Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Nails on February 26, 2015, 03:45:53 PM
-
??? ???
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules/24053057/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules/24053057/)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to implement new net neutrality rules designed to make sure Internet service providers treat all legal content equally.
The historic vote on the proposal, pitched by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, elicited hearty cheers from a wide array of technology companies and consumer groups while setting the table for lawsuits from Internet service providers. The controversial proceedings that led up to the vote generated heated lobbying in Washington and public clamor on social media, all in efforts to steer the future direction of the rules that guide Internet traffic.
"The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules," said Wheeler to applause from the standing room-only crowd gathered before the FCC panel.
"So today after a decade of debate in an open, robust year-long process, we finally have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the Internet stays fast, fair and open," he said.
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy04Zjc1YjZjOGE3ODhlMzA3.png)
-
It means the internet stays as it is and that Cable companies cannot charge for faster service nor can they restrict access to websites or favor other websites over others. It puts a stop to a tiered internet, where you would have to pay a subscription package for websites or for the speed of access to these websites. Also, they are not allowed to throttle your connection.
Its quite simple really.
-
Moron Republicans and morons in general don`t understand this and think it would be a good idea to not have net neutrality. They want cable companies to have the ability to charge per website.
-
It means the internet stays as it is and that Cable companies cannot charge for faster service nor can they restrict access to websites or favor other websites over others. It puts a stop to a tiered internet, where you would have to pay a subscription package for websites or for the speed of access to these websites. Also, they are not allowed to throttle your connection.
Its quite simple really.
Got it, thanks TA
-
-
ta you are so well spoken and clear minded. Why don't you do interviews for celebs, athletes.. or even bodybuilders :D ?
-
ta you are so well spoken and clear minded. Why don't you do interviews for celebs, athletes.. or even bodybuilders :D ?
Because I have better things to do like make Banana Cream Pie.
-
Moron Republicans and morons in general don`t understand this and think it would be a good idea to not have net neutrality. They want cable companies to have the ability to charge per website.
I guess you need to add in moron Democrats, moron independents and moron Libertarians. Just to be fair.
-
TA, it goes well beyond Net Neutrality.
So, in the face of the greatest technological empowerment of people in the history of the world, why are regulators at our respective agencies, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, calling for new government regulation of the Internet? The answer is simple. Unfortunately, some see any realm of freedom as a vacuum in need of government control.
For its part, the FCC is about to scrap a Clinton-era bipartisan consensus that the Internet should be free from intrusive government regulation. On Thursday, the agency will likely vote to impose rules upon almost every nut and bolt of the Internet, from the digital connection at your house to the core of the network. In so doing, it’ll dust off the heavy-handed monopoly rules designed for Ma Bell back in the 1930s.
How heavy-handed? The FCC will start regulating broadband rates. It will decree, based on a vaguely defined “Internet conduct” standard, whether companies can offer consumer-friendly service plans (such as T-Mobile’s Music Freedom program, which offers customers unlimited access to streaming music). It will institutionalize innovation by permission — giving advisory opinions on prospective business plans or practices (and companies will ask before innovating for fear of what will happen if they don’t). It will even assert the power to force private companies to physically deploy broadband infrastructure and route Internet traffic in specific ways. And in a gift to the plaintiffs’ bar, the FCC will deputize trial lawyers to file class-action lawsuits if they contend that any of these rules are being violated.
These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density.
So why is the FCC swinging the regulatory sledgehammer? It’s not to guarantee an open Internet. Nowhere in the 332-page plan — which you won’t see until after the FCC votes on it — can one find a description of systemic harms to consumers or entrepreneurs online. And small wonder, for the Internet is open today. Consumers can easily access the content of their choice. Online entrepreneurs can and do innovate freely.
No, the purpose is control for control’s sake. Digital dysfunction must be conjured into being to justify a public-sector power grab. Aside from being a bad deal for everyone who relies on the Internet, this Beltway-centric plan also distracts the FCC from what it should be focusing on: increasing broadband competition and giving consumers better broadband choices.
While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online.
Twenty years ago, the FEC began to regulate expenditures for political speech on the Internet, but experience quickly demonstrated that such regulation was counterproductive and highly unpopular. After fits and starts, in 2006, the FEC adopted a regulation that protected the right of people and groups to disseminate political commentary online free from regulation. Specifically, the 2006 rule exempted from regulation all political commentary that citizens and groups post online for free, including on websites, blogs and social media platforms. (The FEC maintained regulation over online posts by campaigns and PACs as well as paid advertisements.)
The freedom protected by the 2006 rule fostered a robust national forum for political discussion. Millions of Americans post political opinions for free on blogs, chat rooms, comment boards and social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Without government regulation, political speech and civic engagement have flourished on the Internet, and ordinary citizens have had the same freedom and ability to disseminate their political opinions to a wide public audience as large media corporations.
Despite this success, the FEC finds itself locked in a renewed debate over the regulation of online political opinions. The debate was triggered last October when commissioners split 3-3 in a case involving a group that posted two political videos on YouTube without reporting them to the FEC. Three commissioners (including the co-author of this piece) voted to exempt the YouTube videos from regulation under the 2006 Internet rule while three voted to investigate and regulate the organization. Two months later, commissioners split again over the metes and bounds of the 2006 Internet freedom rule in a case involving an organization that simply posted political news releases on its own website. Even though it would require four votes for the FEC to regulate the Internet, these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.
Following these deadlocks, the FEC held a hearing this month on Internet regulation and other issues. About 5,000 citizens submitted comments urging the FEC to keep its hands off the Internet. Three former FEC commissioners and five nonprofit groups testified that the Internet should not be regulated. Even “a little” regulation, they maintained, would suppress significant amounts of political speech — for no compelling reason. Significantly, as one former FEC commissioner testified, a decade of free Internet speech has not given rise to corruption. Freedom has served us well.
The bottom line is that Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.
Ajit Pai is a member of the Federal Communications Commission. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of their agencies or the U.S. government.
Lee Goodman is a member of the Federal Election Commission.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399_full.html#.VOy2PbPF_LU
-
I guess you need to add in moron Democrats, moron independents and moron Libertarians. Just to be fair.
???
-
TA, it goes well beyond Net Neutrality.
So, in the face of the greatest technological empowerment of people in the history of the world, why are regulators at our respective agencies, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission, calling for new government regulation of the Internet? The answer is simple. Unfortunately, some see any realm of freedom as a vacuum in need of government control.
For its part, the FCC is about to scrap a Clinton-era bipartisan consensus that the Internet should be free from intrusive government regulation. On Thursday, the agency will likely vote to impose rules upon almost every nut and bolt of the Internet, from the digital connection at your house to the core of the network. In so doing, it’ll dust off the heavy-handed monopoly rules designed for Ma Bell back in the 1930s.
How heavy-handed? The FCC will start regulating broadband rates. It will decree, based on a vaguely defined “Internet conduct” standard, whether companies can offer consumer-friendly service plans (such as T-Mobile’s Music Freedom program, which offers customers unlimited access to streaming music). It will institutionalize innovation by permission — giving advisory opinions on prospective business plans or practices (and companies will ask before innovating for fear of what will happen if they don’t). It will even assert the power to force private companies to physically deploy broadband infrastructure and route Internet traffic in specific ways. And in a gift to the plaintiffs’ bar, the FCC will deputize trial lawyers to file class-action lawsuits if they contend that any of these rules are being violated.
These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density.
So why is the FCC swinging the regulatory sledgehammer? It’s not to guarantee an open Internet. Nowhere in the 332-page plan — which you won’t see until after the FCC votes on it — can one find a description of systemic harms to consumers or entrepreneurs online. And small wonder, for the Internet is open today. Consumers can easily access the content of their choice. Online entrepreneurs can and do innovate freely.
No, the purpose is control for control’s sake. Digital dysfunction must be conjured into being to justify a public-sector power grab. Aside from being a bad deal for everyone who relies on the Internet, this Beltway-centric plan also distracts the FCC from what it should be focusing on: increasing broadband competition and giving consumers better broadband choices.
While the FCC is inserting government bureaucracy into all aspects of Internet access, the FEC is debating whether to regulate Internet content, specifically political speech posted for free online.
Twenty years ago, the FEC began to regulate expenditures for political speech on the Internet, but experience quickly demonstrated that such regulation was counterproductive and highly unpopular. After fits and starts, in 2006, the FEC adopted a regulation that protected the right of people and groups to disseminate political commentary online free from regulation. Specifically, the 2006 rule exempted from regulation all political commentary that citizens and groups post online for free, including on websites, blogs and social media platforms. (The FEC maintained regulation over online posts by campaigns and PACs as well as paid advertisements.)
The freedom protected by the 2006 rule fostered a robust national forum for political discussion. Millions of Americans post political opinions for free on blogs, chat rooms, comment boards and social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Without government regulation, political speech and civic engagement have flourished on the Internet, and ordinary citizens have had the same freedom and ability to disseminate their political opinions to a wide public audience as large media corporations.
Despite this success, the FEC finds itself locked in a renewed debate over the regulation of online political opinions. The debate was triggered last October when commissioners split 3-3 in a case involving a group that posted two political videos on YouTube without reporting them to the FEC. Three commissioners (including the co-author of this piece) voted to exempt the YouTube videos from regulation under the 2006 Internet rule while three voted to investigate and regulate the organization. Two months later, commissioners split again over the metes and bounds of the 2006 Internet freedom rule in a case involving an organization that simply posted political news releases on its own website. Even though it would require four votes for the FEC to regulate the Internet, these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.
Following these deadlocks, the FEC held a hearing this month on Internet regulation and other issues. About 5,000 citizens submitted comments urging the FEC to keep its hands off the Internet. Three former FEC commissioners and five nonprofit groups testified that the Internet should not be regulated. Even “a little” regulation, they maintained, would suppress significant amounts of political speech — for no compelling reason. Significantly, as one former FEC commissioner testified, a decade of free Internet speech has not given rise to corruption. Freedom has served us well.
The bottom line is that Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.
Ajit Pai is a member of the Federal Communications Commission. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of their agencies or the U.S. government.
Lee Goodman is a member of the Federal Election Commission.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399_full.html#.VOy2PbPF_LU
Chicken little nonsense article.
Internet Service Providers want carte blanche on the consumer and they do not hide from that notion. In fact, I lived in a test area for the tiered internet service where you have to pay per website. They were so close to doing it until a few Democratic congressmen stepped in and put a halt to it.
This ruling is the best thing to have happened in a decade or more. Shilling for corporations to do their worse is just plain stupidity.
-
This is a good thing. Right now internet providers can refuse service to customers and specific sites. Now they can't. It also prevents big corps from taking over the internet
-
Because I have better things to do like make Banana Cream Pie.
True Adonis, there may be a way for you to combine politics and cooking. It would be pretty epic if you got your own show where you cooked, while discussing politics. I'd definitely watch it. :) :)
-
True Adonis, there may be a way for you to combine politics and cooking. It would be pretty epic if you got your own show where you cooked, while discussing politics. I'd definitely watch it. :) :)
(http://media.giphy.com/media/L8XuphFGqlSfe/giphy.gif)
-
Ha! Hate to be a Verizon exec's dog when they get home.
-
Chicken little nonsense article.
Internet Service Providers want carte blanche on the consumer and they do not hide from that notion. In fact, I lived in a test area for the tiered internet service where you have to pay per website. They were so close to doing it until a few Democratic congressmen stepped in and put a halt to it.
This ruling is the best thing to have happened in a decade or more. Shilling for corporations to do their worse is just plain stupidity.
You can pin your hopes on the government all you want but when does the government ever grant itself powers it doesn't intend to use? The implications of the FCC having regulatory power over the internet are disastrous. We will have to wait and see.
-
You can pin your hopes on the government all you want but when does the government ever grant itself powers it doesn't intend to use? The implications of the FCC having regulatory power over the internet are disastrous. We will have to wait and see.
This. This is the worst possible outcome. we wont need to wait long to feel the effects. mark this post.
I quite frankly cant believe it... and it seems nobody cares about the fineprint .
-
This. This is the worst possible outcome. we wont need to wait long to feel the effects. mark this post.
I quite frankly cant believe it... and it seems nobody cares about the fineprint .
If the FCC has the ability to regulate content on the internet what is stopping them? No one can stop them. Head of the FCC is a political appointee. This is a good example of a Faustian bargain.
-
Does anyone think that the government is going to specifically target getbig and place restrictions on how often we come here? I say this because there are many people here who have indepth knowledge about economics, politics and conspiracy theories. Thus, getbig may pose a threat to the nation. I don't know. I am just sort of thinking out loud.
-
Does anyone think that the government is going to specifically target getbig and place restrictions on how often we come here? I say this because there are many people here who have indepth knowledge about economics, politics and conspiracy theories. Thus, getbig may pose a threat to the nation. I don't know. I am just sort of thinking out loud.
This sounds lot like people who don't mind intrusions on civil liberties like the patriot act because as they often say, the government can look all they want because I'm not doing anything wrong.
-
This sounds lot like people who don't mind intrusions on civil liberties like the patriot act because as they often say, the government can look all they want because I'm not doing anything wrong.
It seems like the powers that be may have their eye on getbig, and may want to put the kibosh on getbig!
-
It seems like the powers that be may have their eye on getbig, and may want to put the kibosh on getbig!
Could be. They want to regulate the amount of acceptable talk about men in thongs.
-
This sounds lot like people who don't mind intrusions on civil liberties like the patriot act because as they often say, the government can look all they want because I'm not doing anything wrong.
Can't stand that philosophy.
Lets all live in a block of flats made of nothing but transparent glass, because I'm not doing nothing wrong, got nothing to hide.
::)
(http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tsa-baggage.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/fJnbfaS.jpg)
-
You can pin your hopes on the government all you want but when does the government ever grant itself powers it doesn't intend to use? The implications of the FCC having regulatory power over the internet are disastrous. We will have to wait and see.
Correct. When the Gov puts it foot in the door, it's not just to let you in, but to let themselves in.
-
Correct. When the Gov puts it foot in the door, it's not just to let you in, but to let themselves in.
hahah, its like inviting a vampire into your home.
-
Moron Republicans and morons in general don`t understand this and think it would be a good idea to not have net neutrality. They want cable companies to have the ability to charge per website.
Really only a democrat simpleton (but I repeat myself) or a mindless Obama repeater would parrot these words without thought. You are a fool.
-
So much misinformation about why Verizon, Comcast etc. fought this. Sorry TA you are wrong. I work in telecom. This is the real deal:
There is internet speed and throughput. Not just speed. Think of it like a highway.... Large lanes or small lanes, car traveling at certain speeds. Cars can travel the same speed but the bigger lanes will be less clogged with cars... Following this? Ok.
So now large telecoms have to ensure everyone has the same throughput... Larger traffic lanes. IE no favoritism to Netflix etc over some small business. That might sound great but it's not. Speed can still be sold by need or want.
So to make sure Netflix business does not falter they get more speed now (less theoughput).... More cost passed on to the consumers. Also, telecom has to supply the bigger throughput to the smaller businesses for free... They can't charge them for more throughput...and THEY (telecoms) will turn that cost into consumers as well to offset the free upgraded services.
Very simplified but this is what it really means.... Not half of what it is being portrayed as in the media or here... Lol.
So to summarize speed and throughput are different... Can't give any company an advantage so the cost will trickle down to the consumer... Your $15. Netflix will soon be $35. Bottom line.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sorry TA you are buying what is being reported on main stream media but is not honest. This is very bad for companies and consumers... Good for the government. By turning the Internet into a public utility they can now add regulations as they see fit. This was just getting thier foot in the door.
-
So much misinformation about why Verizon, Comcast etc. fought this. Sorry TA you are wrong. I work in telecom. This is the real deal:
There is internet speed and throughput. Not just speed. Think of it like a highway.... Large lanes or small lanes, car traveling at certain speeds. Cars can travel the same speed but the bigger lanes will be less clogged with cars... Following this? Ok.
So now large telecoms have to ensure everyone has the same throughput... Larger traffic lanes. IE no favoritism to Netflix etc over some small business. That might sound great but it's not. Speed can still be sold by need or want.
So to make sure Netflix business does not falter they get more speed now (less theoughput).... More cost passed on to the consumers. Also, telecom has to supply the bigger throughout to the smaller businesses for free... They can't charge them for more throughput...and THEY will turn that cost into consumers as well.
So to summarize speed and throughput are different... Can't give any company an advantage so the cost will go down to the consumer... Bottom line.
Sorry TA you are buying what is being reported on main stream media but is not honest. This is very bad for companies and consumers... Good for the government. By seedling the Internet a public utility they can now add regulations as they see fit. This was just getting thier foot in the door.
So soon enough on a beautiful sunny day, as I'm jerking off to some female wrestling video a special unit of cops will barge in, strip search me, put my house upside down, take away my laptop and arrest me indefinitely without the possibility for a lawyer because I had something bad to say about the government.
this is why you need bear traps.
