Phone Scoop

printed December 14, 2017
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=15264&fh=3286362

Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Chief Says Title II Is the Way Forward for Net Neutrality

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 19 replies

Can't wait...

cainthecavebear

Feb 4, 2015, 12:40 PM
...for a Federal court to shove these rules down Wheeler's throat. They already did it once, and hopefully the new Congress will keep its promise to do sonething about this bureacratic control freak.
...
brad162

Feb 4, 2015, 1:28 PM
Well unfortunately the private companies as usual have shown they cannot responsibly handle any public infrastructure, so this in the end will be a good thing.

This will ensure the caps are properly measured (no more of this ghost data crap), plans are fairly priced (see what some people are paying for data? it's ludicrous).

In this day and age the internet is parallel to our success as a nation and letting something that's that important be self-regulated and privatized will only hurt us
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 4, 2015, 3:28 PM
"Public infrastructure"... Uh... NO.
Contrary to what your state sponsored socialist propaganda has taught you, there is nothing public about the internet. I know the Fed has programmed you into thinking that it owns everything but it doesn't. This is nothing more than theft.
If you really think the FCC is going to fix your so-called "ghost data" problem, you are in for a rude awakening.
Not only is your statement completely false on its face, governments have repeatedly shown that they have no business running anything and are almost always completely incapable of solving problems.
By the way, plans ARE fairly priced. Its called competition for a reason. All the carriers are competing.
"Parallel to the success of our nation".
Hogwas...
(continues)
...
meager73

Feb 4, 2015, 5:16 PM
If they don't want to be regulated sell your government spectrum, pay back all those network subsidies, payback all the proven scams and price fixing to the public and gtfo of the industry and all the fanbois like above and move on.. simple enough.
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 4, 2015, 7:50 PM
1st of all... Dont call me a fanboy and I wont call you a government teet sucker.

2nd..."Government spectrum"? What a joke. So because government claims to own naturally occurring frequencies it did not create, companies are beholden to this make believe scam? Don't think so.

3rd... The networks are "subsidized" because the government wants that device in your hand. Farms are subsidized too, so I guess the government owns those farms now? Oh woops...there goes your weak theory.

If you love to be owned and controlled so much, head on down to Cuba. I think I will stay here and fight the government teet suckers.
...
sp_5015

Feb 4, 2015, 5:39 PM
I think you lost everyone at "state sponsored socialist propaganda". I'm thinking you're a troll that works for one of the big communications companies and just spewing garbage?! "The Fed" doesn't own anything. We elect officials to represent us (the people) and federal assets. Whether they do or don't is another discussion, but elected officials are chosen to act in our best interests. At its face, my phone & Internet bills are much higher than other countries' around the world have...not to mention better service in some cases for these better prices. For the normal functioning of business, education, government, healthcare, defense, I would say that the internet is absolutely necessary for the success of our nation. To deny that is insane...
(continues)
...
nicolasl46

Feb 4, 2015, 6:21 PM
You sir took the words out of my mouth.
...
sp_5015

Feb 5, 2015, 5:20 PM
haha why thank you my good sir
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 5, 2015, 6:29 PM
That's so sweet. Two completely incorrect people congratulating themselves on being wrong. I think you guys should probably hug to seal the deal on your bromance. Laughing
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 4, 2015, 8:03 PM
Your ancestors are ashamed of you.
Again, I can only think 15 year old girls addicted to facebook would claim internet is necessary for national success.
Let's be clear, there is NO RIGHT TO INTERNET SERVICE.
I do not now nor have I ever worked for a communications company. I dont have to be an employee to know right from wrong and understand government overreach.

As far as the state sponsored propaganda comment...
Its a fact. The Federal government took over our education system several decades ago. That in of itself is Socialism. We don't even have to go into the propaganda that system spews to know that this is true. Add in the propaganda and lies and we get people like you... A wonderful example of a propagandized victim. Congr...
(continues)
...
sp_5015

Feb 5, 2015, 5:27 PM
"I dont have to be an employee to know right from wrong and understand government overreach."

