Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:35:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 10:28:09 AM EST by AJ-IN-JAX]
Just a BREAKING NEWS headline over at the WSJ right now.......


ETA:

By AMY SCHATZ

The head of the Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules to prevent Internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic, a move that could set off a battle with phone and cable companies that don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.


In a speech Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to outline proposals for new rules that would require Internet providers to treat all legal Web traffic equally, according to people familiar with the proposal. The rules would also be extended to include wireless arms of giants like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. as well as cable providers like Comcast Corp.

Currently, some wireless Internet providers prevent consumers from using some bandwidth-heavy Internet applications, like video file-sharing services, because of concerns they will slow networks.

If adopted, rules to promote so-called net neutrality could be a win for consumers who want to get movies online or access big data files, and in turn benefit Internet companies like Google Inc. that want to offer new video or other services online. Internet commerce companies have been among the most vocal supporters of government action to prevent selective hobbling of Internet traffic, and they welcomed President Barack Obama's pledges during the campaign to enact stronger "net neutrality" rules.

The FCC currently has four so-called net neutrality principles, which call on Internet providers to treat all legal Internet data equally. The FCC has sought to prohibit companies from deliberately blocking or slowing traffic, based on those principles, but it hasn't adopted formal rules.

Some big internet access providers have fought back, saying they have a right to control traffic on networks they own and operate. Last year, Comcast Corp. challenged an FCC decision that it had violated the agency's net neutrality principles on the grounds that the FCC had never formally adopted such rules. That case is still pending in a federal appeals court. Mr. Genachowski's proposal is to turn the FCC's guidelines into rules, and erase the uncertainty over whether the rules apply to wireless carriers.

Wireless companies have argued that net neutrality rules don't apply to them and that they shouldn't, since data-heavy applications like Internet video can cripple their networks. The FCC's proposed rules are expected to say that the agency plans to take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to someone familiar with the plan.

President Obama had pledged to the technology community that he would support net neutrality, and public interest groups have been waiting for the FCC to get the ball rolling on new rules.

"To me, net neutrality is a signature issue of the president in a tech policy area," said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, an public interest group which has pressed for strong net neutrality rules. "He's frequently endorsed the need for net neutrality. The record is by any measure full and expansive and the time for action is now."

Mr. Genachowski is expected to announce plans for the agency to open a formal rule-making process on the issue at its October meeting. The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the FCC's five-person board. Its three Democratic commissioners support net neutrality.

An FCC spokeswoman confirmed Genachowski will speak on Monday.








FUCK OBAMA & FUCK THE FCC!!!
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:37:21 AM EST
What they cannot pass; they will do by regulation through the back door with the 'appointees'.

It is a very dangerous path that they tread upon...
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:40:16 AM EST
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.

It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:47:09 AM EST
Never hold water if challenged.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:51:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.

It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists.


and yet they keep getting away with it.

kind of like a child who keeps pushing, and pushing, and pushing that proverbial envelope. When are we, the taxpayers, going to bend them over our laps? I hope - for the betterment of our republic - that it happens in `10 and `12 as a clear and reasounding "GET OUT."
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:55:12 AM EST
Rush, hannity, Beck, and Levin, along with Fox will focus on this. And that will lower the heat on whatever topic they would normally have been hitting. Takes the heat off healthcare, off acorn, off corruption and czars.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:56:10 AM EST
Holy shit.

THIS IS NOT GOOD
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:58:28 AM EST
Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.

It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists.


The violence that nazi pelosi was talking about in San Fran in the late 70's WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS. A leftist murdered the mayor and that other guy. But for her to LIE and blame it on conservatives is par for a LYING LEFTIST CUNT.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:59:27 AM EST
In a speech Monday, Mr. Genachowski is expected to lay out his rational for the new rules, which would extend so-called net neutrality principles over wireless companies and would set a new rule requiring all Internet providers to use "reasonable" network-management practices in dealing with Internet traffic, according to people familiar with the proposal.

The FCC currently has four net neutrality principles, which require Internet providers to treat legal Internet data equally and prohibit companies from deliberately blocking or slowing traffic.


So what is wrong with this?

