Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I simply don't understand how anyone (apart from the ISP corporations) can oppose net neutrality.
Yet another example of voting against your own best interests in the name of ill-informed partisan politics.
Crazy stuff.
You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers
Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?
I didn't do anything. I happen to be an American citizen being adversely affected by this "net neutrality." I had no say over what went on during that vote. None of us did. But you are too blind and naive to realize that.
What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?
How exactly are you currently being adversely affected by "net neutrality"?
How? Have you not been paying any attention this entire time? When this thing goes into full force, my internet speed will be slowed down, the government will use this as a way to milk more taxes from the public. The company that provides my internet will have to hire a legal teams to comply with these new regulations, and thusly they have to pass on the costs of those legal teams on to the customers. Our speech will be regulated, content will be able to be deemed acceptable or unacceptable according to the government's own imperatorious whims.
Naturally, I gather you see nothing wrong with this, so I might be just wasting my time here in the first place.
I didn't mean to snap you you Doc, but just to know that people are supporting this thing is mind boggling to me. Everything about it tells me it is wrong. The internet was the last bastion of unfettered free speech in America, free from taxes, free from regulation. Now that appears to be gone forever.
I simply don't understand how anyone (apart from the ISP corporations) can oppose net neutrality.
Yet another example of voting against your own best interests in the name of ill-informed partisan politics.
Crazy stuff.
And who are you to determine people's best interests? Buzz off.
View attachment 37249Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.
Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks
Damn, I only have to pay $30 and am suppose to get 1.50 Mps download speeds, I don't, last speed test was .89 Mps. I have Peoplepc which is also Earthlink but they have their own home page.
Note my upload and download speeds. My son is playing on line video game right now...So that slows it down a bit.
Here's something that many here need to view. Please learn what you are talking about.
The FCC s new net neutrality rules explained in 172 seconds - Vox
Maybe this can be an issue in the next election and maybe this time you and your fellow citizens will show up now that you found something that matters to you.You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers
Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?
I didn't do anything. I happen to be an American citizen being adversely affected by this "net neutrality." I had no say over what went on during that vote. None of us did. But you are too blind and naive to realize that.
What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?
How exactly are you currently being adversely affected by "net neutrality"?
How? Have you not been paying any attention this entire time? When this thing goes into full force, my internet speed will be slowed down, the government will use this as a way to milk more taxes from the public. The company that provides my internet will have to hire a legal teams to comply with these new regulations, and thusly they have to pass on the costs of those legal teams on to the customers. Our speech will be regulated, content will be able to be deemed acceptable or unacceptable according to the government's own imperatorious whims.
Naturally, I gather you see nothing wrong with this, so I might be just wasting my time here in the first place.
We can't control you if you just log off.What a total joke, but I understand,you are all for more control over our lives and messaging, as long as it is within your own philosophical realm.Here's something that many here need to view. Please learn what you are talking about.
The FCC s new net neutrality rules explained in 172 seconds - Vox
We can't control you if you just log off.What a total joke, but I understand,you are all for more control over our lives and messaging, as long as it is within your own philosophical realm.Here's something that many here need to view. Please learn what you are talking about.
The FCC s new net neutrality rules explained in 172 seconds - Vox
The GOP control every branch of govenment except the white house. Anything that gets through is because the republicans want it to.This goes much deeper than just net neutrality, honey, and you well know that.We can't control you if you just log off.What a total joke, but I understand,you are all for more control over our lives and messaging, as long as it is within your own philosophical realm.Here's something that many here need to view. Please learn what you are talking about.
The FCC s new net neutrality rules explained in 172 seconds - Vox
I didn't mean to snap you you Doc, but just to know that people are supporting this thing is mind boggling to me. Everything about it tells me it is wrong. The internet was the last bastion of unfettered free speech in America, free from taxes, free from regulation. Now that appears to be gone forever.
That's the thing - it doesn't "appear" that way to me.
Or anyone else I know.
It only "appears" that way to you because you've swallowed all the hype that's been fed to you.
Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) is not technically a 'phone' service. I don't know for certain, but it may not even qualify as telecommunications. Though it seems to Me that it is covered that way.The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.
Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:
Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.
...
Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.
And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:
We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)
...
Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.
So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.
That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.
I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.
Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.
Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?
Couldn't the corporations that own the net squash left leaning pro labor websites?I didn't mean to snap you you Doc, but just to know that people are supporting this thing is mind boggling to me. Everything about it tells me it is wrong. The internet was the last bastion of unfettered free speech in America, free from taxes, free from regulation. Now that appears to be gone forever.
That's the thing - it doesn't "appear" that way to me.
Or anyone else I know.
It only "appears" that way to you because you've swallowed all the hype that's been fed to you.
The perceived problem is that without "net neutrality" (fixed by government control) innovation in the Internet will be stifled and controlled by .monopolies.
However, in reality we have not seen any significant adverse affect. In fact just the opposite. We have seen tremendous innovation in the internet services. I am doing things with my internet today that I wasn't doing a few years ago as is everybody else.
The fear is that government control will lead to taxation and political judgements as to the use of the internet. The government does not have good track record of ever doing the right thing because it is led by bureaucrats elected by special interest groups and that always leads to inefficiency and corruption.
For instance, the IRS is suppose to be neutral but we saw what happen when an elected bureaucrat decided to use it to curtail a grass roots political movement, didn't we? Imagine some future Obama deciding that he doesn't want the Tea Party to have access to the internet because they oppose his agenda. Just like Obama and the IRS now that President (or Congress) will have the tools to use the internet for political oppression.
That is what we are afraid of. Why give the government more power than it already has? Why give it the ability to tax us more? Aren't we taxed enough already?
Of course this all being done by the FCC through the rule making process which excludes the American people from getting a vote. This oppression is what happens when three Democrats and two Republicans have power over the American people.
It was thee FCC's grab at remaining relevant and therefore maintaining a seat at the tax payer dollar trough. It is also obie's way of making sure only the right message gets out there for thee rubes to soak up.This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.
Uh, you need to educate yourself.
Net neutrality is the OPPOSITE of what you say.
You should also research who controls the FCC.
When has the government ever taken over any aspect of life and it's gotten more free and cheaper? Fucking ever.
How can you be so fucking stupid as to think government regulation is going to make the internet better than it is?
Couldn't the corporations that own the net squash left leaning pro labor websites?
All the best sites will end up on page 100 and be really slow.
