Screw Verizon, as far as I'm concerned take the board out and tar and feather them. Title II is a bunch of BS, and unless you have ever been forced to work under the practices, constraints, giveaways, and all around horrible business conditions it creates then you don't know a da@mn thing about what you're talking about.
Screw Verizon, as far as I'm concerned take the board out and tar and feather them. Title II is a bunch of BS, and unless you have ever been forced to work under the practices, constraints, giveaways, and all around horrible business conditions it creates then you don't know a da@mn thing about what you're talking about.
Finally something we agree on.
Still, Verizon persued the case in federal court and won.
The court said the FCC couldn't stop Verizon from blocking sites if they are held as title 1 but they could under title 2.
So, that is what they are now, a title 2 common carrier.
And all because they saw a way to jack their profit margins up by throttling and blocking.
I haven't a bit of pity for them.
The stockholders should bounce the entire management.
Net neutrality will not: increase your broadband speed / increase deployment where it is not already (it'll probably cut it) / increase reliability / or lower you bill (it'll probably increase that too). But I can almost guarantee you'll find tucked away in it verbiage that will allow FCC oversight of content. It'll be something along the lines of "for the social good" or "to promote fairness" or some other PC sounding BS. That will allow the FCC to shut down non politically correct sites that don't tote the party line.
That is what Rush Limbaugh claimed on the radio the other day.
He said if MSNBC doesn't get enough traffic the FCC will throttle the fox news website.
Course, Rush is an idiot blowhard too.
If you mean the groups like your sister's, I'll throw in with you on that, but there are groups and people from all parts of the political spectrum on both sides of this issue. The most cogent thought I've heard on this whole issue came from Tom Merritt (who's in the video I posted above) when he said if you think net neutrality is a partisan political issue, then you don't understand the question.
The actual solution to the NN problem is competition, but how do you get that in what doesn't even resemble a free market?
I wouldn't know about Rush because I don't listen to him or any of the other talking heads. I'm basing my guess about censorship on what I've heard politicians espousing (from both parties but mostly the left) for the last couple of decades.
Of course you cherry picked what your wanted us to hear.
In actuality Rush was making a joke that was an analogy to net neutrality.
There is a solution that would work.
The FCC receives it's regulatory authority from congressional statute.
Title 1 and title 2 regulation categories are part of the framework in that statute.
Congress can write a new telecommunications bill that redefines title 1 category to allow the FCC to prevent throttling and blocking of internet traffic.
That way the ISPs could go back into category 1 and avoid the more onerous provisions of title 2 regulation.
That telecommunications bill is going to cost them though.
It costs a lot more money to lobby 535 congressman and senators than it costs to lobby 5 FCC commissioners.
Don't you really mean that the "them" of which you refer will be the American consumer?
Of course.
All that lobbying money is derived from their customers bills.
They wouldn't be so free with it if it was their own personal money.
Similar threads