Phone carriers don't get to decide who you can and can't call, or what you talk about, why should ISP's?

Data is data, it shouldn't matter if its a torrent, chat, music or whatever.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:02:17 AM EST
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:06:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By jvic:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?


I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:13:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By snakes19:
Originally Posted By jvic:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?


I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate.


This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine."
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:17:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By snakes19:
Originally Posted By jvic:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?


I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate.


This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine."




We'll see what it leads to.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:17:33 AM EST
Net neutrality means that your ISP cannot deliberately slow down traffic to any specific site. Why is this a bad thing?
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:18:45 AM EST
I don't know what I am missing, but I don't see this as a bad thing.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:20:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By snakes19:
Originally Posted By jvic:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?


I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate.


This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine."

You mean I have to put the Pmag covers back on?
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:22:12 AM EST
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:23:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 9:23:41 AM EST by tyman]

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

Lmao; no, they didn't.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:25:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 9:28:50 AM EST by Schadenfreuda]
FUCK THAT???


Edited...Ok, I just read it. While I disagree whole-heartedly with almost ANY Gubmint laws concerning most anything, I was hard-pressed to find something sinister-evil about "Net Neutrality"

Please school me on it.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:25:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?


Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:25:51 AM EST
Yeah, I dont see anything wrong with this.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:26:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:27:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 9:28:15 AM EST by Sumo]
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:30:54 AM EST
This may turn out to be a good thing for us lowly net surfers. Probably more consistent performance.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:33:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with.


The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do.

Look, I found a problem with it
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:35:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By agillig:

Originally Posted By scotchymcdrinkerbean:
Originally Posted By snakes19:
Originally Posted By jvic:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?


I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate.


This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine."

You mean I have to put the Pmag covers back on?


You made me chuckle, thanks!
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:35:47 AM EST
TO ARMS! TO ARMS!.............oh......hmm...... nevermind.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:36:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:38:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By cwebbcam:
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with.


The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do.

Look, I found a problem with it
No, i tis government telling a business that they provide the services which they said they would give us.

Since some of us live in the sticks, some of us only have access to one internet company. Imagine what would happen if that company wouldn't allow us to access Drudge, Townhall.com, arfcom, FNC.com...........

Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:41:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sumo:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?


Oh dear....

The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too.

You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:41:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?


Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved.


Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:42:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By cwebbcam:
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?

Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with.


The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do.

Look, I found a problem with it
No, i tis government telling a business that they provide the services which they said they would give us.

Since some of us live in the sticks, some of us only have access to one internet company. Imagine what would happen if that company wouldn't allow us to access Drudge, Townhall.com, arfcom, FNC.com...........



Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:44:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?


Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved.


Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it.




Obviously you don't understand what you read.

ARFCOM strikes again.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:44:42 AM EST
Net Neutrality, I thought I was OK with that?

-JTP
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:46:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By Partisan:
Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.

It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists.


The violence that nazi pelosi was talking about in San Fran in the late 70's WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS. A leftist murdered the mayor and that other guy. But for her to LIE and blame it on conservatives is par for a LYING LEFTIST CUNT.


"Accuse the enemy of what you do." - Lenin
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:47:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By AngeredKabar:
Originally Posted By Sumo:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?


Oh dear....

The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too.

You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope.


The problem with this logic is that it is very liberal. You are deciding what AT&T has to do with their money just as the liberals are deciding what we should have to do with our money.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:47:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By Mateba:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?


Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved.


Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it.




Obviously you don't understand what you read.

ARFCOM strikes again.


I'm fairly sure that I understand this better than you do.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:48:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By AngeredKabar:
Originally Posted By Sumo:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?


Oh dear....

The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too.

You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope.


So those greedy ISP's should continue to outlay money for network improvments till they make a reasonable profit? Or maybe they should make no profit and just keep upgrading the network for a minority of their user base?

Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:49:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 9:51:16 AM EST by rippersde50]
Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?


Apparently not....

WASHINGTON – Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will propose new rules that would prevent Internet providers from selectively blocking Internet traffic, a move that could set off a battle between open-Internet proponents and phone and cable companies which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.

