Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

FCC Approves Confusing Net Neutrality

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #61
    RRangel
    CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
    • Oct 2005
    • 5164

    Originally posted by JDay
    Congress is wrong? Strange, they're in the process of expanding the FCC's power so there is no question over this. The only people in Congress who are against this are the ones who have their campaigns funded by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. You should watch those videos I posted.
    FAIL.

    Comment

    • #62
      Can'thavenuthingood
      C3 Leader
      CGN Contributor - Lifetime
      • Oct 2005
      • 5246

      I'm against this net neutrality.
      I see no reason for the government to get involved with the internet. They will only add fees, taxes, surcharges, excise taxes and anything to help pay for some dam thing they dream up.

      I think New America and Public Knowledge are supported by George Soros, I'd have to research it but seems to me I read a doc or article somewhere.

      New America article here another here. They want to register guns, makes it easier to find the criminals.
      Public Knowledge is directly funded by the Open Society Institute.
      Senator John Kerry is for Net Neutrality.

      No credibility there for me.

      I don't like regulatory agencies running the government, way too Czarlike for me.
      Its for the Congress to decide.

      Vick
      Last edited by Can'thavenuthingood; 12-29-2010, 9:15 PM.
      sigpic

      "Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more." (George Patton)

      Picnic Time

      Comment

      • #63
        RRangel
        CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
        • Oct 2005
        • 5164

        Originally posted by Can'thavenuthingood
        I'm against this net neutrality.
        I see no reason for the government to get involved with the internet. They will only add fees, taxes, surcharges, excise taxes and anything to help pay for some dam thing they dream up.

        I think New America and Public Knowledge are supported by George Soros, I'd have to research it but seems to me I read a doc or article somewhere.

        New America article here another here. They want to register guns, makes it easier to find the criminals.
        Public Knowledge is directly funded by the Open Society Institute.
        Senator John Kerry is for Net Neutrality.

        No credibility there for me.

        I don't like regulatory agencies running the government, way too Czarlike for me.
        Its for the Congress to decide.

        Vick
        Supporters of government interference will never have a conversation about Robert McChesney and Freedom Press. When you bring up the various people and organizations behind "net neutrality" the silence becomes deafening.

        Because this man, his organization, and his cohort's ideological beliefs give them away. These freedom phonies and their plans have been covered in various media formats, so much so, that their intentions are undeniable. Our forum naysayers would rather change the focus of the conversation.

        Comment

        • #64
          anthonyca
          Calguns Addict
          • May 2008
          • 6316

          Originally posted by Cbr1000Rider
          Comcast has been caught throttling before.. I have been throttled and it truely makes your blood boil.. especially when you call Comcast and ask if they have reinstated throttling and they laugh and say "yes, we have".

          If the FCC passed a TRUE "net neutrality" policy today, then good for them. People such as I, the consumer will benefit.

          If the FCC passed a net neutrality policy that is riddled with loopholes.. we may be doomed.
          Given their track record, this will not be good for us. Look at the FDA, SEC, FED, FDA. We will have some one from google, comcast, or another Internet company as a high level official in the FCC soon. I am willing to bet on it.
          https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

          Originally posted by Wherryj
          I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?

          Comment

          • #65
            Scratch705
            I need a LIFE!!
            • May 2009
            • 12520

            for all those that claim the private ISP's can do what they want. lets see how happy you are if they really do get their way, and anything gun related gets restricted to lower than 56K speeds such as this forum. where gun manufacturers get charged extra for having their pages up. or online firearm dealers such as midway, palmetto, etc are also charged higher rates due to their content of "firearms" which is unliked by the ISPs. in which then they pass on that extra fees to us consumers.

            or slowing down connection to netflix b/c it cuts into their video on demand services, or disables any web pages that complains about any one of their sub-companies.

            sometimes, private businesses do not have the consumers in mind, and the only recourse is the government. i also do like how some here complain that the government is all big and evil, but yet call those who serve for the government through the military are honorable or proud to have served. if anything joining PMCs should be more honorable to you since it is private organization, not a government entity.

            in this case of net neutrality, Jday has it right. there is no other competition, Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Time Warner Cable they own the connection to the internet. any little startup ISPs, rent access from these top ISPs since they are the keepers of the gateway. there is no workaround, there is no alternative, they are the only choice. they own all the cables running throughout the country. the only way a startup ISP can get around them is to lay new network cable lines, and what do you think that costs?
            Last edited by Scratch705; 01-01-2011, 5:18 PM.
            Originally posted by leelaw
            Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
            Originally posted by SoCalSig1911
            Preppers canceled my order this afternoon because I called them a disgrace... Not ordering from those clowns again.
            Originally posted by PrepperGunShop
            Truthfully, we cancelled your order because of your lack of civility and your threats ... What is a problem is when you threaten my customer service team and make demands instead of being civil. Plain and simple just don't be an a**hole (where you told us to shove it).

            Comment

            • #66
              bigmike82
              Bit Pusher
              CGN Contributor
              • Jan 2008
              • 3876

              "the only way a startup ISP can get around them is to lay new network cable lines, and what do you think that costs?"
              Oh, and by the way, good luck getting approval from your local government to lay those lines.

              Hell, the big boys have sued smaller cities who were going to offer broadband to their citizens. I mean...come on. This completely ludicrious. The notion that there is any semblence of fair competition when it comes to non-cell telephony, internet service and cable is completely insane.
              -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

              Comment

              • #67
                HotRails
                Senior Member
                • May 2008
                • 1491

                OK, help a layman understand here. I understand the part that states that this will prevent ISP's from interfering with content on the internet. But will this bill strengthen the FCC's power to interfere with content, as some suggest or will it only increase their power to prevent private entities from doing so.

                Comment

                • #68
                  bigmike82
                  Bit Pusher
                  CGN Contributor
                  • Jan 2008
                  • 3876

                  It prevents the companies from prioritizing traffic from various sites over others; it doesn't prevent them from prioritizing traffic *types*. So they can still implement QoS for VOIP, Video, and so forth. What they CAN'T do, if Net Neutrality is enacted, is favor democrat.com over calguns.net.

                  Which...by the way...is exactly what RRangel (and other NN opponents) is arguing for. NN isn't about the FCC controlling what passes on the internet...it's about preventing the major ISPs (who have enjoyed decades of monopolistic protections from the gov) from controlling what you can look at.
                  -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    botsdots
                    Member
                    • May 2008
                    • 236

                    My prediction:

                    Internet connectivity prices will skyrocket (like $100-$150/mo for standard cable internet) and the "Television" portion will continue to drop in price and be around $10/mo. Then all the low cost providers (Vonage, Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc.) won't look so attractive. Satellite companies won't be able to compete.

                    The last mile folks will get their money somehow.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    UA-8071174-1