FCC's Net Neutrality Passed

9 years ago

It's a bad deal. I think a lot of people were tricked into believing this was a good thing for the internet but they are being played. The government, I believe, is using this smokescreen as a way to get control of the internet.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9908477].message }}

Mav91890

9 years ago

Wow this forum is getting so retarded, the first commenter had his post deleted for no reason...

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

â€œThe only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.â€ ― Jordan Belfort

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9908573].message }}

Chris Grable 9 years ago

What did he say?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9908580].message }}
DaniMc 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mav91890

Wow this forum is getting so retarded, the first commenter had his post deleted for no reason...

I deleted it.
- Thanks
Signature
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9908595].message }}

Mav91890

9 years ago

Ok lol, have had issues with multiple posts disappearing and figured yours was removed too.

Thanks

Signature

â€œThe only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.â€ ― Jordan Belfort

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9908948].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

What do I think? I think the link you shared has a bunch of people commenting that have blinders on and are unable to think for themselves.

Is this really for the American people? This really saves people from the big bad ISP's? Really? No.. it's NOT for the American people, and this actually prevents other competitors from getting into the market.

The delusional morons that think the government needed to step in don't realize the ISP's are in bed with government in all levels, hell, most municipalities have an agreement with different providers that prevent another company from doing business in a city.

Net Neutrality itself isn't a bad idea, but under title II we're just asking for trouble.

I dunno about you guys, but I trust the free market and private companies more than I do the government. You want to stifle innovation and growth? Let the government get involved.

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9909024].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

I think this is a lose either way. The thing is the industry to some extent is already Government controlled. With the recent added services ( or should I say recent added decent service ) from wireless and satellite providers that offer service based on a usage cap,there is some concern. the concern being that the big players will start offering packages with usage caps. $40 for 10gigs a month $100 for 25 gigs etc.

I can tell you because I am involved in the industry there was more than rumblings of this happening. "unlimited" internet's days were numbered. this puts an end to that.

The other issue that I hope will be affected here is "throttling". That means no more paying $100 a month for 50mbs vs $40 for 1.5.

Now look at who personally put there foot in this.. the president.. the president is democrat... and this will be a win for the little people. this will be touted as a win to neutralize the gap between the haves and the have nots. probably one of the best political pushes by the current president in his many years.

There are currently laws in place that suggest that there should be a free market. the reality is, the price to "share" the existing infrastructure means it will never happen. in any home in America with very few exceptions there are 2 choices for internet. there is Cable, or there is DSL. and if either of those are not present, then you are left with Cellular or Satellite. THAT is not a free market, that is a Now we have you were we want you,and this is how much it costs market.

Net neutrality does have its bad implications, but on the consumer side, i believe it will do more good than bad. I think anytime all of the major players are up in arms and already contesting the ruling... it is a win for the people.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9909393].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

Now look at who personally put there foot in this.. the president.. the president is democrat... and this will be a win for the little people. this will be touted as a win to neutralize the gap between the haves and the have nots. probably one of the best political pushes by the current president in his many years.

Net neutrality does have its bad implications, but on the consumer side, i believe it will do more good than bad. I think anytime all of the major players are up in arms and already contesting the ruling... it is a win for the people.

How do you know this will be a win for anyone? The documents have not even been made public. 300 pages of rules were voted on, and nobody even knows what is in them.

And the idea that this administration looks out for the people is completely baseless.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9909881].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by DaniMc

How do you know this will be a win for anyone? The documents have not even been made public. 300 pages of rules were voted on, and nobody even knows what is in them.

And the idea that this administration looks out for the people is completely baseless.

Because I am in the industry, and this issue has been running around since basically 2004ish with a suit brought against the FCC by "brand X" there is a lot of background information. in 2010 there was some well 3 to be exact "effects added to the 1934 communications act. There was "Transparency", "No Blocking", and "No unreasonable discrimination"

Before we go any further. think for a moment. the "internet" and its providers are being governed and ruled apon from a document from 1934. The biggest thing with this new ruling is the stepping back from the 2005 decision that applies the "Chevron Doctrine" as it applied to "internet services"

A good example here is Television and the sweeping changes that were made not to long ago to the HD standard, and the introduction of the 4000K UHD standard. these are in no way market driven changes, these are govt and world standards. "The Intenet" can not follow the same direction without Govt setting a standard.

There is a World standard for the internet. As a developed top of the line country the USA... well we lack in meeting the standards. our internet is piss poor. 60% of the consumer based cable network is patch work from the original tv cable runs. DSL is even worse. I know for a fact that where I live DSL is run on lines that were installed in the 40's and 50's "Party Lines".

If you really start looking at the market space. Mobile in particular.. you will see there have been some changes as of late. you no longer are able to get a "free" phone or upgrade. Look at the mergers that are in the works. an the big guys that are not merging are headed in from the outside seem strange directions. Did you know that Dish Network is one of the largest Cel Tower and band width holders in the USA?

Do you understand that with this new ruling that cable is pretty much bye bye... well not realy the companies, but fiber is going to replace cable. Fiber is going to replace phone lines. Fiber is all of the sudden the new standard.

In the next 10 yrs there is going to be HUGE strides in internet connectivity, and growth. The future DEPENDS on it, and the only way to make the big boys play along..is regulating and mandating!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910156].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

Because I am in the industry, and this issue has been running around since basically 2004ish with a suit brought against the FCC by "brand X" there is a lot of background information. in 2010 there was some well 3 to be exact "effects added to the 1934 communications act. There was "Transparency", "No Blocking", and "No unreasonable discrimination"

Before we go any further. think for a moment. the "internet" and its providers are being governed and ruled apon from a document from 1934. The biggest thing with this new ruling is the stepping back from the 2005 decision that applies the "Chevron Doctrine" as it applied to "internet services"

A good example here is Television and the sweeping changes that were made not to long ago to the HD standard, and the introduction of the 4000K UHD standard. these are in no way market driven changes, these are govt and world standards. "The Intenet" can not follow the same direction without Govt setting a standard.