-
So soon enough on a beautiful sunny day, as I'm jerking off to some female wrestling footage a special unit of cops will barge in, strip search me, put my house upside down, take away my laptop and arrest me indefinitely without the possibility for a lawyer because I had something bad to say about the government.
Making the Internet a public utility is bad... Real bad. I know first hand about what power the Public Utility Commishion has over other public utilities. The havoc this is going to wreak is unknown yet... For awhile. Sadly something like you posted above may be accurate. And it's funny how the liberals are all for this when you would think it should be the exact opposite...freedom of speech right? Wrong with a Dem pres. If Bush tried this... Holy shit. Such hypocrisy.
-
Making the Internet a public utility is bad... Real bad. I know first hand about what power the Public Utility Commishion has over other public utilities. The havoc this is going to wreak is unknown yet... For awhile. Sadly something like you posted above may be accurate. And it's funny how the liberals are all for this when you would think it should be the exact opposite...freedom of speech right? Wrong with a Dem pres. If Bush tried this... Holy shit. Such hypocrisy.
and there was nary a peep from anyone anywhere...I am in shock. I thought Google and the other internet giants would launch a furious campaign to educate the public. Didn't happen ???
-
and there was nary a peep from anyone anywhere...I am in shock. I thought Google and the other internet giants would launch a furious campaign to educate the public. Didn't happen ???
Why don't you people wake up. They want this to happend for a very good reason. you already know what it is, but I'm not going to say it.
-
and there was nary a peep from anyone anywhere...I am in shock. I thought Google and the other internet giants would launch a furious campaign to educate the public. Didn't happen ???
The pitchforks kept the companies from fighting out in the open... Think of Wallstreet.
-
So much misinformation about why Verizon, Comcast etc. fought this. Sorry TA you are wrong. I work in telecom. This is the real deal:
There is internet speed and throughput. Not just speed. Think of it like a highway.... Large lanes or small lanes, car traveling at certain speeds. Cars can travel the same speed but the bigger lanes will be less clogged with cars... Following this? Ok.
So now large telecoms have to ensure everyone has the same throughput... Larger traffic lanes. IE no favoritism to Netflix etc over some small business. That might sound great but it's not. Speed can still be sold by need or want.
So to make sure Netflix business does not falter they get more speed now (less theoughput).... More cost passed on to the consumers. Also, telecom has to supply the bigger throughput to the smaller businesses for free... They can't charge them for more throughput...and THEY (telecoms) will turn that cost into consumers as well to offset the free upgraded services.
Very simplified but this is what it really means.... Not half of what it is being portrayed as in the media or here... Lol.
So to summarize speed and throughput are different... Can't give any company an advantage so the cost will trickle down to the consumer... Your $15. Netflix will soon be $35. Bottom line.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sorry TA you are buying what is being reported on main stream media but is not honest. This is very bad for companies and consumers... Good for the government. By turning the Internet into a public utility they can now add regulations as they see fit. This was just getting thier foot in the door.
::)
-
Google Fiber scoffs at the archaic ISP`s attempt at charging subscription packages for shitty internet service.
-
O-Kenya's promises on anything are worth bubkus to all but his cult of personality. Make way for more taxes and costs and regulations.
-
- Pai and O'Rielly argue that since the current proposal is substantially different from the one that the public commented on over the summer, the chairman should break typical procedure to ensure the public can debate the issues.
On February 5, Wheeler released his final proposal to the five commissioners, which includes two other Democrats. He also released a fact sheet about what is in the proposal to media.
Pai has criticized Wheeler in at least four separate press releases prior to today's letter asking the chairman to release the 322-page proposal publicly ahead of the vote. Wheeler has declined, stating that he will not break long-standing FCC procedure. And now he says the time has come for the FCC to vote. -
So let's see:
1. The current proposal is significantly different than what was shown to the public last summer.
2. Release a "Net Neutrality For Dummies" guide to the media, and have them sell it to the public. Also, create some shitty misleading youtube videos that the sheep will accept for fact (because they saw it on the internet, so it must be true).
3. Keep your 322 page proposal under tight wraps, so nobody knows what the fuck is in it, or what effects it will actually have.
WOW, this sounds like a great fucking idea. ::)
-
Anyone that heeds Adam's words is a fucking moron. He's troll. He doesn't believe what he's saying. This net neutrality puts the government over the internet whereas it wasn't over it before. How is that possible? The FCC. They have their foot in the door and you know once the Government's foot is in the door of anything, they expand and become more bureaucratic. This is the beginning. Adam, as usual, you're full of shit.
-
- Pai and O'Rielly argue that since the current proposal is substantially different from the one that the public commented on over the summer, the chairman should break typical procedure to ensure the public can debate the issues.
On February 5, Wheeler released his final proposal to the five commissioners, which includes two other Democrats. He also released a fact sheet about what is in the proposal to media.
Pai has criticized Wheeler in at least four separate press releases prior to today's letter asking the chairman to release the 322-page proposal publicly ahead of the vote. Wheeler has declined, stating that he will not break long-standing FCC procedure. And now he says the time has come for the FCC to vote. -
So let's see:
1. The current proposal is significantly different than what was shown to the public last summer.
2. Release a "Net Neutrality For Dummies" guide to the media, and have them sell it to the public. Also, create some shitty misleading youtube videos that the sheep will accept for fact (because they saw it on the internet, so it must be true).
3. Keep your 322 page proposal under tight wraps, so nobody knows what the fuck is in it, or what effects it will actually have.
WOW, this sounds like a great fucking idea. ::)
Very true. What the FCC say they intend to do in the short term speaks nothing of their long term plans nor does it describe the powers given to them as expressed in the unreleased 322 page proposal.
-
Very true. What the FCC say they intend to do in the short term speaks nothing of their long term plans nor does it describe the powers given to them as expressed in the unreleased 322 page proposal.
The 322 page proposal they said had to be passed before anyone could read it.
-
The 322 page proposal they said had to be passed before anyone could read it.
That very one. I can only assume there are descriptions of a lot of the other things the FCC can do. There is a reason they didnt release it.
-
Just another pretense to expand the Obama Empire's control and to extort more money from taxpayers to finance more wealth redistribution for Obama's Moocher Army.
-
The 322 page proposal they said had to be passed before anyone could read it.
Give you a lot of credit bro - you don't follow the herd of Obama drones
-
(http://i.imgur.com/mJtjtMF.jpg)
-
Give you a lot of credit bro - you don't follow the herd of Obama drones
Bro, I like to troll you and Coach on Obama but in all honesty, I can't stand that evil #&@@(&$^*#. He knows exactly what he's doing to this country.
-
(http://pamibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/change-hitler-obama-lenin.jpg)
-
Aside from all the non sense... What I posted above is true. We had a meeting about it today... And we are the construction branch of a huge telecom. It's going to affect how fiber optic service is distributed going forward. Outsiders think this is going to set up ala carte service for consumers etc... My company is not so sure. That's where we were headed, but now everything is in limbo.
See the plan was to compete with content providers, not just supply them the pipe. Apple, Netflix etc. send thier content on our fiber. But now we can't offer more content on OUR OWN fiber then our damn competitors. It's really going to hurt people's jobs and also the price of consumer products.
TA do some more research man... You are on the wrong side of this one and it's not Rep vs. Dem... It's more control vs more freedom.
-
Aside from all the non sense... What I posted above is true. We had a meeting about it today... And we are the construction branch of a huge telecom. It's going to affect how fiber optic service is distributed going forward. Outsiders think this is going to set up ala carte service for consumers etc... My company is not so sure. That's where we were headed, but now everything is in limbo.
See the plan was to compete with content providers, not just supply them the pipe. Apple, Netflix etc. send thier content on our fiber. But now we can't offer more content on OUR OWN fiber then our damn competitors. It's really going to hurt people's jobs and also the price of consumer products.
TA do some more research man... You are on the wrong side of this one and it's not Rep vs. Dem... It's more control vs more freedom.
Amen to that
-
So much misinformation about why Verizon, Comcast etc. fought this. Sorry TA you are wrong. I work in telecom. This is the real deal:
There is internet speed and throughput. Not just speed. Think of it like a highway.... Large lanes or small lanes, car traveling at certain speeds. Cars can travel the same speed but the bigger lanes will be less clogged with cars... Following this? Ok.
So now large telecoms have to ensure everyone has the same throughput... Larger traffic lanes. IE no favoritism to Netflix etc over some small business. That might sound great but it's not. Speed can still be sold by need or want.
So to make sure Netflix business does not falter they get more speed now (less theoughput).... More cost passed on to the consumers. Also, telecom has to supply the bigger throughput to the smaller businesses for free... They can't charge them for more throughput...and THEY (telecoms) will turn that cost into consumers as well to offset the free upgraded services.
Very simplified but this is what it really means.... Not half of what it is being portrayed as in the media or here... Lol.
So to summarize speed and throughput are different... Can't give any company an advantage so the cost will trickle down to the consumer... Your $15. Netflix will soon be $35. Bottom line.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sorry TA you are buying what is being reported on main stream media but is not honest. This is very bad for companies and consumers... Good for the government. By turning the Internet into a public utility they can now add regulations as they see fit. This was just getting thier foot in the door.
First of all. Shitty cut and paste. Second of all. LOL at the fear of rates beign passed to consumers. So much bullshit. Just so fucking much bullshit.
-
Bro, I like to troll you and Coach on Obama but in all honesty, I can't stand that evil #&@@(&$^*#. He knows exactly what he's doing to this country.
Did anyone think a black man could lead a country when the majority of black men can't even lead their own families.
-
First of all. Shitty cut and paste. Second of all. LOL at the fear of rates beign passed to consumers. So much bullshit. Just so fucking much bullshit.
Typical fear mongering.
-
Did anyone think a black man could lead a country when the majority of black men can't even lead their own families.
He's doing it intentionally jackass.
-
The FCC turning the internet into a public utility is not a good thing whatsoever, basically getting their foot into the door to begin regulating/taxing.
-
So much misinformation about why Verizon, Comcast etc. fought this. Sorry TA you are wrong. I work in telecom. This is the real deal:
There is internet speed and throughput. Not just speed. Think of it like a highway.... Large lanes or small lanes, car traveling at certain speeds. Cars can travel the same speed but the bigger lanes will be less clogged with cars... Following this? Ok.
So now large telecoms have to ensure everyone has the same throughput... Larger traffic lanes. IE no favoritism to Netflix etc over some small business. That might sound great but it's not. Speed can still be sold by need or want.
So to make sure Netflix business does not falter they get more speed now (less theoughput).... More cost passed on to the consumers. Also, telecom has to supply the bigger throughput to the smaller businesses for free... They can't charge them for more throughput...and THEY (telecoms) will turn that cost into consumers as well to offset the free upgraded services.
Very simplified but this is what it really means.... Not half of what it is being portrayed as in the media or here... Lol.
So to summarize speed and throughput are different... Can't give any company an advantage so the cost will trickle down to the consumer... Your $15. Netflix will soon be $35. Bottom line.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sorry TA you are buying what is being reported on main stream media but is not honest. This is very bad for companies and consumers... Good for the government. By turning the Internet into a public utility they can now add regulations as they see fit. This was just getting thier foot in the door.
Yup, net nuetrality and regulating the Internet are one in the same the later just doesn't sound sexy or something people want. Every public utility that is regulated is billed for what you use power,water,phone ect. Expect the Internet to soon be billed the same. The government want their piece of the pie and if you think broadband providers are gonna be like ok cool take 10% that's fine your fooling yourself. They will bill the customer 10% more plus another 10% for them :D
Bottom line the Internet that we know has NEVER been regulated and now it's going to be regulated prepare your anus...
-
Typical fear mongering.
typical unedcated, left wing, femo nazi point of view
-
Moron Republicans and morons in general don`t understand this and think it would be a good idea to not have net neutrality. They want cable companies to have the ability to charge per website.
So does that mean my porn websites will now be free? The "Exploited Cheerleaders" site just went up another $10/month. But it does include more anal and interracial content so it's still worth it.
-
How anyone can trust anything this admin says at this point is beyond me. The fact that it was the old Obama bait & switch, the FCC chair was absent, and it was not even presented congress is about as clear as it gets.
There's no doubt lots of fine print in those 322 pages, just as there is in the 2000 page ACA, and every other scam this con man and his backers have crammed down our throats.
So much of the US population have become victims of Stockholm Syndrome and remind me of battered wives who stay with their abuser or keep going back because "it'll be different this time". It's like buying shitty used cars over and over from the same crooked used car dealer who keeps switching the warranty packet for a warranty waiver and just sells you another lemon for more money when the old one breaks down - yet you keep on buying from them.
-
Getbig is full of morons. Maybe they can bring back the death panels and FEMA camps.