Repercussions of court ruling against F.C.C. and Net Neutrality

[kamk2k8]

If the FCC apparently does not have the say to do this you really think a town govt would? and by the way almost nothing gets done in our govt and when something actually does happen it takes a while to change not just o ok lets get a new govt now...

 

[droidman101]

Sad day? Yeah maybe if your a socialist. It is their network and they can choose to do with it what they please. Government needs to stay out of private business. Look how well they did when they took over amtrak. For that matter look how great GM is doing! They just posted a 4.3 billion quarterly loss. Let companies run themselves and let consumers decide where to spend their money. That is what a free market economy and capitalism is based on
Not g overnment oversight.

You are missing the point completely. BEFORE this ruling no one had power over the internet, now any company with internet can control a portion of it. Now large companies have an even greater chamce of killing off smaller companies just by offering comcast or another company like it insane amounts of money. NOW the government will have to inverstigate claims of this, which actually will increase government control. AFTER comcast bribes the investigators, the small businesses will be gone.

I know what you are going to say about this, but everyone knows this is true. It is not just a cynical outlook on life. Just take a look around and you can see that most people cannot handle power. The tiger woods scandal basically shows that.

Edit: I agree with kamk on his posts

 

[Darkseider]

If the FCC apparently does not have the say to do this you really think a town govt would? and by the way almost nothing gets done in our govt and when something actually does happen it takes a while to change not just o ok lets get a new govt now...

Absolutely. It is much easier to effect change in local government than it is on a state or federal level. For instance. The town I live in had a mayor that went and signed a huge contract for building low income housing without holding a town meeting because of some kickbacks. This went to court and was beaten into submission and we, the people, won.

 

[Another_Dude]

I am not a fan of big government but I do think expecting equality on the internet, which is a huge facet of modern life, and a human right IMO, is not outside the bounds of the FCC.

I'm speechless.

 

[kamk2k8]

Hahahaha wow "I'm going to highlight words so I can get people to take what he is saying out of context" the human right is equality, not the internet, but nice try

 

[texasPI]

Sad day? Yeah maybe if your a socialist. It is their network and they can choose to do with it what they please. Government needs to stay out of private business. Look how well they did when they took over amtrak. For that matter look how great GM is doing! They just posted a 4.3 billion quarterly loss. Let companies run themselves and let consumers decide where to spend their money. That is what a free market economy and capitalism is based on
Not g overnment oversight.

You are missing the point completely. BEFORE this ruling no one had power over the internet, now any company with internet can control a portion of it. Now large companies have an even greater chamce of killing off smaller companies just by offering comcast or another company like it insane amounts of money. NOW the government will have to inverstigate claims of this, which actually will increase government control. AFTER comcast bribes the investigators, the small businesses will be gone.

I know what you are going to say about this, but everyone knows this is true. It is not just a cynical outlook on life. Just take a look around and you can see that most people cannot handle power. The tiger woods scandal basically shows that.

Edit: I agree with kamk on his posts

Uh...no, they are controlling network traffic and/or bandwith usage on THEIR infrastructure that they built and own. They are not blocking access to the internet even though everyone know that torrent site users are primarily there to download illegal content.

 

[texasPI]

I am not a fan of big government but I do think expecting equality on the internet, which is a huge facet of modern life, and a human right IMO, is not outside the bounds of the FCC.

I'm speechless.

Hahahaha wow "I'm going to highlight words so I can get people to take what he is saying out of context" the human right is equality, not the internet, but nice try

But it is what you said. How can it be a human right if not all humans have internet access? SO you're proposing all humans should have internet coverage?

Your opinion does not matter, it is outside the scope of the FCC as the court correctly ruled. If you don't like it then have congress pass a law granting the FCC authority. The court cannot give the FCC authority it does not have. Simple as that, end of discussion. To the other poster, it's not about political parties, right vs wrong etc. It's about the law and giving government powers it has not been given to it by the people.

 

[Darkseider]

Sad day? Yeah maybe if your a socialist. It is their network and they can choose to do with it what they please. Government needs to stay out of private business. Look how well they did when they took over amtrak. For that matter look how great GM is doing! They just posted a 4.3 billion quarterly loss. Let companies run themselves and let consumers decide where to spend their money. That is what a free market economy and capitalism is based on
Not g overnment oversight.

You are missing the point completely. BEFORE this ruling no one had power over the internet, now any company with internet can control a portion of it. Now large companies have an even greater chamce of killing off smaller companies just by offering comcast or another company like it insane amounts of money. NOW the government will have to inverstigate claims of this, which actually will increase government control. AFTER comcast bribes the investigators, the small businesses will be gone.

I know what you are going to say about this, but everyone knows this is true. It is not just a cynical outlook on life. Just take a look around and you can see that most people cannot handle power. The tiger woods scandal basically shows that.

Edit: I agree with kamk on his posts

LOL! Tiger Woods. The only reason he made the news is because we place too much emphasis on famous people. Can you imagine how many other married men cheat? :rofl3: His case wasn't about power but choice. HE chose to have affairs with other women. Those were his choices to make for whatever reason and no one elses. He needs to answer to no one except himself and his wife. He owes no obligation nor apology to the public.

 

[Darkseider]

I am not a fan of big government but I do think expecting equality on the internet, which is a huge facet of modern life, and a human right IMO, is not outside the bounds of the FCC.

I'm speechless.

Hahahaha wow "I'm going to highlight words so I can get people to take what he is saying out of context" the human right is equality, not the internet, but nice try

But it is what you said. How can it be a human right if not all humans have internet access? SO you're proposing all humans should have internet coverage?

Your opinion does not matter, it is outside the scope of the FCC as the court correctly ruled. If you don't like it then have congress pass a law granting the FCC authority. The court cannot give the FCC authority it does not have. Simple as that, end of discussion. To the other poster, it's not about political parties, right vs wrong etc. It's about the law and giving government powers it has not been given to it by the people.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[kamk2k8]

I am not a fan of big government but I do think expecting equality on the internet, which is a huge facet of modern life, and a human right IMO, is not outside the bounds of the FCC.

I'm speechless.

Hahahaha wow "I'm going to highlight words so I can get people to take what he is saying out of context" the human right is equality, not the internet, but nice try

But it is what you said. How can it be a human right if not all humans have internet access? SO you're proposing all humans should have internet coverage?

Your opinion does not matter, it is outside the scope of the FCC as the court correctly ruled. If you don't like it then have congress pass a law granting the FCC authority. The court cannot give the FCC authority it does not have. Simple as that, end of discussion. To the other poster, it's not about political parties, right vs wrong etc. It's about the law and giving government powers it has not been given to it by the people.

Do I need to type in all caps for you to read something other than what you want to see? I SAID THE HUMAN RIGHT IS EQUALITY...NOT THE INTERNET,

I don't see why you think ceding control of equality to private enterprise, which is something the "people" have little if any control over, is preferable to having the government protecting our individual rights, who should be doing that at its most fundamental level anyways, and is, theoretically, controlled by the people

 

[kamk2k8]

IThe problems in some areas like where I is that there really is only one choice and it is not due tot he town or village having an agreement with the provider. It has to do with there only being one company who bothered to put up the gear up here. If they block and limit certain sites just to prop up their own services then I have a problem with it. I don't have another choice of service provider.
That is the kind of thing this would have protected against.

Amen brother,

That is essentially the gist of my stance in this debate

 

[Another_Dude]

Let's say I live in a town that only has one gas station, they charge $10/gal, and it is over 100 miles to the next station.

Is it the government's/taxpayers responsibility to step in and make things better for me?

Is it my responsibility to either open my own gas station and charge $9/gal, refine my own fuel, or move to a location that suits me better?

 

[Darkseider]

I agree 100% ... in theory. It does not work that way in MANY US areas. If your only option for broadband internet is your cable provider (no DSL available at your address, your town has singed an exclusive deal) and the cable provider decides to block YouTube, Hulu and torrent traffic in order to prop up their Cable lineup or own streaming site, you are kinda screwed.

Yep! But then again it is the residents of that town that put that towns administration in place. If the administration of that town signed that deal then it is the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY of the residents to remove that administration in the next election and put one in that will support their interests.

The problems in some areas like where I live is that there really is only one choice and it is not due to the town or village having an agreement with the provider. It has to do with there only being one company who bothered to put up the gear up here. If they block and limit certain sites just to prop up their own services then I have a problem with it. I don't have another choice of service provider.
That is the kind of thing this would have protected against.

This ISN'T about content blocking or filtering. This is about bandwith throttling to ensure a Quality of Service. No more, no less. Essentially sure you can grab your torrents at 10 Mbps BUT if the network traffic gets too high they throttle down those torrents to 2 Mbps to ensure that the rest of the network remains fast and stable. That's it. Nothing else to see here. Comcast built the network with their money and their investors money. It belongs to THEM and it is up to them how to best administrate the network to ensure a good quality of service. The government has no right to intervene in the administration or operation of a privately held company. PERIOD.

 

[kamk2k8]

Let's say I live in a town that only has one gas station, they charge $10/gal, and it is over 100 miles to the next station.

Is it the government's/taxpayers responsibility to step in and make things better for me?

Is it my responsibility to either open my own gas station and charge $9/gal, refine my own fuel, or move to a location that suits me better?

It's called the Sherman Antitrust act, it prevents monopolies from price gouging consumers, which they would, and in the past, have...

It's a pretty big deal and vastly improves the socio-economic landscape for our citizens

 

[Darkseider]

Let's say I live in a town that only has one gas station, they charge $10/gal, and it is over 100 miles to the next station.

Is it the government's/taxpayers responsibility to step in and make things better for me?

Is it my responsibility to either open my own gas station and charge $9/gal, refine my own fuel, or move to a location that suits me better?

Well there are consumer laws in place for price gouging already which were established in 1972. For a quick read up here ya go.

Consumer Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia