backtop

Print 45 comment(s) - last by theslug.. on Nov 20 at 2:51 PM

The FCC complains that Google and Verizon's net neutrality proposal doesn't give it enough authority.  (Source: South Park Studios/Comedy Central)
FCC says that the only way net neutrality will be had is by handing it more power

After a long history of debate, Google and Verizon finally came to a basic framework of proposed net neutrality policy.  The policy would look to regulate wired traffic, ensuring that "legal" traffic was not slowed and that ISPs would not be able to charge premiums for "speed lanes".

The Federal Communications Commission, which is currently in the process of crafting net neutrality legislation to bring before Congress, was surprisingly dismissive of the proposal in a brief public comment.

FCC Chairman Michael Copps remarks [PDF], "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward.  That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

The comment raises questions about exactly what kind of net neutrality "authority" the FCC is seeking over the nation's ISPs and internet wires.  After all, the Google/Verizon proposal called for mild FCC regulation and a fine architecture for those who don't comply, with fines of up to $2M USD.

It should be interesting to see exactly what the FCC has in mind instead.

The FCC taking input from Google, Verizon, AT&T, Microsoft, and others in the process of crafting its net neutrality legislation.  It is unclear when it will finish the draft of its legislation for Congress.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
But compromise is the answer
By Jaybus on 8/10/2010 5:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure we need an Internet czar. On the other hand, if left to the large ISPs, they would surely throttle all of their competition in any particular area, like say video on demand IPTV. Look what AT&T is doing with U-verse, which has a separated pipe using a different optical wavelength over the same fiber to implement a dedicated bandwidth for their own IPTV service. If you have U-verse, then no other IPTV provider could possibly compete, even if they don't start throttling other VOD services. It might be great if you are happy with their IPTV service, but it is the opposite of an open system.

Not sure what to think of a Google/Verizon agreement. I would rather see a Netflix/Verizon agreement. Something to keep the network providers from taking over completely the content providing services one by one using dedicated bandwidth and throttling to force out the competition.




RE: But compromise is the answer
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 8:24:17 AM , Rating: 3
Others could compete by doing the same thing AT&T did. Run fiber to neighborhoods. An area just has to allow it.

My parents neighborhood has U-Verse. Their street is the only street with problems and apparently AT&T knows about it but won't fix it. So they're stuck with either Bright House Cable or DirecTV.


Fines
By Uncle on 8/11/2010 12:04:50 AM , Rating: 1
"After all, the Google/Verizon proposal called for mild FCC regulation and a fine architecture for those who don't comply, with fines of up to $2M USD .
How about starting at 2M. Unless the boardroom including the CEO has to pay the fine out of their pockets the shit will keep hitting the fan and consumers lose. Any other way, its a business expense, and its business as usual.




What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a Shock!
By theslug on 8/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: What a Shock!
By gorehound on 8/10/2010 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 4
It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

that is just what i want.let us wait to see the rest and then decide if FCC is doing good or bad.Us consumers all need protection no matter what your political beliefs are.all of us pay bills so less bills is better for all.


RE: What a Shock!
By AEvangel on 8/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a Shock!
By LordSojar on 8/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a Shock!
By theArchMichael on 8/10/2010 7:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your truly foolish if you think that Govt interference in a private sector will lower prices.


Yeah government doesn't have any business interfering with the private sector and their infrastructure, its not like the government had a hand in funding the development AND expansion of telco and broadband technologies...</sarcasm>

The people should own this infrastructure that they ending paying for any way in the form of tax breaks, grants and bailout funds. Something as integral as ubiquitous as access to global communication shouldn't be in the hands of the few and powerful. In that case the free market begs that they engage in collusive extortion.

The free market isn't the best option for every situation... look at the interstate Highway system. I know some Republicans that live/work in DC, NY, Phillie, but I know a LOTTTT more that live/are from rural areas. They are so small government/no taxes until you ask them whether they would want to drive 200 miles on a dirt road when they go home to see family on the weekend...

Good ideals don't alwasys translate to good ideas, we can't just have a one size fits all approach to how we manage our communal resources. I believe in the free market... but for this...


RE: What a Shock!
By michael67 on 8/11/2010 1:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
We have in Holland the OPTA that dose about the same thing as the FCC.
http://www.opta.nl/en/

And i am glad that for one, that we got them, and that we gave them real tooth.

We got one of the cheapest mobile prizes and fastest internet for reasonable prizes in the world.

Sim only http://www.bellen.com/mobiel/sim-only/vergelijking...
Internet http://www.internetten.nl/access/adslprijzen_verge...
Yeah its in Dutch but the Nr's speak for them self.

Lets just say i am glad i am living in a country that got heavy regulated telecommunications, but it is also not over regulated, and our OPTA only steps in when the market is not working.


RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/11/2010 11:41:29 AM , Rating: 1
No offense, but Holland doesn't have to provide broadband, wireless, and services for 330+ million people.


RE: What a Shock!
By saiga6360 on 8/11/2010 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well excuse Holland for having less people.

What was your point again?


RE: What a Shock!
By Targon on 8/11/2010 10:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that argument is the SIZE of the USA compared to Holland. In the USA, the BIG problem is NOT net neutrality, but is the lack of broadband access in very remote/rural areas. Now, there is a BIG problem with the cost to get broadband into these remote areas combined with the whole concept of who ends up paying for it.

Do I want my taxes to go up by $100 per year just to make sure there is broadband Internet in a town of 50 people that is 100 miles from the nearest town? Should the entire country have to pay all of that money to make sure people who CHOOSE to live in the middle of nowhere get the same level of service available to those who live in a place with a high population density?

There is nowhere in Holland that you could go that is actually REMOTE, so it is far less expensive to wire the entire country, or provide cell phone service to the entire population.

So, do we really want to let the FCC start to call the shots? In reality, the only involvement the US Government has had with the Internet is getting colleges, universities, and military facilities connected. As a result, the only place the US Government should be able to regulate is the part it was involved in. So, let the FCC set policies for the government run backbone, and leave the private sector alone. If I paid $5 billion to deploy a fiber optic network with no government involvement, I sure as hell wouldn't feel the government has ANY right to set policy on what I personally put in place.

The FCC can't be bothered to regulate the airwaves(try telling them when radio stations are broadcasting off their assigned frequencies), so why should we let them touch ANYTHING else?


RE: What a Shock!
By mill3000 on 8/11/2010 12:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
You said you couldn't think of anything the government got involved in that has improved. Let me list some of them.

1. Land line phone service. (dad worked for the phone company) He always said the FCC was the only thing that kept his company from waiting to fix dead lines. Every day they wait the company save lots of money because they have to do many of thes fixes at night which costs them time in a half. Can you say monopoly? This is exactly like internet service. My internet was down 2 weeks. I wanted to switch from comcast. Why didn't I? No options that were as fast. I only have 2 choice. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

2. Postal Service. You really want to pay $11 to mail you letter. That is what Fedex charges for the same letter with same delivery time as USPS. Are we running this service at the cost we should? No. They need to increase the stamp fee but even if they charged $1 for a stamp it's still 11 times cheaper. We can't let the government save us any money. We should just do away with this right?

3. It also sounds like you have no glue what your talking about. You hear the word government and poop you pants. Laws are what keeps corporations from doing anything they want to make money and strong arm the consumer.

Example. Comcast has internet, cable tv, and owns tv stations. Without laws they could slow down streaming video like Netflix or any other streaming site to make it so only low def videos are playable on their internet service and then make there website and videos play faster so that only their videos play in HD. This would put their product above all others. Normally people would get another service when their not happy with the one they hav but there aren't usually more than a few options in most areas unless your willing to a way slower service.

This idea that the government sucks for everything is a 35 and up reaction that will be fading like 8 tracks. I am younger than 35 and my generation doesn't have the contempt the older generation has for the government. We elect the people that you say screw everything up. Seems to me that Corporations already have there hooks in most parts of the government and there millions of dollars spent on brainwashing people that the government can't do anything has worked on the older crowd.


RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/11/2010 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, basic services. Things that the government is actually tasked with providing for the general populace.

I swear you people keep using the same old, and false, arguments. This isn't roads, or phones, or anything of the like.

Last time I checked, my broadband connection wasn't rolled into my taxes. I'm paying a company, of my choosing, for it.

quote:
Example. Comcast has internet, cable tv, and owns tv stations. Without laws they could slow down streaming video like Netflix or any other streaming site to make it so only low def videos are playable on their internet service and then make there website and videos play faster so that only their videos play in HD.


You aren't the only one who has created such a scenario. A lot of you guys are talking about what the ISP's "could" do, or want to do. So tell me, when is this exactly going to "happen". And why haven't they done it yet? I mean, no laws are in place right?

You know I get that you Comcast guys are pissed because you have a huge lumbering ISP. But guess what? We don't ALL have Comcast. It's not OUR problem. I'm happy with my ISP, sorry you aren't with yours. Try to look past your own problems for a change.

quote:
I am younger than 35 and my generation doesn't have the contempt the older generation has for the government.


Well no offense, but your generation is full of idiots who get their political insight from Steven Colbert and Family Guy. And by the way, I'm younger than 35 as well, I'm 33. So much for your personal attack.

Frankly the fact that you, admittedly, are a "young" person and are trying to preach to others about this issue is a joke. It's well known that young people are stupid, impulsive, and ill-informed. And from what I've seen, you certainly don't have the chops to debate me. Sorry but "my dad says" stopped being a valid argument back in high school. It doesn't really carry much weight in the real world.

quote:
We elect the people that you say screw everything up.


Well if your post and the last election is any indication, I would say the issue is the voting age just isn't high enough. Now you know why Democrats love "Rock the Vote" and outreach to the "young voters" so much. Because young voters are stupid. Just like you.


RE: What a Shock!
By wempa on 8/11/2010 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is exactly like internet service. My internet was down 2 weeks. I wanted to switch from comcast. Why didn't I? No options that were as fast. I only have 2 choice. Sounds like a monopoly to me.


Yes it is. And who exactly GAVE the cable companies these monopolies ? Your friendly local government.

quote:
Postal Service. You really want to pay $11 to mail you letter. That is what Fedex charges for the same letter with same delivery time as USPS. Are we running this service at the cost we should?


There are a load of problems with these statements. First of all, it costs more than $1 to get guaranteed next day delivery with the USPS. It costs $13 to overnight a letter. Sure, you can send a letter for 44 cents, but it will usually take a few days to get to its destination. Secondly, the USPS rates for normal mail are cheap because (1) just about every town has at least 1 post office and (2) they have such a high volume of mail, which greatly increases the efficiency. Any private company operating on such a big scale and with such a high volume could most likely offer similar rates.

quote:
Without laws they could slow down streaming video like Netflix or any other streaming site to make it so only low def videos are playable on their internet service and then make there website and videos play faster so that only their videos play in HD.


Sure, prevent them from doing that. So, they implemented data caps instead. With such a cap in place, people can't get their movies and TV from their internet connections and must pay for the overpriced cable TV instead. Mission accomplished.

quote:
Normally people would get another service when their not happy with the one they hav but there aren't usually more than a few options in most areas unless your willing to a way slower service.


Again, who do you have to thank for giving them this monopoly ? Your local government. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the monopoly and allow multiple companies to offer cable/internet/phone service within a town. Then, see what happens if 1 company starts to pull something like this.


RE: What a Shock!
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 3:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
It's annoying that so many complain about their service without knowing how it got there. All they want is government to fix it, even though government created the problem in the first place.

They don't understand that many providers like what they have, a monopoly or very limited competition. They don't want fewer rules because they would have real competition that only limited regulation can provide. For those who think all conservatives want is no-regulation are guzzling the far left Kool-Aid. Zero regulation leads to chaos but over-regulation is even worse.

Over-regulation is what you find at the bottom of your bill in the form of numerous little taxes that nickle and dime your pocket without adding value to your service. Those taxes do keep some bureaucrat gainfully employed with a killer retirement and great medical plan...


RE: What a Shock!
By wookie1 on 8/10/2010 10:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
You want GWB in control of your internet? When thinking of having the government regulate something, consider how you feel when the politician you least like can control this service that you like so much. Since the party that controls the FCC alternates usually every 4-8 years, this will happen fairly often.


RE: What a Shock!
By theslug on 11/20/2010 2:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
What's this about control of the internet? We are talking about making sure telcos don't favor one type of traffic over another.


RE: What a Shock!
By CCRATA on 8/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2010 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... racist???


RE: What a Shock!
By Akrovah on 8/10/2010 7:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, gotta love when people throw the racist card for no apparent reason.

God forbid anyone who is not a racist simply doesn't like Obama's policies. That wouldn't be possible at all.


RE: What a Shock!
By Helbore on 8/11/2010 8:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, aren't all Republicans racist? Isn't that why they all started the civil war so they could be racist to blacks and the like? </sarcasm>


RE: What a Shock!
By Spivonious on 8/11/2010 8:19:11 AM , Rating: 1
I like it when people say "the alternative" as if there were only two people running for President. My ballot had at least 5. It's time to break up this two party system. Vote third party in 2012..


RE: What a Shock!
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
All third parties have ever done is get Democrats elected because its typicall conservative independents voting for them. That splits the vote for the Republican.

No. Reform the parties. The Democrat party of today is far left of 20 years ago. Republicans for the past 10 years have been moving left as well and are finally moving back to the right.

Sad thing is, if you actually question people about their beliefs and what government should do and what it should not, the majority of Americans, especially blacks, are at least moderate conservatives.


RE: What a Shock!
By Spivonious on 8/11/2010 10:28:58 AM , Rating: 1
Republicans moving left? Ha! Republicans these days are all about forcing Christian morals on everyone and blindly supporting the military. They are no longer the small government party.

I have a feeling most moderate Republican voters are actually closer to Libertarian than Republican these days. I know I am.


RE: What a Shock!
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 8:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Lets see....Christian morals.....

1) don't kill
2) don't steal
3) respect your parents

Not really seeing the horrible trajedy of teaching this to people. I'm not even religious either.

Abortion - killing
Wealth redistribution - stealing

Not even going into liberals wanting to adopt EU laws that allow kids to sue their parents.

And blindly supporting the military? You mean trying to stop Democrats from cutting the military at every chance? That's about the only spending Democrats don't like. Is there waste that can be eliminated? Yes. But cutting things like the F35? Yeah because who needs modern fighter jets. Not like our current ones are 30+ years old and quickly running out of their usable lifespan.... Who needs aerial refueling tanker aircraft when our current ones are falling apart.

Not like China and Russia are rapidly expanding their military's either with modern fighter jets and more advanced weaponry. Nevermind China trying to build or acquire submarines and looking to get a few aircraft carriers.


RE: What a Shock!
By Targon on 8/11/2010 11:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
You have to understand that there are really two different sides to the whole political situation. You have the SOCIAL side, and then you have the financial/fiscal side. The reason why both major parties are screwed up is that you have these two things joined at the hip, rather than keeping them apart.

Most people on the Democratic side HATE and I do mean hate how the Republican ticket is all about conservative social values combined with conservative fiscal policies. If a single Republican candidate stepped forward who really was a SOCIAL moderate with a conservative fiscal outlook, that candidate would win a national election EASILY. On the flip side, you have idiots like Pelosi on the Democratic side who are so far in the other direction that many rational Democrats can't stand her and want her out of office.

You are also blind to the reality of life if you think that outlawing abortion would in any way improve the quality of life, keep the poor from having sex(to avoid having more children they can't feed), or anything like that. This is the simple reality of life in the real world, and while you may not agree with abortion, and may feel it is wrong, do you think that it would change things in a positive way for PEOPLE?

The people who go with more liberal social policies(not getting into economic policy) feel that just because you don't like something, or feel comfortable with it around them also can accept that FREEDOM means that others should have the same freedoms that they themselves have. Gay rights can be supported by many people because if a heterosexual couple has the right to get married, then why shouldn't a homosexual couple have that same right? That does not mean that religions would be forced to accept it, but the GOVERNMENT should afford the same rights to everyone, no matter if their sexual preference makes you uncomfortable or not. You can get married, and they should be able to as well. And, that is a social policy, having zero impact on the fiscal side of things.

So, keep the debate in it's proper place. Support for the PEOPLE in the military does not mean that foolish spending should be accepted. That is a fiscal issue, and if you can do the same thing for less money without a loss of quality, there is nothing wrong with that. People in the USA need to tell government that if something costs $10,000 in the private sector, contractors charging $100,000 for the same thing should NOT be tolerated! Why is the military paying so much for supplies when the same supplies should be so much cheaper? Why can't the government and military just make their own equipment if they are being overcharged by the private sector?

If you want to really get Republicans back into a better position, wake up and focus on the issues, instead of letting your "morality" drive people away from the conservative fiscal policies that would help solve the problems in this country.