There is a World standard for the internet. As a developed top of the line country the USA... well we lack in meeting the standards. our internet is piss poor. 60% of the consumer based cable network is patch work from the original tv cable runs. DSL is even worse. I know for a fact that where I live DSL is run on lines that were installed in the 40's and 50's "Party Lines".

If you really start looking at the market space. Mobile in particular.. you will see there have been some changes as of late. you no longer are able to get a "free" phone or upgrade. Look at the mergers that are in the works. an the big guys that are not merging are headed in from the outside seem strange directions. Did you know that Dish Network is one of the largest Cel Tower and band width holders in the USA?

Do you understand that with this new ruling that cable is pretty much bye bye... well not realy the companies, but fiber is going to replace cable. Fiber is going to replace phone lines. Fiber is all of the sudden the new standard.

In the next 10 yrs there is going to be HUGE strides in internet connectivity, and growth. The future DEPENDS on it, and the only way to make the big boys play along..is regulating and mandating!

Again - how do you know any of this or what the rules say? 300 pages of rules - that have not been made available to the public.

Secret regulations should not be allowed to be voted upon. Everyone in the country is impacted by this - and it was all kept a secret.

If it is so good - why is it a secret?

How can you possibly support something that is secret? You have no idea what is in those rules.

I don't care if the bureaucrat promises free puppies for all children - I will not support something that has to be kept a secret. There could be two paragraphs on page 267 that ruin everything, invite corruption, or make things worse than they already are.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910366].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by DaniMc

How can you possibly support something that is secret? You have no idea what is in those rules.
.

Then, how do you know it's bad? Remember, it's a secret.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910536].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Then, how do you know it's bad? Remember, it's a secret.

I love these immediate opinions. "It's bad. we start there". And we feel the need to say "Big Government" as though that makes it an ominous threat.

It also depends heavily on who's president at the time.

But it must be bad, whatever it is. Bad, I tell you!

Did I say it's bad? Don't jump to conclusions when you accuse me of jumping to conclusion.

It might be good. It probably has lots of flaws too. Anything that someone wants to enforce on me, without explaining to me what I am bound by, I will resent automatically.

Sure let's have a public discussion. But, don't tell me the people want it, when no one has even seen it.

You can see the unfortunate result of all the politics. People jump to support or oppose because of what their party and the media says. The people have forgotten how to think.

Thanks

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910542].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

there are no secrets here. none of this just popped up yesterday and they said hey lets vote on this. there are not "activist" and corporate America sitting on both sides of this just because. this is a LONG standing issue.

Start looking at World Economic Forum Launches Future of the Internet Initiative | World Economic Forum - World Economic Forum Launches Future of the Internet Initiative or learn more about internet.org or start researching the not so recent expenditures and contracts by the govt transitioning moving their critical data away from the "internet" grid to a more stable satellite solution.

Look into some of the reports from the Energy dept about their concerns with the need for a better grid, and the needed internet infrastructure to make it happen. Look at the impact the Howard street tunnel fire had. look at the effect that Katrina had.

You are sitting there saying its all a big secret... NO... you just didn't look. Some of these issues go way back to the late 70's when all of this stuff was thought up. way back then there was regulation issues. issues about who was going to pay for what. And the reality... the govt paid for the core infrastructure we have today. ( Thank Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars initiative for that )

The only reason this got pushed from such a hi level is because THIS will be the legacy that Obama leaves. I kid you not. Obama will be the one known in history to be the mind behind the digital age in America.

Time and again it has been proven in this fine country of ours that Govt stepping in in the long term is a bad thing, but stepping in and regulating and mandating as long as they get out, is the only way in this case that I see for America to grow its internet infrastructure and the cost to tax payers and not the cost of consumers. Because the reality is Big business has not and was not going to spot the bill.. but they will now.

Again.. none of this stuff is secret.. it just wasn't front page news.

Originally Posted by DaniMc

Again - how do you know any of this or what the rules say? 300 pages of rules - that have not been made available to the public.

Secret regulations should not be allowed to be voted upon. Everyone in the country is impacted by this - and it was all kept a secret.

If it is so good - why is it a secret?

How can you possibly support something that is secret? You have no idea what is in those rules.

I don't care if the bureaucrat promises free puppies for all children - I will not support something that has to be kept a secret. There could be two paragraphs on page 267 that ruin everything, invite corruption, or make things worse than they already are.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910680].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

there are no secrets here. none of this just popped up yesterday and they said hey lets vote on this. there are not "activist" and corporate America sitting on both sides of this just because. this is a LONG standing issue.

Start looking at World Economic Forum Launches Future of the Internet Initiative | World Economic Forum - World Economic Forum Launches Future of the Internet Initiative or learn more about internet.org or start researching the not so recent expenditures and contracts by the govt transitioning moving their critical data away from the "internet" grid to a more stable satellite solution.

Look into some of the reports from the Energy dept about their concerns with the need for a better grid, and the needed internet infrastructure to make it happen. Look at the impact the Howard street tunnel fire had. look at the effect that Katrina had.

You are sitting there saying its all a big secret... NO... you just didn't look. Some of these issues go way back to the late 70's when all of this stuff was thought up. way back then there was regulation issues. issues about who was going to pay for what. And the reality... the govt paid for the core infrastructure we have today. ( Thank Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars initiative for that )

The only reason this got pushed from such a hi level is because THIS will be the legacy that Obama leaves. I kid you not. Obama will be the one known in history to be the mind behind the digital age in America.

Time and again it has been proven in this fine country of ours that Govt stepping in in the long term is a bad thing, but stepping in and regulating and mandating as long as they get out, is the only way in this case that I see for America to grow its internet infrastructure and the cost to tax payers and not the cost of consumers. Because the reality is Big business has not and was not going to spot the bill.. but they will now.

Again.. none of this stuff is secret.. it just wasn't front page news.

I am not saying anything about this issue is secret. It is a well known subject.

I'm saying that for anyone to support 300 pages of rules which they have never read, is a bit dumb.

I'm not saying there are no need for changes. But, how in hell can you stand up and clap for something you have never read?????

Sounds like Pelosi "We have to pass it to find out what is in it." Lunacy.

You really trust these people that much? You really trust that they didn't write the rules to forward their own political agenda? You really believe that in 300 pages, there aren't things that are completely screwed up?

Secrecy in our government has got to go. The fact that you can support rules which you have no idea is mind boggling.

There are words on the page, which are becoming laws, which will impact and bind us all, which have not been allowed any public review.

This could be great. This could also be a disaster.

For anyone to say they know the outcome must involve some sort of clairvoyance. It is big news if you somehow know the rules and no one else does.

So you read the brochure...so what? You'd agree to sign a contract based on the brochure?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910729].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

300 pages I think would be light considering the decision that was made.. do you understand what the core decision was / is? they are turning an industry that has for all of these years been labeled a "service" and are placing it under the regulation of a "Utility" in the same manor of electricity and gas and oil and phone and water etc.

Ask me... its a long time coming.

Was it pushed politically SURE IT WAS. was it apparent that is what was needed well duh. Without the presidential step in... Corporate America would have kept it where it was.

Can you image if terms such as "throttling" and "Censorship" were left unchecked... we live in America right? My guess AOL will be the FCC's first target - mark my words.

I say it now.. but watch.. internet speed will start increasing bandwidth will be less of an issue.. all of these things will happen quietly almost secretively.

Think of this, North Korea for goodness sake has internet speeds of 2.5 Gbits and I sit here with 1.5mbs. Its called throttling.... if I pay more I could have 50mbs. this initial ruling clears all this crap.

Once we get passed all of the legal crap that is going to happen. there will NOT be subscription services by providers to view certain content. There will across the board be faster and more consistent connection. programs such as http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/index.htm?job=funding will get further funding and there may actually come the day that EVERY public school in America has internet.

Start reading reports like this: http://www.educationsuperhighway.org...nectivity-gap/ and seriously I get sick to my stomach.

The internet is the future. It transends borders. It literally defines "New World Order" and we are WAY behind.

Originally Posted by DaniMc

I am not saying anything about this issue is secret. It is a well known subject.

I'm saying that for anyone to support 300 pages of rules which they have never read, is a bit dumb.

I'm not saying there are no need for changes. But, how in hell can you stand up and clap for something you have never read?????

Sounds like Pelosi "We have to pass it to find out what is in it." Lunacy.

You really trust these people that much? You really trust that they didn't write the rules to forward their own political agenda? You really believe that in 300 pages, there aren't things that are completely screwed up?

Secrecy in our government has got to go. The fact that you can support rules which you have no idea is mind boggling.

There are words on the page, which are becoming laws, which will impact and bind us all, which have not been allowed any public review.

This could be great. This could also be a disaster.

For anyone to say they know the outcome must involve some sort of clairvoyance. It is big news if you somehow know the rules and no one else does.

So you read the brochure...so what? You'd agree to sign a contract based on the brochure?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910820].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

300 pages I think would be light considering the decision that was made.. do you understand what the core decision was / is? they are turning an industry that has for all of these years been labeled a "service" and are placing it under the regulation of a "Utility" in the same manor of electricity and gas and oil and phone and water etc.

Ask me... its a long time coming.

Was it pushed politically SURE IT WAS. was it apparent that is what was needed well duh. Without the presidential step in... Corporate America would have kept it where it was.

Can you image if terms such as "throttling" and "Censorship" were left unchecked... we live in America right? My guess AOL will be the FCC's first target - mark my words.

I say it now.. but watch.. internet speed will start increasing bandwidth will be less of an issue.. all of these things will happen quietly almost secretively.

Think of this, North Korea for goodness sake has internet speeds of 2.5 Gbits and I sit here with 1.5mbs. Its called throttling.... if I pay more I could have 50mbs. this initial ruling clears all this crap.

You are completely missing my point. Somehow, I am not communicating clearly.

I am not disagreeing in ANY sense about what is or is not needed. You are having a conversation which I have not entered into.

And your predictions are baseless. Until you have read the rules, everything you say is just speculation.

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say it. The merits for or against have nothing to do with my objection.

You seem like an intelligent man - but you are cheerleading something that is completely unknown. I am completely dumbfounded as to how you can support something that has been withheld from the public.

"It's a long time coming." - What? What is a long time coming? You have no idea what these rules even say???

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910829].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

I don't understand how you don't think I or you could know what it says..i know... read this Open Internet | FCC.gov look at this http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-201A1_Rcd.pdf that's 200 pages of it right there.

I keep saying there is nothing HIDDEN... you simply are not looking. I am talking from a point of fact... and im sorry but you are just talking.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910843].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

I don't understand how you don't think I or you could know what it says..i know... read this Open Internet | FCC.gov look at this http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-201A1_Rcd.pdf that's 200 pages of it right there.

I keep saying there is nothing HIDDEN... you simply are not looking. I am talking from a point of fact... and im sorry but you are just talking.

Neither of those links contain what was passed yesterday. If what was passed yesterday is in your possession, the media would be all over you.

For some reason, the bureaucrats on the commission, feel the need NOT to release what was passed.

Why? If it is already public, why not release it?

Why not release it BEFORE the vote?

Again, you are basing your opinion on the brochure. I want to know if on page 28 paragraph 3 there is something that encourages corruption, or will increase my costs, or hamper my ability to contract.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910847].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

I keep saying there is nothing HIDDEN... you simply are not looking. I am talking from a point of fact... and im sorry but you are just talking.

LOL - There IS something hidden - the rules that were passed yesterday!

We have to pass the rules, before you can see what is in the rules. - FCC

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910861].message }}

Vrs 9 years ago

Most bills passed out of Washington seem to accomplish the exact opposite of the name it's given or how it's defined when being sold.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910877].message }}
- savidge4 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Vrs
  
  Most bills passed out of Washington seem to accomplish the exact opposite of the name it's given or how it's defined when being sold.
  
  I think that's the point here.. this wasn't being sold.. the only people selling were big industry. The FCC made it more a quick boot to an industry that needed it.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Success is an ACT not an idea
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910880].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by DaniMc

LOL - There IS something hidden - the rules that were passed yesterday!

We have to pass the rules, before you can see what is in the rules. - FCC

The rules that were passed which made "internet" no longer a "Service" but a "utility" They are defining "Broadband" they are including "Wireless" they are removing the need to invoke the "Chevron Doctrine" basically FCC II is strengthening FCC 10.

have you read FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality | WIRED

How bout this.. lets see if there are any Canadians reading this.. how are those caps set by Telus and bell working for you?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910878].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

The rules that were passed which made "internet" no longer a "Service" but a "utility" They are defining "Broadband" they are including "Wireless" they are removing the need to invoke the "Chevron Doctrine" basically FCC II is strengthening FCC 10.

have you read FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality | WIRED

How bout this.. lets see if there are any Canadians reading this.. how are those caps set by Telus and bell working for you?

SMH - Sir, I am NOT objecting to the practice regulating the internet as a utility. I am NOT saying that everything should continue as is. I'm not sure how much more clearly I need to say it.

Yes - we all know the rules make the internet no longer a service, but a utility. What we don't know is what the rules ACTUALLY SAY.

Are you telling me that everything that was passed is 100% great and there was no possibility for corruption on any of the pages? There is no possibility that something was put in there that harms us all?

Of course, if you are an honest person, you cannot say such things. Because we have no idea what the rules actually say.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910888].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by DaniMc

Of course, if you are an honest person, you cannot say such things. Because we have no idea what the rules actually say.

Historically lets break this down. the Electric industry was standardized. Gas as in gasoline has been standardized, gas as in natural gas has been standardized. The phone industry was broken up and has been standardized.

In each and every case The right went nuts and the left praised it. there was all this rand standing that it would not be for the better good. there was grand standing that prices would go up and service would decline. In each and every case... it was corporate America doing what they do best. GRAND STAND. In each and every case it would be hard to argue the long term benefits. In each and every case there has been great amounts of growth and private prosperity. In each and every case, in the end... its the right that wins.

this is no different. This is a stance for censorship, this is a stance unequalled access. this is a stance to stop price fixing and gouging. This is a set of rules that can be governed and ruled, and taken away from the free will mentality the industry has had more so in the last 5+ years. This is good for America.

I don't need to look at the changes made. I need to look at the 15,000+ pages that stand as precedent before it. THAT is how law is created. dictated and withheld. THAT is what America is all about. THAT is what has run this country for 239 years, and God willing will go another 239.

I can tell you right now because this stuff doesn't have to go through all the legal hassle of the Congress and Senate, there will be no fat. there will be no bs. There will simply be the rules and regulation backed up with the process and penalty.

you can read the 4 page over view here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-331869A1.pdf

do you understand that the 300 pages is right here before the addition of the new changes? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NOa3naKbFmnV7w

Do you understand they are revising current code as they did in 1996 and 2010? this isn't sweeping stuff. this is tighening up what is already there.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9910993].message }}

DaniMc

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

Historically lets break this down. the Electric industry was standardized. Gas as in gasoline has been standardized, gas as in natural gas has been standardized. The phone industry was broken up and has been standardized.

In each and every case The right went nuts and the left praised it. there was all this rand standing that it would not be for the better good. there was grand standing that prices would go up and service would decline. In each and every case... it was corporate America doing what they do best. GRAND STAND. In each and every case it would be hard to argue the long term benefits. In each and every case there has been great amounts of growth and private prosperity. In each and every case, in the end... its the right that wins.

this is no different. This is a stance for censorship, this is a stance unequalled access. this is a stance to stop price fixing and gouging. This is a set of rules that can be governed and ruled, and taken away from the free will mentality the industry has had more so in the last 5+ years. This is good for America.

I don't need to look at the changes made. I need to look at the 15,000+ pages that stand as precedent before it. THAT is how law is created. dictated and withheld. THAT is what America is all about. THAT is what has run this country for 239 years, and God willing will go another 239.

I can tell you right now because this stuff doesn't have to go through all the legal hassle of the Congress and Senate, there will be no fat. there will be no bs. There will simply be the rules and regulation backed up with the process and penalty.

you can read the 4 page over view here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-331869A1.pdf

do you understand that the 300 pages is right here before the addition of the new changes? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NOa3naKbFmnV7w

Do you understand they are revising current code as they did in 1996 and 2010? this isn't sweeping stuff. this is tighening up what is already there.

I'm not going to repeat myself any longer. You jump to so many conclusions - I don't even know where to begin. For some reason, you think I oppose regulating the internet as a utility, when I have said no such thing.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9911009].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

your the one saying how can I trust what is being done.... Im telling you how I am trusting it. you want to think that there is something up some ones sleeve. there is no new taxes, the FCC doesn't have the power to do that. There is no spending outside of what is present the FCC does not have the power to do that. there is no fat, there is no political BS.. there are rules, and there are process and penalties. that is what the FCC BY LAW can do.

I just cant see how they can go wrong? is what they did in 2010 bad for the industry? the answer would be no. so they are going back in and tightening up the position and the law, so companies like Verizon cant screw their customers. because you look at what Verizon got slapped for and later won the appeal.. its just wrong. and it would only get worse.

look at all of the mergers in the pipeline right now. think how some of this will effect those. I can tell you with Comcast and Time Warner merging there would without question be access issues to content.. well no more.

With Dish Network and all of that broadband spectrum after the FCC to use it, and guess what... Dish is now going to have to change their position and product delivery to get passed this.

