 |
 |
It is currently Sat Feb 08, 2025 6:35 am |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page 15 of 23 |
[ 336 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 23 Next |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
The 'net is now neutered - FCC adopts new regs today
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
In Memoriam   Location: Graham Joined: Sun Sep 4, 2011 Posts: 2220 
|
State regulated health care.
State regulated utilities. Revisionist history. Naaa There no push towards socialism. Its all in your mind. Behave...Big Brother is watching you. _________________ What is a Waterbouget? It is that yellow thing in the middle, below my user name. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:41 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Admin   Location: Olympia, WA Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 Posts: 38379 Real Name: Dan
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next? Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys... |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:38 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Nova Laboratories Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 Posts: 19174 Real Name: Johnny 5
|
Massivedesign wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next? Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys... Coming to a cell carrier near you.... $200 for unlimited data, or no data at all... Courtesy of 'net neutrality'...  _________________ NO DISASSEMBLE! Thomas Paine wrote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:12 am |
|
|
|
|
In Memoriam Location: Graham Joined: Sun Sep 4, 2011 Posts: 2220
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: Massivedesign wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next? Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys... Coming to a cell carrier near you.... $200 for unlimited data, or no data at all... Courtesy of 'net neutrality'... That just the Fed tax...your actual bill will be higher. _________________ What is a Waterbouget? It is that yellow thing in the middle, below my user name. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:18 am |
|
|
|
|
In Memoriam  Location: Tacoma Wa Joined: Tue Oct 8, 2013 Posts: 16607 Real Name: George Bailey
|
TechnoWeenie wrote: Massivedesign wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next? Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys... Coming to a cell carrier near you.... $200 for unlimited data, OR NO DATA AT ALL... Courtesy of 'net neutrality'... Sceptic...... Jeeze. Want to bet its more.? $H.C.X3 for 1/3 the coverage = $INetX3 for 1/3 the coverage. Seems to be the going rate. You'll be paying what your paying now for just phone and maybe text. I've said it before. Create the demand...make it so people cant live / operate without it.... then Bend em Over. _________________ "Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will have no freedom and no one would have noticed."......Carl Marx "Let us Cross the river and sit in the shade of the trees" .....Stonewall Jackson T. Jefferson "....the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure" |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:30 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: King County Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 Posts: 4012
|
APA wrote:  Are you trolling? I hope that's not actually your source for news. That's like reading a tabloid. It is factually wrong. CurtisLemansky wrote: Fuck ya'll... FCC Net Neutrality is a Regulatory 'Trojan Horse,' EFF Says Funny though, how they seem to think Title II is better, yet this "win" is already showing signs of their premonition... Quote: [N]ow we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority. For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done. We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/f ... ty-big-win I agree that we need to ensure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority. Hopefully the 8 pages say "Private business's can't fuck up the internet, and neither can the FCC or the government." If some people try to use this to block porn on the internet and implement decency laws, all hell will break loose. As in, the next American Revolution. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:03 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Central FL Joined: Sun Apr 7, 2013 Posts: 3207
|
snozzberries wrote: I agree that we need to ensure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority. Hopefully the 8 pages say "Private business's can't fuck up the internet, and neither can the FCC or the government." . If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you... |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:35 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: King County Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 Posts: 4012
|
edogg wrote: snozzberries wrote: I agree that we need to ensure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority. Hopefully the 8 pages say "Private business's can't fuck up the internet, and neither can the FCC or the government." . If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you... It's the basis of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I hate to quote Wikipedia but it's convenient: Wikipedia wrote: After enumerating specific rights retained by the people in the first eight Amendments, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment summarily spelled out the principle of limited government. Together, these two last Amendments clarify the differences between the un-enumerated (as well as enumerated) rights of the people versus the expressly codified delegated powers of the federal government. The Ninth Amendment codified of the people do not have powers are expressly delegated to the federal government specifically by the Constitution. Government can do some things and not others. The Constitution limits the power of the government in several ways. It prohibits the government from directly interfering with certain key areas: conscience, expression and association. Other actions are forbidden to the federal government and are reserved to state or local governments. If only we could return to the constitution and get rid of the crap that is currently in the government. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:30 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8688 Real Name: Curtis
|
snozzberries wrote: edogg wrote: If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you... It's the basis of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.<snip> Serious question: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being perfect and 1 being terrible, how would you rate the government's track record of adhering to the limitations placed on its power by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution? How about for the Second Amendment, specifically? If the score you give for either question is less than 10, then I would strongly caution you to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to net neutrality regulations, or whatever the topic du jour is. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:39 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Stanwood Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 Posts: 1919 Real Name: Chris
|
The EFF says basically the same thing I've been saying and yet my tinfoil is too tight and I need to go lick comcast's boots.
For fucks sake. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:45 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Olympia Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 Posts: 16026 Real Name: Steve
|
rayjax82 wrote: The EFF says basically the same thing I've been saying and yet my tinfoil is too tight and I need to go lick comcast's boots. For fucks sake. But Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh and Fox didn't say it. _________________ "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." - William Buckley, Jr. "...steam, artillery and revolvers give to civilized man an irresistible power." -Perry Collins |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:54 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter / FFL Dealer  Location: Seattle Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 Posts: 3418
|
kf7mjf wrote: rayjax82 wrote: The EFF says basically the same thing I've been saying and yet my tinfoil is too tight and I need to go lick comcast's boots. For fucks sake. But Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh and Fox didn't say it. Bingo! There's a group of people who cannot be persuaded with "data" (sic), "facts", or "logic". The only sane thing to do is to just ignore them. Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist. -- Max Planck Since Faux "News" audience's median age is 68... well... |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:19 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: King County Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 Posts: 4012
|
Guns4Liberty wrote: snozzberries wrote: edogg wrote: If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you... It's the basis of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.<snip> Serious question: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being perfect and 1 being terrible, how would you rate the government's track record of adhering to the limitations placed on its power by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution? How about for the Second Amendment, specifically? If the score you give for either question is less than 10, then I would strongly caution you to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to net neutrality regulations, or whatever the topic du jour is. Oh I agree with you. I see the governments job to stop a business from doing monopolistic terrible shit. If the company won't stop doing it, then the only way to force them is with legislation. There literally was no other option. I'm still waiting to see the 8 pages, and still waiting to see what the Republicans that are in control of the House and the Senate write up on their own. Hopefully they will write something up that's better than Title 2. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: King County Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 Posts: 4012
|
Oh, if there was actually competition for internet access, none of this would be necessary because market forces would be the leverage to force business's to act properly.
|
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Oly Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 Posts: 105 Real Name: Shawn
|
AR15L wrote: Duke EB wrote: It means that Comcast can't charge Netflix extra money to get a "fast lane". Nor can they slow the internet speeds for everyone else and charge you a premium to get into the "fast lane" I just went to speedtest.net and came up with: 59.36 Mbps  I remember only paying for 20 Mbps through Comcrap. Is this already in effect??? Mine doubled as well 12 ms ping 124.41 Down 11.41 Up Wish I had this fast a connection when I used to play Quake or Unreal Tournament There are arguments for and against net neutrality I can see both sides but keeping Comcast from having free reign on what they charge seems like a good idea. |
| Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 15 of 23 |
[ 336 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 23 Next |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: foggood11, golddigger14s, steble01 and 46 guests |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|