You forgot the apostrophe in the word "don't" above. Maybe if you went to the private sector school a few decades ago that never existed instead of a socialist school, you would've known that.
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 5, 2015, 6:27 PM
Oh that is rich. Somehow you think that because I didn't feel like typing an apostrophe in my quick response to your uneducated gibberish, that completely invalidates my point.
Couldn't come up with a valid argument? Didn't think so. You are not the first person to make a sad, pathetic, feeble attempt to discredit me. Keep trying though. I'm sure you need the practice.

P.S. Did I get my punctuation correct for you? Do you think I give a crap?
...
Slammer

Feb 4, 2015, 8:28 PM
No doubt government has issues. However, under US law, RF spectrum is deemed public property. "Government" nor private sector holders of spectrum(such as wireless carriers) cannot be in control of these licensed assets. But, government can represent the public interests in properly underlining the licenses and propose regulations by the FCC onto the ISPs to insure fair access without restrictions or biased provisions.

Does it not strike you funny that only the carriers seem to be against any regulations imposed by such entity as the government? They make millions on throttling, extra hidden charges, mysterious mistakes, Etc.

Regulations do tend to raise prices and nobody likes price hikes. However, I would rather pay a small amount mo...
(continues)
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 4, 2015, 9:26 PM
Well at least you are civil in your points... Others like to start off with insults.

You are wrong about "only carriers" disagree with this. Most content providers disagree with it as well. When they have tons of digital content to stream to paying customers, why don't they have the right to pay for a "fatter channel"? Why does any entity have the right, or power in this case, to deny that arrangement between consenting participants?
You cannot even make the argument that "smaller companies can't compete". That isnt true. A smaller provider wouldn't need it. If they do need it, then they can afford it or look for investors who agree that they need it.
This isn't about a false moral right of all to have equal internet access because of...
(continues)
...
kalp08

Feb 4, 2015, 10:18 PM
"Why do you think government will never mess up your bill?"
Best line I have read all day.

Goes well with "middle-class tax break"
...
Slammer

Feb 4, 2015, 10:56 PM
Content providers seems questionable to me. They pay for the deliverance of their products, services, info and etc to consumers. They generally pay the company delivering these goods. The wireless carriers are becoming the main providers of such. I would bet dollars to donuts that content providers would rather not have to pay for higher speed if not necessary. However, this deals more with the carriers getting more money from the providers and then charging the end user more money to block that possible unwanted content. It all boils down to someone on the receiving end getting the shaft. Who might that be?

The market is a great example of how the consolidation of wireless carriers is putting the strap on consumers and these content prov...
(continues)
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 5, 2015, 10:27 AM
No. We do not need additional regulations and powers given to a bureacracy. We have existing laws that are not being followed to the detriment of the consumer. Please tell us what new laws and regulations will be enforced. I would also bet dollars to donuts that the only things being enforced will again be detrimental to consumers. You can already see examples the extra costs on your current bill.
Let's assume everything you are saying is true...
Why do you or anyone else think you have the right or power to force altruistic behaviors on others? If the Fed thinks there should be wireless internet for everyone then they should probably build their own friggin network instead if trying to swoop in and hijack someone else's hard work and cap...
(continues)
...
kalp08

Feb 5, 2015, 6:32 PM
If you like your internet provider, you can keep your internet provider. I promise.
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 5, 2015, 6:39 PM
Exactly.
First we have to pass the bill, then we can find out what is in the bill.
...
cainthecavebear

Feb 5, 2015, 6:35 PM
Oh. Name a time when the Corporation Commission did NOT approve a rate hike.
For you to say that "wireless carriers control us" is a negative statement on yourself not any wireless carrier. These people are not serving heroine.
This is starting to resemble the movie Idiocracy.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2017 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
1

This is a preview. Click for full glossary page.