'Net Neutrality'

[Mystic]

Too bad they have even managed to politicalize the FCC.

From what I have heard they are still keeping this secret and if a certain billionaire poured millions in to influence the decision you know there has to be at least one hidden agenda. Too bad we live in a society today where a few billionaires can have more influence than the American people.

My guess is internet fees will go up (perhaps really high) and there is likely to be some hidden agenda to shut down websites that oppose the current regime.

Maybe all of this will get thrown out after the next elections.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: pbm
Originally Posted By: Mykl
The problem I have with Fox News is that they seem to be completely banned from saying anything positive about any Democrat for any reason. I can appreciate how having a your political preferences might make you more critical of the other party than your own for obvious reasons, but if you're completely incapable of recognizing good work when it occurs I think you're being inherently dishonest and are not trustworthy.


That's the same problem I have with virtually every other news source regarding Republicans. The mainstream media keeps calling ILLEGALS 'undocumented immigrants'.
They spin practically everything to favor the current administration.


Except 'undocumented immigrants' is just as descriptive, if not more so than "ILLEGALS."

I use that phrase because "ILLEGALS" has turned into a racial slur.

MSNBC you have a point, regarding how their hosts talk of Republicans. CNN is more or less neutral at this point.

 

[fdcg27]

You may not be as far from your desired cost and speed as you might think.
In other countries significantly faster and cheaper user connections are offered than what you typically see here.
It will only take a major disrupter willing to invest some money on a sure bet.
In another part of the industry, Republic Wireless is a good example of a disrupter.
How long the major cell service providers can continue to gouge their users with their confusing plans, never offered a la carte but always as part of a bundle, is another matter.
I'm guessing that it won't be very long.
The same will happen with ISP connections and the FCC's action will only serve to hasten that day.
Cost for speed will be the only metric of an ISP, since nothing cute will be allowed.
The ISPs rode the content restriction and throttling train as long as they could and profited handsomely from it.
Time for them to move on to some other source of revenue and profit.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Too bad they have even managed to politicalize the FCC.

From what I have heard they are still keeping this secret and if a certain billionaire poured millions in to influence the decision you know there has to be at least one hidden agenda. Too bad we live in a society today where a few billionaires can have more influence than the American people.

My guess is internet fees will go up (perhaps really high) and there is likely to be some hidden agenda to shut down websites that oppose the current regime.

Maybe all of this will get thrown out after the next elections.


You make an excellent point.
It's okay when faceless corporations spend money to buy elected officials and to create retirement jobs for senior federal executive branch appointees as well as cabinet members in their efforts to influence public policy, but when a named and known individual does so, we have to draw the line!
Public policy has long been influenced by the corporate retained K Street crowd and I fail to see them as being less harmful or more helpful in the making of good public policy than George Soros.
ISP fees will not rise as a result of net neutrality.
Over time they'll more likely fall.
There's also no hidden agenda here. The rule adopted is available for all to view in the NPRM from May. Neither the FCC nor any other agency gets to conduct the making of rules in secret.
Those companies that have profited from the lack of net neutrality will have to find some other rip-off to pursue at our expense.

 

[Win]

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/ent...on-the-internet

Looks like Verizon still keeps a few hams around.

You kids who have no concept of life without Internet or big government may want to find somebody to translate for you.

Has anyone found the actual Obamanet rule yet? An NPRM is a proposal and invitation to comment. It is not a final rule by definition.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Win
You kids who have no concept of life without Internet or big government may want to find somebody to translate for you.


The more things change, the more things stay the same.

I'm guessing that back in 1803 guys like you were sitting in bars grumbling about big government and presidential overreach when the deal was made to purchase Louisiana.

Given your location, I'd say that over 200 years later you approve of that "big government" decision.

 

[fdcg27]

I thought that you were a lawyer?
If so, you may have heard of a little thing called the Federal Register.
I don't think you'll find any results if you use the search term "Obamanet" though.
As a lawyer, you should also know that a NPRM defines a final rule.
An agency can't publish a NPRM and then adopt an entirely different rule in the dark of night at the close of the comment period, as I'm sure you, as a lawyer, already know.

 

[eljefino]

Quote:
Quote:

That's the same problem I have with virtually every other news source regarding Republicans. The mainstream media keeps calling ILLEGALS 'undocumented immigrants'.
They spin practically everything to favor the current administration.


Except 'undocumented immigrants' is just as descriptive, if not more so than "ILLEGALS."


They used to call homeless, bums, too. But then, perhaps, not all homeless are bums... some could self-sustain but choose to not have a permanent residence, some are temporarily because of fire... News would be slanderous to assume something further about someone they haven't interviewed and vetted thoroughly.

We have "undocumented immigrants" here who ARRIVED LEGALLY but outstayed their 6 month visas while waiting for, of all things, the government to get their documents ready. They sit in a legal limbo where enforcement of their removal is on hold, but they aren't allowed to work, drive, etc either. They deserve a different name than an Illegal who deliberately woke up some morning planning to swim across the border to steal jobs and operate a car without insurance, or whatever they do.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Illegal who deliberately woke up some morning planning to swim across the border to steal jobs and operate a car without insurance, or whatever they do.


Thank you for highlighting the exact reason why I've stopped using "ILLEGAL" to describe people that is not like your own.

Because it's a blatant attempt at dehumanizing people so they can put them in a little box and treat them like anything but another person. It's the historical textbook first step towards justifying horrible actions against a group of people.

But yeah, I'm sure they came over here to do that cliche list of things you just provided, it's not possible that there's any other reason.

At least you're honest about your ignorance, kudos for that.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I thought that you were a lawyer?
If so, you may have heard of a little thing called the Federal Register.
I don't think you'll find any results if you use the search term "Obamanet" though.
As a lawyer, you should also know that a NPRM defines a final rule.
An agency can't publish a NPRM and then adopt an entirely different rule in the dark of night at the close of the comment period, as I'm sure you, as a lawyer, already know.


Yes they can. Lots of negotiating goes on before FCC votes on the actual rules. They have full right to publish but choose not to. There are lots of articles that describe how entire sections were removed thanks to special lobbying. There was a recent study done on he FCC's history that shows this agency is well known for these shenanigans.

 

[eljefino]

^ You and I are on the same page, though you couldn't read through my sarcasm. Which is why I added the "whatever they do"...

An "Illegal" choses to puncture our border, and the cliche one fears is that once they've decided they have nothing to lose, they have no reason to fit in.

An "Undocumented" tries very hard to fit in, so they'll make it eventually, after they lay low.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I thought that you were a lawyer?
If so, you may have heard of a little thing called the Federal Register.
I don't think you'll find any results if you use the search term "Obamanet" though.
As a lawyer, you should also know that a NPRM defines a final rule.
An agency can't publish a NPRM and then adopt an entirely different rule in the dark of night at the close of the comment period, as I'm sure you, as a lawyer, already know.


Have you read the NPRM?

It's an invitation for comments on eight or nine proposed changes in Title 47 CFR.

It's not the rule, and it's not the regulations.

 

[fdcg27]

Have you checked the Federal Register for the final rule?
If a NPRM were published in which the color black was defined as really being the color white and the final rule adopted said that black was black and white was white after all, that rule would remain effective only for the ten minutes or so that it would take some lawyer to file for injunctive relief.
You know this very well.
The final rule may feature technical changes from the NPRM, but it cannot differ wholly in kind.