FCC VS COMCAST
0
what do you all think of the ordeal how comcast is cheating people out of monies? and the FCC is trying to help us FINALLY
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010/04/fcc-vs-comcast-on-net-neutrality-fcc-loses.html
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010/04/fcc-vs-comcast-on-net-neutrality-fcc-loses.html
0
I read the page from the link, and the link on that page that was about comcast. looked like QQ to me. the author went both ways. crying about comcast limiting band width, and crying about the FCC encrochment on net neutrality. i couldn't tell what the authors point was.
then again, i been up for near 24 hours, and i'm half in the bag, so...
then again, i been up for near 24 hours, and i'm half in the bag, so...
0
Personally I'm in favor of what the FCC was trying to accomplish but, I don't think their quite the right agency to use this but, for the life of me I can't recall another agency off the top of my head (like shaggwell I have been up for a while as well).
I think the idea of limiting the internet is a dangerous idea. First it's the competitors, then they would limit access to political websites. The end result is outright blackmail. The companies can force web hosts or website owners to pay unregulated sums of money (one month it can be ten bucks, next month it's $10,000). That is made worse by the fact that comcast and similar regional cable monopolies don't have much competition to keep them legit. Imagine if your local monopoly electric company sent you a letter saying that it'll cost you 10k on top of your normal bill in order to use their electrical grid.
I believe the internet to be the equivalent to the newspaper in the 17 and 1800's. The idea of allowing a company to control the information we can see would have unprecedented impacts on our society. Not to mention that we can end up with a heavily regulated and fire walled system like China with just a few crooked dealings between companies and politicians.
The internet holds too much information to let someone with something to gain control the throttle.
I think the idea of limiting the internet is a dangerous idea. First it's the competitors, then they would limit access to political websites. The end result is outright blackmail. The companies can force web hosts or website owners to pay unregulated sums of money (one month it can be ten bucks, next month it's $10,000). That is made worse by the fact that comcast and similar regional cable monopolies don't have much competition to keep them legit. Imagine if your local monopoly electric company sent you a letter saying that it'll cost you 10k on top of your normal bill in order to use their electrical grid.
I believe the internet to be the equivalent to the newspaper in the 17 and 1800's. The idea of allowing a company to control the information we can see would have unprecedented impacts on our society. Not to mention that we can end up with a heavily regulated and fire walled system like China with just a few crooked dealings between companies and politicians.
The internet holds too much information to let someone with something to gain control the throttle.
0
I find it horribly, horribly ironic that one simple loophole, one simple phrase, is all that is preventing this from ending. Simply changing the definition of broadband internet would stop Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon in their tracks.
But Congress isn't going to change that because their lobbying power is too strong. Thankfully I doubt none of this could take affect until next year. So there is plenty of time to appeal the appeal.
But Congress isn't going to change that because their lobbying power is too strong. Thankfully I doubt none of this could take affect until next year. So there is plenty of time to appeal the appeal.