Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is important to note that everyone who voted on the plan had full access to all they needed to make their decision, and the regulations will be made available to everyone who needs to comply with them before they are enforced (as well as to the general public). The complaints along those lines, besides being substantially erroneous as VPNY pointed out, are without merit. The public had ample opportunity to submit their perspectives on this matter from every single possible angle. The proposed rules were a reflection of the results of that public input, even if they don't reflect pandering to any one person's personal preference on the matter. No one's rights were abridged. If you're unhappy with the situation, then things just didn't break the way you wanted, perhaps.
Such sound reasoning, just what our government wants from the people.
Tell me, since you understand it so well, why did it come down to 3 democrats passing this in secret?
It didn't. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It was passed in the normal course of the commission's operations. And it was passed along party lines, as is practically everything these days since neither side is willing to support something that the other side will get credit for. Your political naivete in that regard is really quite surprising.
The 332 pages of regulations weren't made public. I don't like paid infomercials that much but I believe people have a first amendment right to air them. Not any more. QVC? Gone. There can be no preferences on the use of the streams. Only the federal government can decide what should be on the air. The Russian channel will have equal air to NBC.
Those aren't regulations. That is hundreds of pages of comments and reasoning for the decision. The entire process has been very open and public. Where are people getting this idea that this is some sort of close door deal being foisted upon the public by the nefarious government? The FCC looked ready to give the telecoms what they wanted (unchecked monopoly status and content control) and only made this decision after massive pressure from the tech community and general public.
This has been one of, if not the most, publicly commented on federal regulations in modern history. So what gives?
I travel a good bit and, yes, the US and Canada (Rodgers Communications) has terrible internet service compared to what we pay. There are parts of Rwanda and Kenya with better connectivity than rural areas of the US. And speeds throughout much of Europe are far faster than what we pay major money for.
Granted, we've created this situation by giving private companies monopoly status and allowed them to be both owners of the infrastructure and deliverers of service, which is kind of reflective of how we handle trains and why we have abysmal passenger rail. Anyway, here we are; and short of busting up the telecoms and nationalizing all but the last mile of delivery infrastructure, treating the telecoms like utilities under Title II is the best we can do at this time.
Yep, the government is gonna take your internet away by making it so internet providers cannot pick and choose which sites you have easy or hard access to view.
A Conservative owned Cable provider is limiting your access to Huffington Post? Media Matters?
Is that why conservative political webpages load slower than others? Is my cable provider a liberal progressive.
Is a cable provider giving his stock broker the fastest internet and other stock brokers less speed?
If you read the article as opposed to just looking at a chart you get a much more balanced view.
Dave
With Government constantly in debt, they don't have the capital to expand.
The only one that can expand is the guy making the money supply.
He can create his wealth from thin air.
Yup. I currently share a comcast connection with my neighbors (I pay $20/month to the account holder). But if I had to sign up for my own account, I would have to get a package deal that includes cable TV, a landline phone *and* internet.
I don't watch and don't want commercial TV, and my cell phone is my only phone, I don't want a landline. So I would have to pay $100+/mo just for internet. (And I don't stream movies or upload/download large amounts of data. I'm just a retired geezer who gets email and visits websites.)
I can't believe you don't know this. This is how it is in any rural area I know about.
But this enforced bundling is a side issue anyway, has little or nothing to do with today's fcc action.
Edited to add - except that if I did want the cable TV, without net neutrality, comcast could charge a content provider that is *not* included in the comcast package more every time I wanted that content. So that would mean that if the content you provide was not included in my comcast package, *you* would pay more to send your content out over the internet to me. If you didn't pay, comcast could deliver at such a slow speed that I might not bother visiting your site any more.
I live in a rural area, and I never heard of the kind of arrangement you are talking about. You share a connection with your neighbors? Sounds like the old Party Line telephone arrangement. I have heard from many people that Comcast sucks. Perhaps now I have an inkling why.
I don't share my connection with anyone. We connect to the cable at the pole out on the road. My neighbor similarly connects. We do not share anything but the cable on the road which probably serves hundreds of others. My ISP provides us with telephone and Internet through that connection. I have unlimited long distance service, and for all intents and purposes, unlimited Internet.
W do not buy our HDTV from our cable company. We have DirecTV. We could even have only signed up for Internet, and no phone. But, it was cheaper to dump our old land line phone and buy phone service from the company that provides our Internet connection. It is also better service, and we now have a crystal clear phone connection, something that we did not have before. And, we kept our same phone number.
But back to so-calle Net Neutrality: This will mean that the FCC will classify some political speech on the Internet differently ... no more ''free speech." This was probably intentional, as Barack Obama does not like criticism.
Sounds like the perfect pickings for a start up cable provider.
Yes it does. What he described is poor service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
