would guess going against the recommendations of the opposing party in choosing their representatives would be cause for some consternation, if only some outcry at Presidential overreach or something.
If you don't like the product they want to sell you then don't buy it. Would you buy a car from a company if you knew sometimes or on some roads is would not go over 20 miles an hour. So the only effective recourse we have is to not buy the product. As impractical or unfeasible that may be. Welcome to Capitalism at it's best.
Crony capitalism created so-called “Net Neutrality”. That’s not real competition. Getting rid of this rubbish will bring back competition.
Net neutrality doesn't stop competition. It stops ISPs, which already have little competition from turning the internet, which was funded by taxpayers, into a "whoever pays the most gets good service" enterprise. It means that every small business and small website might be screwed. And it will mean higher subscription charges for the big sites, because the ISPs will hold them hostage.
Government has no authority to regulate any of this stuff. The FCC should be abolished and private agreements and competitive pressures should shape which companies are winners and losers. Competition is a good thing! Let it work.
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've heard regarding everything the FCC does that I have ever heard.
If you don't like the product they want to sell you then don't buy it. Would you buy a car from a company if you knew sometimes or on some roads is would not go over 20 miles an hour. So the only effective recourse we have is to not buy the product. As impractical or unfeasible that may be. Welcome to Capitalism at it's best.
Crony capitalism created so-called “Net Neutrality”. That’s not real competition. Getting rid of this rubbish will bring back competition.
Net neutrality doesn't stop competition. It stops ISPs, which already have little competition from turning the internet, which was funded by taxpayers, into a "whoever pays the most gets good service" enterprise. It means that every small business and small website might be screwed. And it will mean higher subscription charges for the big sites, because the ISPs will hold them hostage.
Government has no authority to regulate any of this stuff. The FCC should be abolished and private agreements and competitive pressures should shape which companies are winners and losers. Competition is a good thing! Let it work.
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've heard regarding everything the FCC does that I have ever heard.
Why?
By itself, unregulated broadcast frequencies is a super-bad idea.
The internet is a national asset -- like roads and bridges and the electric grid. And, like those things, it's health and well being is essential to the future of this nation. With a solid infrastructure we can thrive. Without it we will whither...
The MAGA people had a choice on whether to make America great -- or make Comcast and Verizon rich. The former Verizon exec they put in charge of regulating Verizon chose the latter. Why is that a surprise?
This will likely be followed by their "infrastructure" plan to sell our roads and bridges to the highest bidder -- or the lowest if he's a Republican.
Some confuse making the rich richer with keeping America great.
I hope you realize four out of the five FCC commissioners are Obama appointees.
Good excuse! But not relevant. The FCC under Obama protected the internet.
For those who want net neutrality gone, please stop believing the lies that say the government is controlling the internet with net neutrality. Those who tell you that are either naive or trying to manipulate you. The government is not controlling the content on the internet, except to make sure all content has the same priority and that those with commercial interests can’t prioritise some content over other content.
I am all for small government and lean toward conservative ideas, but I’m extremely disappointed by the naievety of the ‘right’ in commercialising the internet and those who are deliberately misleading people in order to accomplish it. The internet has come a long way in its technical foundation, and it is only a matter of time before people with money making interests and no respect for anything but their wallet will take advantage of it. It’s not a theoretical possibility that ‘the market’ will fix, its guaranteed.
And I’m disappointed people think “net neutrality” actually means just making companies treat all data the same.
The truth disappoints you? Why? Or, are you just playing word games?
If you don't like the product they want to sell you then don't buy it. Would you buy a car from a company if you knew sometimes or on some roads is would not go over 20 miles an hour. So the only effective recourse we have is to not buy the product. As impractical or unfeasible that may be. Welcome to Capitalism at it's best.
Crony capitalism created so-called “Net Neutrality”. That’s not real competition. Getting rid of this rubbish will bring back competition.
Net neutrality doesn't stop competition. It stops ISPs, which already have little competition from turning the internet, which was funded by taxpayers, into a "whoever pays the most gets good service" enterprise. It means that every small business and small website might be screwed. And it will mean higher subscription charges for the big sites, because the ISPs will hold them hostage.
Government has no authority to regulate any of this stuff. The FCC should be abolished and private agreements and competitive pressures should shape which companies are winners and losers. Competition is a good thing! Let it work.
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've heard regarding everything the FCC does that I have ever heard.
Why?
By itself, unregulated broadcast frequencies is a super-bad idea.
Minus evidence, that assertion isn't really an argument. What makes you think that industry wouldn't voluntarily adopt measures to regulate?
The internet is a national asset -- like roads and bridges and the electric grid. And, like those things, it's health and well being is essential to the future of this nation. With a solid infrastructure we can thrive. Without it we will whither...
The MAGA people had a choice on whether to make America great -- or make Comcast and Verizon rich. The former Verizon exec they put in charge of regulating Verizon chose the latter. Why is that a surprise?
This will likely be followed by their "infrastructure" plan to sell our roads and bridges to the highest bidder -- or the lowest if he's a Republican.
Some confuse making the rich richer with keeping America great.
I hope you realize four out of the five FCC commissioners are Obama appointees.
Not Quite. No more than three Commissioners can be of the same political party.
we continue on the progressive freak of 2017 out that people actually have opinions that don’t agree with theirs! omg!!! who would have thought!??? when you look at the companies that are for this, the term the left coast comes to mind, but also incumbants locking in their advantage.
it’s kinda sad to see that the tech industry has such a partisan element to it.
given the 2016 campaign of economic illiteracy of Sanders and Trump, it’s nice to see Ajit Pai bringing us back to the origiinal innovation of Clinton with regards to the internet.
So, in today's post-truth environment of Alternative Facts, it's all just "opinion" and nothing matters? ... OK, Thanks for letting us know...
We value your opinion.
I would say that being illerate does have its advantages when making forceful arguements.
we continue on the progressive freak of 2017 out that people actually have opinions that don’t agree with theirs! omg!!! who would have thought!??? when you look at the companies that are for this, the term the left coast comes to mind, but also incumbants locking in their advantage.
it’s kinda sad to see that the tech industry has such a partisan element to it.
given the 2016 campaign of economic illiteracy of Sanders and Trump, it’s nice to see Ajit Pai bringing us back to the origiinal innovation of Clinton with regards to the internet.
So, in today's post-truth environment of Alternative Facts, it's all just "opinion" and nothing matters? ... OK, Thanks for letting us know...
We value your opinion.
I would say that being illerate does have its advantages when making forceful arguements.
We value your opinion.... (Right after we stop laughing at it)
Comments
So, while it's true they were appointed by Obama, he had to maintain the balance of Democrats and Republicans. I understand that he is advised on the appointees by the relevant party leadership, in Ajit Pai's case I believe it was Mitch McConnell who recommended him. I would guess going against the recommendations of the opposing party in choosing their representatives would be cause for some consternation, if only some outcry at Presidential overreach or something.