RE: What a Shock!
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 3:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
Close but off on a few details:
quote:
Gay rights can be supported by many people because if a heterosexual couple has the right to get married, then why shouldn't a homosexual couple have that same right?
quote:
If you want to really get Republicans back into a better position, wake up and focus on the issues, instead of letting your "morality" drive people away from the conservative fiscal policies that would help solve the problems in this country.
FYI Ted Olsen, GW Bush's first Solicitor General, is the one who successfully argued against California's Prop 8. He is very conservative.
quote:
Why can't the government and military just make their own equipment if they are being overcharged by the private sector?
Many times the bureaucracy created by politicians contributes to this by layering massive amounts of paperwork requiring unreasonable efforts to fill it out in order to just bid on a project. Contractual obligations, remember politicians who write the rule the DoD operates under, allow for many of those loop holes along with some reasonable product safety concerns.

Also, please tell me why the DoD is the ONLY Gov Dept working to cut their budget? Unfortunately some Congressman will do what ever they can to thwart those cuts because it's in their district.

I do know of some serious lapses of bureaucratic judgment that cost silly amounts of money. Unfortunately they had more to do with the system forced by politicians of both parties than many would like you to think. I know, I spent over twenty years in it.
quote:
Republican candidate stepped forward who really was a SOCIAL moderate with a conservative fiscal outlook, that candidate would win a national election EASILY.
So why is it that ONLY Republicans have to change their values but never the Democrats? Just wondering... McCain IS a social moderate who is far more fiscally sensible than who's in office now. Historically Repubs do better in elections and governance when they are real conservatives rather than Dem lite.


RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 9:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is very conservative.


Not anymore.


RE: What a Shock!
By Spivonious on 8/12/2010 11:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
Abortion is a tricky issue. Personally I'm against it, but I also don't think the government should have any say in it.

What I was implying was gay rights. The 14th Amendment clearly states that laws should equally apply to all people. Since marriage affects how laws apply, marriage needs to be equally available to all people. Republicans are generally against gay marriage because it is against their religious beliefs. Religion has no place in government.

Do you honestly think China would attack its biggest consumer? Without us (and thus without western Europe), their economy would be decimated. The real enemy these days are terrorist groups, and they don't have air forces, nor the funding to build advanced fighter jets.

Democrats are just as bad. Instead of pumping money into the military and foreign policy, they pump money into entitlement programs for the sole purpose of buying votes. Remember that lady in Florida who thought Obama was going to pay off her mortgage?

We need to take a step back and return to the system of government described in the Constitution. Throw out all of the laws that go beyond the enumerated powers of Congress. Take another look at the political writings of that time period to realize why Americans wanted limited government.


RE: What a Shock!
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 8:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah like how Bush went around dogging the American people any time he wasn't speaking to them....wait no that's Obama.

I mean like how Bush said he was businesses friend and then blasted them whenever he needed a scapegoat for his own failed policies.....wait no that's Obama.

Well how about how Bush shut down entire industries to push a political agenda....wait no that's Obama too....

Bush was not perfect but he allowed business to thrive for the most part. Obama does nothing but kill business unless it's owned by a friend of his (IBM, GE).

You call today's ISPs monopolistic (which the government is responsible for). Well how about when the government controls them all? Is that not a monopoly? So what happens when the FCC, a government agency NOT represented by the people since it is full of unelected bureaucrats, does something you don't like? You have to take it. With an ISP, you can cancel their service.


RE: What a Shock!
By KnickKnack on 8/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2010 5:43:05 PM , Rating: 3
You can vote out politicians, but the bureaucracies they leave behind rarely if ever get removed or changed for the better. Please show me where all these "accountable" government agencies are and how they are being taken to task when they fail their mandates.

You people and your blind faith in government are killing us. Please wake up!


RE: What a Shock!
By KnickKnack on 8/10/2010 6:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have 'blind faith'; I distrust governments as much as I distrust large corporations; when the expenses scandal hit the headlines in the UK everyone was shocked but not surprised with the abuses that were running through the system and how many MP's were complicit in the corruption.

However, given a choice between the two to manage something like Net Neutrality, I'd say a body like the FCC whose only agenda is (supposedly) for the good of the people is preferable to some of the worlds biggest corporations whose business interests may very well be in conflict with some of the principles of net-neutrality.