In a speech Monday, Mr. Genachowski is expected to lay out his rationale for the new rules, which would set a new rule requiring all Internet providers, including wireless carriers, to use "reasonable" network-management practices in dealing with Internet traffic, according to people familiar with the proposal.

View Full Image

Getty Images

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at his June confirmation hearing
The FCC currently has four net neutrality principles, which require Internet providers to treat legal Internet data equally and prohibit companies from deliberately blocking or slowing traffic.

President Barack Obama had pledged to the technology community that he would support net neutrality.

Mr. Genachowski's proposal is designed to give the agency's net neutrality principles more legal heft in the face of possible challenges by Internet providers. Last year, Comcast Corp. challenged an FCC decision that it had violated the agency's net neutrality principles on the grounds that the FCC had never formally adopted such rules. That case is still pending in a federal appeals court.

The FCC proposal would essentially codify its existing principles and erase any uncertainty over whether the rules apply to wireless carriers. Wireless companies have argued that net neutrality rules don't apply to them and that they shouldn't, since some data-heavy applications can slow their networks.

Mr. Genachowski is expected to announce plans for the agency to open a formal rulemaking on the issue at its October meeting. The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the FCC's five-person board. Its three Democratic commissioners support net neutrality.

Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:51:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 9:53:37 AM EST by beltfed74]

Originally Posted By Partisan:
Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.

It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists.


The violence that nazi pelosi was talking about in San Fran in the late 70's WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS. A leftist murdered the mayor and that other guy. But for her to LIE and blame it on conservatives is par for a LYING LEFTIST CUNT.


I thought a councilmen murdered Milk.

ETA Dan White was a city supervisor and not a left extremist.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:51:05 AM EST
Hers a few scenarios to choose from. Youtube pays for its internet connection. You pay for your internet connection. Many users on comcast start watching youtube which uses up alot of bandwidth. Comcast tells youtube they want money to help pay for youtubes content or comcast will block youtube. The problem is comcast is upset because you are using the bandwidth you paid for. Comcast doesn't expect everyone to use their bandwidth at once. Its called oversubscribing. Comcast pays for 100mbps of bandwidth and then sells it to 100 customers advertising 10mbps speed. See the problem? They just sold 1000mbps of bandwidth when they only have 100mbps. This is how its done throughout the industry.

But see where this is going? Maybe vontage pays comcast money to give their traffic priority on comcasts network and degrade skype.

Aside from asking content providers for money some ISPs like comcast have started throttling specific internet services. If I pay for 10mbps you should get 10mbps no matter what you are doing with it. Boo hoo to comcast if they don't like it. They are using heavy downloaders as a scape goat as to not provide the bandwidth they are selling.

This deep inspection of network traffic may disqualify them from common carrier status. This is widely argued. But if you provide telecom service you are not liable for bad things transmitted across your lines such as viruses, illegal content, etc. BUT if you become aware of such things and you allow them through then you are liable for allowing it to happen. If ISPs start using deep inspection technology that provide them this information then they may be required to stop it or report it to the authorities. To stop or otherwise report it would require more resources than they are willing to put into it.

ISPs only need to pay attention to the destination IP (and maybe the source) and route the packet. IMHO.


-Foxxz
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:53:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Harvster:
TO ARMS! TO ARMS!.............oh......hmm...... nevermind.


But but .....


"President Barack Obama had pledged to the technology community that he would support net neutrality."




WE MUST RESIST IT !!! OBAMA SUPPORTS IT !!!! I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS , OPPOSE IT !!!!




Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:53:24 AM EST
When we start seeing Mark Lloyd's name in some articles, be worried.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:54:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sumo:
Originally Posted By AngeredKabar:
Originally Posted By Sumo:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?


Oh dear....

The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too.

You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope.


So those greedy ISP's should continue to outlay money for network improvments till they make a reasonable profit? Or maybe they should make no profit and just keep upgrading the network for a minority of their user base?



They are running to the government for "help".

Think a little man.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:55:14 AM EST
My friends:

When you see something like this, ask yourself first and foremost:

WHO/WHAT is the governmental entity is adopting this legal rule.

DO THEY have any right to be exercising compulsive force of the state into THIS SUBJECT MATTER?