You have to remember this is the FCC.. this isn't BIG Senate / Congress govt that can throw whatever the hell they feel like into some legislation. This is simple just the facts ma'am type stuff.

Your looking at this thinking oh my they are secretly making these changes time and again I have shown in this thread its pretty transparent. I am pointing out the things at that are the causation of these changes. the NEED for these changes... but you are to worried about something being "Secret"

Look at the 2010 code, look at the 4 page summary of the changes that are going to be added.. and you all of the sudden have a pretty good idea what the changes are. there is no smoke and mirrors here.. it will be made out to be that way.. but its not there, it never has been,and it wont be now!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9911045].message }}

AlphaWarrior

9 years ago

As an old son of a gun, here's my 2 cents:

1. Whatever name is given to a government program, it almost always does just the opposite. My guess is that the so called net neutrality is not going to treat everyone the same, but will actually benefit one group over another.

I read that this newest mess (regulation) is suppose to stop throttling, but may actually encourage ISP's to develop tiered levels of service. If you buy tier 1 at a higher cost than tier 2, you get better, faster service. Not exactly treating everyone the same.

2. This mess is over 300 pages long and the FCC would not release it for viewing by the public until after the vote. If it is such a good thing, why keep it secret?

It seems to me that taking over the internet should not be secret. Nor should it be done by a government agency. It should be done in the open by Congress.

3. If it aint broken, don't fix it. I really do not see where there is a problem. What am I missing? What is the critical problem that needs to be solved?

4. The internet is quite a FREE place. There is all kind of information and opinions - good and bad - and that is the way it should be. Apparently, the present government cannot stand for normal, non-elite people to have their say. The government wants us to be sheep and do only as they tell us to do.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9911254].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

As an old son of a gun, here's my 2 cents:

1. Whatever name is given to a government program, it almost always does just the opposite. My guess is that the so called net neutrality is not going to treat everyone the same, but will actually benefit one group over another.

I read that this newest mess (regulation) is suppose to stop throttling, but may actually encourage ISP's to develop tiered levels of service. If you buy tier 1 at a higher cost than tier 2, you get better, faster service. Not exactly treating everyone the same.

ISP's already do this. I can buy the basic package (1.5mps ) I can but 6mps,I can buy 25mps and I can buy 50mps. the basic package is $35 and the top tier is $100 when I had the top tier the speeds I was getting was more than not 3mps. By definition this IS throttling.

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

2. This mess is over 300 pages long and the FCC would not release it for viewing by the public until after the vote. If it is such a good thing, why keep it secret?

It seems to me that taking over the internet should not be secret. Nor should it be done by a government agency. It should be done in the open by Congress.

When there was health care reform... you never saw it till after it was passed. when the Brady Bill was passed, you never saw it for all of its pork fat and glory till after it was passed. Any and every case that goes before the supreme court... you don't know what it is til after they have voted, and written their decision, and even then,its weeks before you see the actual new "law" that is enacted. honestly that is how our govt works.

The beauty in my eyes for this NOT going to congress is that there will be no fat. there are no new taxes, no tariffs, no budget extensions... basically NO spending. this is Rules and processes.

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

3. If it aint broken, don't fix it. I really do not see where there is a problem. What am I missing? What is the critical problem that needs to be solved?

It is broke, and here is why. Netflicks being the biggest and most transparent example, but it is not the only one. There are premiums being added for flows of bandwidth. So if you take that away, AND you remove throttling what happens? The internet becomes bogged down ( it is already ) So whats the fix for this? Investment in infrastructure.

As it sets right now... who is going to pay for that? well no one is. BUT now that the industry is a "Utility" who can mandate it? the FCC can.. and if the mandates fall short, who can then step in and regulate and fund the infrastructure? the FCC can. In essence what has happened here is the FCC has corrected an issue, but created a problem. The corrected issue being bandwidth control, and the problem is now there is not enough bandwidth.

By the FCC stepping up - in, whatever you might want to call it, and changing "Service" to "Utility" they have 100% taken over the regulation of the internet and its infrastructure. It will no longer see funding from the dept of energy, or the dept of agriculture and where ever else.

The same thing happened with the collapse of the Bells. this is not new there are in now way setting precedent. They are becoming the answer out of the corrected issue and newly created problem. and honestly who better? Who controls bandwidth Spectrum? the FCC.

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

4. The internet is quite a FREE place. There is all kind of information and opinions - good and bad - and that is the way it should be. Apparently, the present government cannot stand for normal, non-elite people to have their say. The government wants us to be sheep and do only as they tell us to do.

There is NOTHING free about it... In terms of the ideals that you are sharing... Google is your best match. I can show you instance after instance of what you think is free, is throttled back and censored. You are so concerned about the government, that you are not seeing that big America already has us all herded up and corralled and counting heads. ( 1 dollar, 2 dollars 3 dollars 4 dollars )

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9911885].message }}

AlphaWarrior

9 years ago

Savidge, I totally disagree with you and I stand on what I wrote above.

I can agree to disagree.

What really bothers me and should bother every American is:

Originally Posted by savidge4

The beauty in my eyes for this NOT going to congress is that there will be no fat. there are no new taxes, no tariffs, no budget extensions... basically NO spending. this is Rules and processes.
...
By the FCC stepping up - in, whatever you might want to call it, and changing "Service" to "Utility" they have 100% taken over the regulation of the internet and its infrastructure. It will no longer see funding from the dept of energy, or the dept of agriculture and where ever else.

In other words as I read what you wrote, you do not believe in representative, open government. Rather, you believe in secret, sneaky, un-elected government taking control of whatever it wants to take control over. In this case the internet.

Because we cannot see the regulation and we cannot see the future, the FCC may very well levy fees (taxes by another name).

You may want the FCC to control the internet, but what will you really think when someone with different views than you gains power and starts doing things that you don't like just because they can?

Taking control of the internet is something that Congress with the President's approval should do, not some un-elected federal agency by a 3-2 vote.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912645].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

Savidge, I totally disagree with you and I stand on what I wrote above. I can agree to disagree.

What really bothers me and should bother every American is:

In other words as I read what you wrote, you do not believe in representative, open government. Rather, you believe in secret, sneaky, un-elected government taking control of whatever it wants to take control over. In this case the internet.

I am not seeing the sneaky in this... I am not seeing how this is any different than the healthcare act We had NO CLUE what was in that monster of legislation.. and I have since read the damn thing and STILL could not tell you what was in it.

Do your research and read up about how the FCC went in and regulated telephony. <Hint> there is no Congress in that one either. This is how our govt works for better or for worse. why all the crying about THIS, and not everything else that follows the same patterns? WHY? I will tell you.. people are scared their facebook will get regulated somehow... just stupid If you ask me.. but that is the mentality of our news organizations and society as a whole.

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

Because we cannot see the regulation and we cannot see the future, the FCC may very well levy fees (taxes by another name).

This is funny to me.. they CANT.. its LAW.. money in any way shape or form has to go through Congress. your ideals of representation are not being touched with this.

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

You may want the FCC to control the internet, but what will you really think when someone with different views than you gains power and starts doing things that you don't like just because they can?

By virtue to some extent going way back to 1934 and the communications act.. they already had "control" the control you are arguing here, is to keep it as open as possible.

Originally Posted by AlphaWarrior

Taking control of the internet is something that Congress with the President's approval should do, not some un-elected federal agency by a 3-2 vote.

Well.. hmmm the President did step in and tell the FCC to put the boot where it belongs. The FCC is regulated and controlled by Congress. has pretty strict guidelines as to what it can and can not do. what it can enforce and what it can not enforce. In essence the method you are suggesting is what is being followed.

I really wonder what makes anyone think that anywhere in this process any one is doing something they shouldn't. No where in this process are republicans saying "They Cant do that" no where is the president say "they are stretching their bounds" the TRUTH here is that they are following CONSTITUTIONAL LAW that dictates the power of govt and its checks and balances. ask your high school aged kids about the concept.

Anyone else reading this let me make this clear. I am about as conservative a Republican you will ever meet, with the exception of this issue apparently. I am saddened by the split vote. I am saddened by the HORROR MONGERING that is taking place around this. I am saddened by the lack of education many have ( not saying those here in any way ) on what the real issues are, how long they have persisted and the overall general lack of knowledge of how our Govt works.

This is not about keeping the internet "FREE" that is simply a bunch of crap. It is not about some partisan motivation to make govt bigger- again crap.

This is about the ITU. This is about working with the world and moving forward with WCIT-12 and WCIT-14. This is about ensuring the things we hold as value, stay that way. Go look those things up. See what the ramifications of "Free" would be. then come back and look at net neutrality, and govt involvement and it doesn't look so bad now does it?

Thanks

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912752].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

your the one saying how can I trust what is being done.... Im telling you how I am trusting it. you want to think that there is something up some ones sleeve. there is no new taxes, the FCC doesn't have the power to do that. There is no spending outside of what is present the FCC does not have the power to do that. there is no fat, there is no political BS.. there are rules, and there are process and penalties. that is what the FCC BY LAW can do.

I just cant see how they can go wrong? is what they did in 2010 bad for the industry? the answer would be no. so they are going back in and tightening up the position and the law, so companies like Verizon cant screw their customers. because you look at what Verizon got slapped for and later won the appeal.. its just wrong. and it would only get worse.

look at all of the mergers in the pipeline right now. think how some of this will effect those. I can tell you with Comcast and Time Warner merging there would without question be access issues to content.. well no more.

With Dish Network and all of that broadband spectrum after the FCC to use it, and guess what... Dish is now going to have to change their position and product delivery to get passed this.

You have to remember this is the FCC.. this isn't BIG Senate / Congress govt that can throw whatever the hell they feel like into some legislation. This is simple just the facts ma'am type stuff.

Your looking at this thinking oh my they are secretly making these changes time and again I have shown in this thread its pretty transparent. I am pointing out the things at that are the causation of these changes. the NEED for these changes... but you are to worried about something being "Secret"

Look at the 2010 code, look at the 4 page summary of the changes that are going to be added.. and you all of the sudden have a pretty good idea what the changes are. there is no smoke and mirrors here.. it will be made out to be that way.. but its not there, it never has been,and it wont be now!

Sorry dude, I think you're wrong on this.

And the example of North Korea's internet speeds is a little off.

From the CIA: There are about 1.5 million mobile phone users in North Korea, but service is spotty and no Internet is available. One popular use for mobile phones: as a "torch" to provide light when the power goes out at night.

There WILL be new taxes, I can't believe you think there won't be. In fact, there will be immediate taxes in almost every single municipality in the country. Depending on who controls congress in the next coming years, there will be another tax to cover the new government entitlement to the welfare state, free internet. LOL.

What you're talking about in 2010 was thrown out by the courts.

This is not going to increase speeds for users, and will likely set us back in comparison to many european countries. You can still be capped and throttled, net neutrality under title II does NOT fix this. This prevents new competition and doesn't give users choice of provider.

Once we see what's in the 317 pages, I can guarantee you aren't going to like it.

What does net neutrality do?

In short, it doesn't change anything. The only thing it does is allow for government to have more control, allow government to expand, and you'll notice some new taxes or fees in your bill. If you think private companies aren't going to pass on the increase of operating costs due to heavier regulation to the consumer.... well... then you don't notice it in every other case this has happened.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912330].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

Sorry dude, I think you're wrong on this.

And the example of North Korea's internet speeds is a little off.

From the CIA: There are about 1.5 million mobile phone users in North Korea, but service is spotty and no Internet is available. One popular use for mobile phones: as a "torch" to provide light when the power goes out at night.

actually... there are 1024 total IP's in the country of North Korea. ( that point to the outside internet ) and there is a internal "domestic Network" called Kwangmyong that is for industry and the people at large. They have broadband that connects all of the major institutions. They actually have a pretty decent fiber network, from what I have seen Granted only the 1024 IP's point to the outside world, but the remaining population of the country does have state run e-mail / news / etc..

I personally am not one to read and believe political propaganda when there is such a wealth of knowledge available on this now net neutral service we call the internet.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912445].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

actually... there are 1024 total IP's in the country of North Korea. ( that point to the outside internet ) and there is a internal "domestic Network" called Kwangmyong that is for industry and the people at large. They have broadband that connects all of the major institutions. They actually have a pretty decent fiber network, from what I have seen Granted only the 1024 IP's point to the outside world, but the remaining population of the country does have state run e-mail / news / etc..

I personally am not one to read and believe political propaganda when there is such a wealth of knowledge available on this now net neutral service we call the internet.

It's just not a very good argument to use North Korea as an example when the majority of the population there doesn't even have electricity.

There are better examples to use then North Korea, but Net Neutrality doesn't fix any of this... and the throttling you were talking about earlier still won't be affected by Net Neutrality under title II regulation.

Thanks

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912467].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

There WILL be new taxes, I can't believe you think there won't be. In fact, there will be immediate taxes in almost every single municipality in the country. Depending on who controls congress in the next coming years, there will be another tax to cover the new government entitlement to the welfare state, free internet. LOL.

I mention that there will be a price to pay, and there will be taxes somewhere up there in one of those posts. but its not going to come from the document that was just signed the other day. that is the job of congress to tax us with representation, and not the job of the FCC

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

What you're talking about in 2010 was thrown out by the courts.

yes you are correct . the current "rewrite" I would call it ensures that wont happen again. pretty much the same stuff as before, just some added judicial strength

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

This is not going to increase speeds for users, and will likely set us back in comparison to many european countries. You can still be capped and throttled, net neutrality under title II does NOT fix this. This prevents new competition and doesn't give users choice of provider.

We are already far behind as a whole to most every European country including the torn up war stifed ones. its pathetic really. Yes things may get worse for some, and I will bet in my case it will get better.

What will CLEARLY happen is the flaws will come to the surface. there will be no question in anyones mind there are issues. The question is will big America fix any of it on their own, and how soon will the now enabled FCC step in and fix it ( and YES we are talking taxes here FOR SURE )

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

Once we see what's in the 317 pages, I can guarantee you aren't going to like it.

I am going to like it any way it comes out. even if it appears to be a step back ,it is what in the end will allow for us to move forward ( you have to think big picture with this stuff ) it will just be a matter of WHEN the step forward starts happening

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

What does net neutrality do?

In short, it doesn't change anything. The only thing it does is allow for government to have more control, allow government to expand, and you'll notice some new taxes or fees in your bill. If you think private companies aren't going to pass on the increase of operating costs due to heavier regulation to the consumer.... well... then you don't notice it in every other case this has happened.

I don't think there is "heavier regulation" here. far from it actually. You have to look at the causation of all of this. part of it without question is these new mergers At&t w/ Directv and Comcast w/ Time Warner, probably more so the later than the first. - but the first has its implications as well. you have to look at the Verizon case, that I am sure will be now overturned. you have to look at the train wreck of a mess to the north of us with Telus and Bell, and all of the capping etc.

You have to look at the "polarization" that is already occurring in the market space. you have to look at WHO is buying spectrum and bandwidth. all of these things start pointing to what would have been an ugly future. If you look at the end of the Wheeler 4 page brief you see a case study. That is the case of the telecoms. and it is a great point of history, of the process and the outcome.

Thanks

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912524].message }}

iAmNameLess 9 years ago

Originally Posted by DaniMc

We have to pass the rules, before you can see what is in the rules. - FCC

Anything that paraphrases Nancy Pelosi can't be a good thing. LOL.
- Thanks
Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog
Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912281].message }}

Mav91890

9 years ago

I completely agree nameless. I love the idea of net neutrality but in the hands of big government? It's just a recipe for disaster.

Thanks

Signature

â€œThe only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.â€ ― Jordan Belfort

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9909929].message }}

Fun to Write

9 years ago

I support net neutrality along with millions of other Americans. In fact, the FCC received 4 million comments about this issue, most of them from average Americans who expressed support for net neutrality, according to USA Today.

USA Today: What is net neutrality and what does it mean for me?

I'm happy we have a President that stepped in and influenced the decision, so a few big businesses don't get to act as gatekeepers to who gets what type of access to quality internet.

And as for the free market?

Well, big companies (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc.) have already proven that they're willing to use their mighty "muscle" to squash the little people on this issue. Government has the right to regulate and prevent monopolies from suppressing innovation and small businesses who want to compete.

Hey, didn't AT&T have their old telephone monopoly broken up by the government?

United States vs. AT&T

Why yes, they did. And, that's because they were squashing other businesses in the free market. So, net neutrality also helps the free market by fostering competition. Too bad some companies don't like it. Apple, Google and Facebook do like it. These are businesses that operate in the free market. So...I'm not sure how the free market argument against this ruling holds up, considering the current business system we have in America. (too many businesses running amok as it is)

Also, the "internet" as we know it today got its start back in the 1960s as a government supported technology for the U.S. Department of Defense (part of the Government). Free market innovation and use came along in the 1990s. These are facts.

History of the Internet

I think the FCC had the responsibility and legal right to make this ruling. I predict, lawsuits against this will fail. But, hey, I'm sure the morans currently running our Congress will waste time and taxpayer money on another fruitless pursuit in support of their corporate masters.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Focus+Smart Work+Persistence=Success

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912175].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Fun to Write

I think the FCC had the responsibility and legal right to make this ruling. I predict, lawsuits against this will fail. But, hey, I'm sure the morans currently running our Congress will waste time and taxpayer money on another fruitless pursuit in support of their corporate masters.

LMAO... yeah, those "morans".

Hey, by the way... look at the donations to the Obama campaign by these companies...Who pushed this in pursuit of support to their corporate masters? You really think they care? LOL.

This is a move that helps solidify the existing companies.. It was a win win situation for them.

and... just because uneducated people comment on something, doesn't mean action should be taken. 99% of the people supporting Net Neutrality, don't know what they're supporting. I support net neutrality but not under title II regulations, and I'm confident that anybody that knew what was really being proposed also would not support it.

Unless of course you're one of many that depend on the government, want the expansion of government, want increased government control in our lives, etc. I personally think the more government expands, the more our freedoms decrease.

Government here was supposed to be limited, small.... people like you blame corporations... people like me blame government because if it remained small like it was supposed to, then lobbying would matter, corporations could do their own thing and work on their business instead of worrying about what happens in D.C.

Sorry to tell you, but your government has failed you.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912352].message }}

Mav91890

9 years ago

You know what's hilarious? My friend who's living in Ukraine, not the war torn part, gets 60 down and 10 up, for only $10 a month. Here, it's not as reliable and is around $60 or more, depending on where you live. In many places, it's not even available at all.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

â€œThe only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.â€ ― Jordan Belfort

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912268].message }}

Mav91890

9 years ago

lmao, we have to pass Obamacare before you can see what's in it...

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

â€œThe only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.â€ ― Jordan Belfort

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912289].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

@Mav

Sorry for hijacking your thread. This is just something I'm very passionate about. I'm a libertarian and pretty anti-government intervention in general LOL.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912375].message }}

Mav91890

9 years ago

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

@Mav

Sorry for hijacking your thread. This is just something I'm very passionate about. I'm a libertarian and pretty anti-government intervention in general LOL.

No not at all, that's what this thread is for. I'm Libertarian too and completely understand.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

â€œThe only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it.â€ ― Jordan Belfort

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912403].message }}

LouSmith

9 years ago

I don't have to read the documents to know that the government's involvement in anything but good news. Washington should to defense and basic welfare and butt out of anything having to do with business. It seems they can't even build a website. :-)

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Live IT support for small businesses since 1984 now with clients on 3 continents.
Lou Smith
"The Business Guardian"
https://GuardianPartners.net

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912554].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

I don't understand how you do not see the threat of regulation under title II. Do you NOT REALIZE this essentially gives the FCC the right to censorship, just as it does on network broadcasts and cable networks?

And yes, it does also include an "FCC fee" just like the one you currently see on your cable bill.

The instant taxes come from a municipality level, county, then state and most likely a federal program.

Why the uproar about THIS and not everything else? Maybe you talk to people that are unaware of what the government is doing..

Here's a good resource for those that want to learn more about this and the negative effects of Title II regulation.

Don't Break the Net

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912899].message }}

savidge4 9 years ago

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

Don't Break the Net

OMG - REALLY? I expected more... I could sit here and dispel every one of those myths - they are LAME at best. again HORROR MONGERING

1930's style utility regulation... lol there really was not all that much regulation until 1996 and they bring up 706...uh that was part of the court denounced 2010 insertion... VOID

If public utilities are so bad at delivering high tech services.. why do we rely on our phones so much?

Like I mentioned in a previous post. Google. of ALL big America doesn't have to take a stance... As a matter of fact, it would be uncommon for them to take a step in any direction.. they try and succeed at staying out of politics. BTW why isn't there Google in China? anyone anyone? because they will not filter or censor content. So if Google were to say this was bad.. then even myself would take note, but they have not - again LAME.

Part of all of this, again looking at UTI, WCIT-12, and WCIT-14 is about network investments. The reality here is that private industry can not be expected to pay for all of it. and as a "Service" all the Govt can do is throw grants at it.

Creating competition.. this one gets interesting. it will mandate last mile rules. much like what was done with DSL and the regulation that took place with phone lines. BUT the core issue here becomes the fact that the present infrastructure is loaded / capped and may not be able to handle added load.

But hey... lets not pass title ii and let the UN start dictating this stuff.
- Thanks
Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912937].message }}

savidge4

9 years ago

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

I don't understand how you do not see the threat of regulation under title II. Do you NOT REALIZE this essentially gives the FCC the right to censorship, just as it does on network broadcasts and cable networks?

AOL censors its listings in serps. Bing does most non American search engines do...

Do you want Time warner or Comcast or Cox or DirecTv or At&t or Verizon or Sprint or Dish Network or Viasat or Hughes Net, or Cisco, or Linksys, or any other number of backbone service points and providers censoring.. well they are... and until a few days ago, they could.

REALLY REALLY bad arguement

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Success is an ACT not an idea

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9912943].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

Originally Posted by savidge4

AOL censors its listings in serps. Bing does most non American search engines do...

Do you want Time warner or Comcast or Cox or DirecTv or At&t or Verizon or Sprint or Dish Network or Viasat or Hughes Net, or Cisco, or Linksys, or any other number of backbone service points and providers censoring.. well they are... and until a few days ago, they could.

REALLY REALLY bad arguement

You're right, that is a really bad argument, considering the way that you're saying they have been censoring, is not going to be "fixed" by title II regulation.

Also, Google, Bing, AOL search results are not an issue of censorship, it's a private company displaying a resource. That isn't what net neutrality is about.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9913165].message }}

iAmNameLess

9 years ago

Interesting note to take, you sell satellite internet and are all for this.

LOL.

Hey, also... Google has come out and said they're against Title II regulation.

It's cool if you're all for big government, I don't think less of you because of your politics but dismissing what is a legitimate concern as fear mongering is inaccurate. The majority of the uneducated populous doesn't have any idea how this will impact us, there are very few voices against net neutrality, so this isn't fear mongering, it's simply mass deception, but what else is new?

Thanks

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9913161].message }}

FCC's Net Neutrality Passed

Trending Topics

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

Infographic: How B2B marketers on LinkedIn can maximise their efforts for better audience reach

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

best high quality crypto traffic.

Some interesting stats about brand comms