Jump to content
JThorson

FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

Recommended Posts

Upton, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) have introduced legislation that would prohibit the practices Wheeler has targeted, including paid prioritization of content, but without giving the FCC the broader authority over Internet service providers contained in his proposal.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-hearing-20150225-story.html

 

I have no idea how to find the bill that they floated to see exactly what it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I'm no longer responding to this discussion.  However

 

Yes Mr "I work at the FCC" it was released

 

If you hate me so much, please do not respond to any of my posts going forward. 

 

- Trip

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I'm no longer responding to this discussion.  However

 

 

If you hate me so much, please do not respond to any of my posts going forward. 

 

- Trip

 

Cool don't respond to a doc directly from the FCC's site.

 

Why aren't you responding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it easy guys. We can disagree with each other's opinions without being somewhat hostile. That's what I enjoy about this site.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • No blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services or nonharmful devices.

I guess this means Sprint can't block non-sprint devices with the right cdma bands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of this thread is getting completely out of line.  lou99, you are free to communicate your beliefs and thoughts on the subject.  But your approach is getting out of hand.  If we want the thread to continue, CIVILITY AND RESPECT MUST REIGN

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of this thread is getting completely out of line. lou99, you are free to communicate your beliefs and thoughts on the subject. But your approach is getting out of hand. If we want the thread to continue, CIVILITY AND RESPECT MUST REIGN

Which posts are the problem?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lou, you a lobbyist? You sure sound like one. That or you lost money on this pro consumer move the FCC made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lou, you a lobbyist? You sure sound like one. That or you lost money on this pro consumer move the FCC made.

 

No, maximus is not a lobbyist.  And he is not so much anti FCC -- though that may come with the territory -- as he is anti Barack Obama.  He and the likes of Berin Szoka, who is effectively a right wing lobbyist, are using eight year old statements made by then Senator Obama as means to further their negative agendas -- despite the fact that those eight year old statements are immaterial to the Net Neutrality issue at hand.  Even though I already described in brief how the FCC operates, and Trip then offered a wonderfully detailed rundown of the publicly accessible rulemaking process, maximus persists with his vendetta.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, maximus is not a lobbyist. And he is not so much anti FCC -- though that may come with the territory -- as he is anti Barack Obama. He and the likes of Berin Szoka, who is effectively a right wing lobbyist, are using eight year old statements made by then Senator Obama as means to further their negative agendas -- despite the fact that those eight year old statements are immaterial to the Net Neutrality issue at hand. Even though I already described in brief how the FCC operates, and Trip then offered a wonderfully detailed rundown of the publicly accessible rulemaking process, maximus persists with his vendetta.

 

AJ

The issue is transparency.

What's the big problem with releasing the order before it's voted on? Seems like something as big as this would merit a violation off FCC TRADITION.

 

Transparency is negative aim? Huh???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is transparency.

What's the big problem with releasing the order before it's voted on? Seems like something as big as this would merit a violation off FCC TRADITION.

 

Transparency is negative aim? Huh???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Your post is fine, until the part I struck through.  Please do not pick fights with people.  Especially in sensitive political threads.  If you can remove the immaturity and drama out of it, I think you can still explain your view points.  Even as unpopular as it might be to the majority of the people in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, maximus is not a lobbyist. And he is not so much anti FCC -- though that may come with the territory -- as he is anti Barack Obama. He and the likes of Berin Szoka, who is effectively a right wing lobbyist, are using eight year old statements made by then Senator Obama as means to further their negative agendas -- despite the fact that those eight year old statements are immaterial to the Net Neutrality issue at hand. Even though I already described in brief how the FCC operates, and Trip then offered a wonderfully detailed rundown of the publicly accessible rulemaking process, maximus persists with his vendetta.

 

AJ

The issue is transparency.

What's the big problem with releasing the order before it's voted on? Seems like something as big as this would merit a violation off FCC TRADITION.

 

Transparency is negative aim? Huh???

 

Yes I get how the fcc works. But apparently obama in 2007 didn't get because he demanded the same thing I am.

 

Shall I repost those quotes too?

 

I'm in favor of net neutrality and republicans were ready to pass that. But apparently obama and wheeler wanted more than just net neutrality.

 

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/571114672360976384

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are not gaining any ground from the sources you cite.  You are living in an echo chamber of free market zealots, fossil fuel promoters, and climate change deniers, maximus.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Commitment

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/02/10557/nonprofit-profile-american-commitment

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not gaining any ground from the sources you cite. You are living in an echo chamber of free market zealots, fossil fuel promoters, and climate change deniers, maximus.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Commitment

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/02/10557/nonprofit-profile-american-commitment

 

AJ

You are completely missing the point.

The tweet was someone from google saying that an opposing viewpoint is malware that should be squelched. The viewpoint is irrelevant. I'm sure I could find a statement that all online hate speech should be banned.

 

And how will this squelching happen?

Why with title II.

 

The exact viewpoint is irrelevant.

Apparently some very powerful people want to turn the internet into a college campus with a free speech zone.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the real problem lack of broadband competition? People having only cable and now non-broadband DSL.

 

Title II will help how?

Fcc said they won't:

* implement last mile unbundling

* introduce price controls.

 

So then how will they fix high prices caused by lack of competition.

Hmmm. Maybe by price controls and/or last mile unbundling?? Lol.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not gaining any ground from the sources you cite. You are living in an echo chamber of free market zealots, fossil fuel promoters, and climate change deniers, maximus.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Commitment

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/02/10557/nonprofit-profile-american-commitment

 

AJ

Yes the source should be considered and the article still read to see what points the other side has.

 

I read huffington post and sometimes I think they have a good point and other times I don't.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely missing the point.

The tweet was someone from google saying that an opposing viewpoint is malware that should be squelched.

 

And how will this squelching happen?

Why with title II.

 

The exact viewpoint is irrelevant.

Apparently some very powerful people want to turn the internet into a college campus with a free speech zone.

So, everyone should have the freedom to be ignorant and incorrect on the Internet.

 

The problem with that for a man of learning, such as Vinton Cerf, is undoing misinformation becomes more difficult than teaching sound information in the first place.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, everyone should have the freedom to be ignorant and incorrect on the Internet.

 

The problem with that for a man of learning, such as Vinton Cerf, is undoing misinformation becomes more difficult than teaching sound information in the first place.

 

AJ

Are you endorsing censoring info on internet?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the real problem lack of broadband competition? People having only cable and now non-broadband DSL.

 

Title II will help how?

Fcc said they won't:

* implement last mile unbundling

* introduce price controls.

 

So then how will they fix high prices caused by lack of competition.

Hmmm. Maybe by price controls and/or last mile unbundling?? Lol.

 

Yes, for once, you got it.  The real problem is lack of effective broadband competition.  And, sadly, if you read many of the public comments in support of Net Neutrality in the FCC docket, a lot of people think that the point of Net Neutrality is to give them additional competitive options.  Among an uneducated populace, transparency and democracy are not all that they are cracked up to be.

 

That is why my deep down hope is that Title II will prove to be a nuclear option.  It will stifle capitalist investment -- a la Verizon with DSL and FiOS.  The FCC will continue to raise the minimum broadband bar.  Legislators will impose deadlines and penalties on incorrigible ISPs.  For those ISPs that will not comply, give them 90 days to remove their infrastructure from public right of way and cease operations in public spectrum.  

 

But that is highly unlikely.  So, if there is never going to be healthy broadband competition because of capitalist oligopoly in this industry that has become a necessary utility, Net Neutrality at least gives consumers and content providers some protection against ISPs, which would otherwise have them both over a barrel.

 

AJ

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you endorsing censoring info on internet?

 

Are you against expurgating stupidity?

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is transparency.

What's the big problem with releasing the order before it's voted on? Seems like something as big as this would merit a violation off FCC TRADITION.

 

Transparency is negative aim? Huh???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not like they voted enact these rules, they only voted to bring them for public comment. They're still finalizing that draft.

 

You're blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you against expurgating stupidity?

 

AJ

Who decides what's stupid?

 

The point of free speech is that no one gets to decide what is ok speech with very few limitations.

 

I support free speech. It's scary but not a surprise that you seem to not as it has become normal for libs to want to censor whether it's here or in Europe.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like they voted enact these rules, they only voted to bring them for public comment. They're still finalizing that draft.

 

You're blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

There's only one vote.

There won't be another after the rules are public.

But wait there's more!

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/

 

In fact, it is entirely within his power, and Wheeler could also have shown us the regulations when they were provided to the FCC's commissioners for the first time three weeks ago.

 

But that's not all. Both commissioners expect changes to be made to the document after it has been formally approved by them, with the "OGC" – office of general counsel – given extraordinary leeway to edit and revise the rules even following formal approval.

 

That is problematic because "most of the specifics haven't been addressed. They're very vague. Intentionally vague," said O'Rielly. His criticisms appeared to be confirmed when reporters, who repeatedly asked for specifics on the plan from chairman Wheeler and general counsel Sallet, were told repeatedly that those details had not been decided yet.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×