And,

If a precedent for this kind of regulatory action on the subject matter in question is set, how easy would it be to twist or abuse that power in future actions that may be related to the same subject matter but used for bad purposes?

Here, I say that the FCC regulatory process (i.e., not Congressional action subject to democratic accountability) is entering into a topic –– the control of what ISP's transmit over their wires –– that once established as a precedent in terms of use of power will be likely to lead to abuses.

Some day in the future you will hear someone say "THE FCC HAS HAD AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ISP TRANSMISSIONS OF CONTENT FOR A DECADE. THIS BILL REQUIRING THEM TO FILTER SUBVERSIVE SITES IS SIMPLY A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT POWER."

Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:55:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Mateba:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Strykewolf:
Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
WTF?

Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article?


Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved.


Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it.




Obviously you don't understand what you read.

ARFCOM strikes again.


I'm fairly sure that I understand this better than you do.


You own AT&T? Or does being a network tech make it your network? It's not a liberal thing but people here always manage to twist anything they don't like that way. Liberalism opposes the free market. NN ensures a free market. A free market requires regulation of anti-competitive practices, always has, always will.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:57:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 9:58:55 AM EST by ANGST]
Originally Posted By Foxxz:
Hers a few scenarios to choose from. Youtube pays for its internet connection. You pay for your internet connection. Many users on comcast start watching youtube which uses up alot of bandwidth. Comcast tells youtube they want money to help pay for youtubes content or comcast will block youtube. The problem is comcast is upset because you are using the bandwidth you paid for. Comcast doesn't expect everyone to use their bandwidth at once. Its called oversubscribing. Comcast pays for 100mbps of bandwidth and then sells it to 100 customers advertising 10mbps speed. See the problem? They just sold 1000mbps of bandwidth when they only have 100mbps. This is how its done throughout the industry.

But see where this is going? Maybe vontage pays comcast money to give their traffic priority on comcasts network and degrade skype.

Aside from asking content providers for money some ISPs like comcast have started throttling specific internet services. If I pay for 10mbps you should get 10mbps no matter what you are doing with it. Boo hoo to comcast if they don't like it. They are using heavy downloaders as a scape goat as to not provide the bandwidth they are selling.

This deep inspection of network traffic may disqualify them from common carrier status. This is widely argued. But if you provide telecom service you are not liable for bad things transmitted across your lines such as viruses, illegal content, etc. BUT if you become aware of such things and you allow them through then you are liable for allowing it to happen. If ISPs start using deep inspection technology that provide them this information then they may be required to stop it or report it to the authorities. To stop or otherwise report it would require more resources than they are willing to put into it.

ISPs only need to pay attention to the destination IP (and maybe the source) and route the packet. IMHO.


-Foxxz


Also this prevents this such as Comcast removing all the Ads from say .... ARFCOM , and replacing them with their own if you are a Comcast subscriber.


How would ARFCOMers feel about that ?


I work with this technology every day Arbor , Cloudshield, Narus (particularly scary) , you would be amazed at what we can do now .
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 9:59:21 AM EST
What am I missing here?

Does this mean that I don't have to use "JobRelatedStuff.com" to get onto Arfcom when I'm sitting in an airport any more?
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 10:04:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2009 10:08:20 AM EST by StandardDeviation]
Net Neutrality is a good thing. The major telcoms have for a while been scheming to turn the internet into TV - where basically if you have a website you have to pay the telcom provider to 'carry' your site otherwise they throttle bandwidth to it. Net Neutrality tells them that they can't do that. The government (DOD) invented and built the internet specifically so that American computer networks can reliably communicate in the event of a disaster - they have the authority to tell the telcoms to fuck off with their schemes.


ETA: I typically hate the government, but the FCC is one of the 'good' government agencies IMO, like the FAA and NWS. They try to encourage public communication and related technology. Anything bad they do is generally attributable to Congress.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 10:08:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
What am I missing here?

Does this mean that I don't have to use "JobRelatedStuff.com" to get onto Arfcom when I'm sitting in an airport any more?


No.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 10:11:34 AM EST
Too bad the FCC has no jurisdiction over the internet... HA HA.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top