RE: What a Shock!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2010 8:01:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd say a body like the FCC whose only agenda is (supposedly) for the good of the people is preferable to some of the worlds biggest corporations whose business interests may very well be in conflict with some of the principles of net-neutrality.


Are we talking about the same FCC here?? The FCC that's been bleeping, banning, censoring and silencing artists since the 1930's? The FCC that drove Howard Stern off radio? The FCC who tried to ban "drug music" like Puff the Magic Dragon??

THAT FCC?? Suddenly they are out of the censorship business and into the "good of the people's free speech" business? Suddenly they are all about your Net's Neutrality?


RE: What a Shock!
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 8:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
Drones don't see and can't hear what they disagree with.


RE: What a Shock!
By snyper256 on 8/11/2010 10:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's better than the whiny, greedy telcos, who are too cheap to expand their infrastructure to meet demand so they want to cut bandwidth and rake in money from specialized traffic.

If they get their way, we'll see metered and packaged internet services, just like wireless and cable TV. Just sickening.

They need to be put in line.


RE: What a Shock!
By NullSubroutine on 8/10/2010 5:46:32 PM , Rating: 3
I would agree, even as conservative as I am, there is too much past history of monopolies (AT&T) and media (cable/telephone/internet) running monopolies on customers in certain geographic areas.

I don't want the internet regulated (and I'm talking original constitution definition of regulation which is to make regular), I want the companies that provide the internet to be regulated so they don't screw customers for profit while never upgrading the infrastructure (or doing so at snails pace).

I would actually like to see ISP's...shock...COMPETE for the business of customers.


RE: What a Shock!
By AEvangel on 8/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: What a Shock!
By FITCamaro on 8/11/2010 8:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
Did I miss when we started being able to vote out FCC employees?

And no just because a new party takes over the majority, that doesn't mean those in charge of the FCC change. They typically aren't fired unless they commit a crime or re involved in some scandal. Otherwise they can sue the government.

Yes businesses exist to make a profit. Do you work for free? Do you invest thousands of man hours in something just for the notoriety? Or to say that you're a good person? No. You do it to make money.


RE: What a Shock!
By bplewis24 on 8/10/2010 5:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
What a shock. Say it isn't so...an ignorant and hyperbolic response to something even remotely political.

Brandon


RE: What a Shock!
By ImJustSaying on 8/10/2010 8:36:21 PM , Rating: 1
Get off it already! Jesus! Your knee-jerk reactions against ANYTHING that has to do with government, ever, are mind-numbing.

If anything, you should be FOR the FCC playing a larger role in moving toward, and ensuring net neutrality in order to maintain a healthy level of information and commercial competition. Your discourse, or lack thereof, almost demands that you support an environment that will encourage competition in the private sector, but yet your ability to reason and adhere to that discourse completely lapses when the word 'government' or anything affiliated with it is mentioned.

I don't know if you see yourself doing this, but it's maddening to those of us (those of me?) who do.


RE: What a Shock!
By amanojaku on 8/10/2010 11:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you didn't know that the FCC is an independent agency. That means the President has no authority over the goings on in the FCC. Unless he tries to push for something and the Supreme Court allows it.

By the way, the "authority" the FCC wants is to ensure the 'net is available to all at reasonable prices and with reasonable service, which is the core idea behind Net Neutrality. It's just that the FCC doesn't want to take its marching orders from corporations who usually have an agenda. And the FCC DOES have authoritah over the American Internet.

quote:
"The Commission, under Title I of the Communications Act, has the ability to adopt and enforce the net neutrality principles it announced in the Internet Policy Statement. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Commission “has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications.” Indeed, the Supreme Court specifically recognized the Commission’s ancillary jurisdiction to impose regulatory obligations on broadband Internet access providers." (From Broadband Deployment Notice of Inquiry - April 16, 2007)


http://www.fcc.gov/broadband_network_management/

And if you want to know what the FCC is up to in general you can look here:

http://www.fcc.gov/foia/


RE: What a Shock!
By diggernash on 8/11/2010 10:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wanted to confirm that I needed to add "internet access" to the ever expanding list of rights granted when we are squirted into the light. What exactly is it that we are supposed to pursue through hard work now?


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki