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.
Why can nobody detail what actually got voted on yesterday? So many self-proclaimed authorities on this subject, and nobody can tell me what my legal remedies would be under the new rules.
You will not have ANY. That is the point. If you catch ISPs blocking and/or restricting access to certain sites and services on the Internet, you can complain all you want. The FCC Will not do anything for you. You will very likely lose in court.
I just spelled it out for you in two separate posts on the previous pages.
Are you running a .COM company? If you start one, and it's successful you will soon have your wings nipped off by the big dogs.
Yes, entrepreneurs and small startups will be killed before they have a chance. Their websites could be made inaccessible through the big cable and wireless providers if they pose any kind of real or perceived competitive threat to the provider or their preferred competitors.
Here's a letter to FCC Chairman Pai from more than 1,000 startups, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurial support organizations from all 50 states, outlining what this is going to mean to anyone trying to start up a business going forward under this change. It's a stark future:
Yes I've read that and also read that everyone is afraid that the ISP's will start charging more for various speeds,
There is nothing that prevents an ISP from charging different rates for different speeds under NN. The only stipulation that whatever you are paying for will provide you with equal access to the sites and services you want to use.
Quote:
Yet, none of that happened before 2015 when it was made official by our government.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing
further more if their intention is comtiue providing a neutral service then there is no need to get rid of NN to begin with.
they didn't limit it before 2015 and I don't expect them to limit it with this FCC change.
The fear mongering isn't working on me.
another example?
Quote:
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
Why can nobody detail what actually got voted on yesterday? So many self-proclaimed authorities on this subject, and nobody can tell me what my legal remedies would be under the new rules.
The reason why no one call tell you what your legal remedies would be under the new rules is because you will have no legal remedies under the new rules. The providers will be able to decide what you can access and what you cannot, and you will have no recourse. That's the whole point.
So far the biggest arguments against it are "Net Neutrality was bad because it was signed into law by Obama and the evil Democrats whaaaaaa", get over yourselves, even among Republicans you are in a small minority, you are the SNOWFLAKES. The world doesn't revolve around you. Most of the public in this country realizes that ending net neutrality is a bad thing
Yes, entrepreneurs and small startups will be killed before they have a chance. Their websites could be made inaccessible through the big cable and wireless providers if they pose any kind of real or perceived competitive threat to the provider or their preferred competitors.
Here's a letter to FCC Chairman Pai from more than 1,000 startups, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurial support organizations from all 50 states, outlining what this is going to mean to anyone trying to start up a business going forward under this change. It's a stark future:
COMCAST
Comcast says it currently doesn’t block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn’t committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T
AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon
Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile
T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It’s already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint
Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn’t have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum)
Charter doesn’t make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it’s currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox
Cox says it won’t block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won’t make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and Suddenlink)
Altice doesn’t currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn’t comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber
Google doesn’t make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.
Sure looks like Trump got played into doing something he did not understand.
Not just Trump - there are many people cheering this news - they are literally cheering against their best interests. They have been fed misinformation and have played themselves.
As many as 2 million identities were stolen to leave fake comments in support of the FCC's decision to kill net neutrality, according to the New York Attorney General's Office. Based on the 5,000 or so complaints filed with the office, some of the victims are senior citizens, some are minors, while some are already dead. "This is a 13 year old child -- she did not post this comment, nor did anyone else in her household," a report filed by a New Yorker said. A Chicago resident who also filed a complaint called the fake comment made under their mother's name "sickening." Their mother passed away several years ago from cancer.
Quote:
While it's still not clear how the identities were stolen, the Attorney General's Office has at least figured out where the fake comments came from: New York, Florida, Texas and California produced 100,000 fake comments each.
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.
