Home  ›  News  ›

Sen. McCain Moves to Block FCC Neutrality Plan

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 30 replies

Rights...

ItsSprintnotwalk

Oct 22, 2009, 4:02 PM
Seriously when ever a Government takes rights away it is almost never we get them back... This bill may insure we keep the internet not just free of regulation but also free from TAX"S!!!!

and that my friends would be a great thing! 🙂
...
captainplooky

Oct 22, 2009, 4:10 PM
Based on your comments you obviously don't.


A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services.

Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.

Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet P
...
(continues)
...
ItsSprintnotwalk

Oct 22, 2009, 4:44 PM
Thank you, that was a useful reaction to my post as compare to the one worried about my spelling. I will look this up more tonight//
...
egor0128

Oct 24, 2009, 12:37 PM
government control
...
WiWavelength

Oct 24, 2009, 1:47 PM
egor0128 said:
government control


The Big Brother you fear is not Big Government. No, it is Big Business in a largely closed, oligopolistic market. And Net Neutrality regulations are designed to be the checks & balances against anti competitive Big Business controlling your freedoms on the Internet.

Please actually learn about the precepts of Net Neutrality before spouting some pre packaged, negative reaction.

AJ
...
egor0128

Oct 25, 2009, 6:43 AM
ok then so its not government control the government has nothing to do with it then????? RIGHT
...
WiWavelength

Oct 22, 2009, 4:25 PM
ItsSprintnotwalk said:
Seriously when ever a Government takes rights away it is almost never we get them back... This bill may insure we keep the internet not just free of regulation but also free from TAX"S!!!!

and that my friends would be a great thing! 🙂


What "rights" do you wish to protect? Big telcos' "rights" to charge exorbitant rent for "innovation"? Big telcos' "rights" to reduce/eliminate consumer choice?

We always pay a "tax." Sometimes, we pay it to CEOs & shareholders who use it to line their pockets. Sometimes, we pay it to public entities that use it for the common good. Which is better?

Get over it. Get a clue. And learn to spell.

AJ
...
Azeron

Oct 22, 2009, 4:56 PM
Exactly! Net Neutrality is protective of the consumer. These companies will trample all over us.
...
murmermer

Oct 23, 2009, 12:34 PM
If it protects the consumer so much why is there no legislation in it protecting peoples identities over the internet? it sounds like its a control grab not a protection act
...
Slammer

Oct 22, 2009, 5:46 PM
It is funny how we haven't heard from Tmo and Sprint. The very same companies trying to save consumers money. Yet it's the bigger telcos crying about their revenue. And still, their subs have no clue on what comes out of their wallets. I would be more concerned about what stays in them. Thanks Sprint!
...
murmermer

Oct 23, 2009, 12:27 PM
Are you an ACORN spokesman?

you spew more socialist mumbo-jumbo than Karl Marx... the whole idea of the internet is a FREE environment for intellectuals to congregate and share ideas, thoughts, art and information. The government doesn't want to protect us from the internet or you would see more anti-Hacker- they want to "CONTROL" the internet the same way they want to control the kind of fuel your car uses, when you can and can't use your cellphone (i.e. driving), heck they even put limits of how much water you can use!

If you want to live like that then go to China, Venezuela or even Cuba- but don't turn the United States of America into a 2nd rate country because you cant trust yourself on the internet- but i cant expect a moron li...
(continues)
...
Scotty_bing

Oct 23, 2009, 1:49 PM
Well Spoken! Nuff Said.
...
retrolike

Oct 23, 2009, 2:26 PM
Agreed, thanks!
...
WiWavelength

Oct 23, 2009, 6:02 PM
murmermer said:
you spew more socialist mumbo-jumbo than Karl Marx...


And you have yet to show what is so wrong w/ some aspects of socialism. Rather, you just "know" that socialism is bad. How do you know that? Do you even know what socialism is? And how do you countenance the fact that your everyday existence in the grand old US of A is predicated in part on socialism?

murmermer said:
the whole idea of the internet is a FREE environment for intellectuals to congregate and share ideas, thoughts, art and information.


Uh, yeah, that is what Internet neutrality is designed to ensure. But what is "FREE" about for profit corporations deciding what/how/when information...
(continues)
...
murmermer

Oct 23, 2009, 7:34 PM
@ AJ

with your vast knowledge of everything I am surprised at your complete lack of WISDOM... we live in a society that when given a foot they take a mile. if you give a society socialism that rewards mediocrity you get mediocrity. Socialism works great on paper, the idea that "everyone works for a better tomorrow" is a great slogan except the fact people HATE work.

In a completely socialistic society everyone gets paid the same based on their living requirements. There is no incentive for a farmer to farm 1000 acres of crops when he gets paid the same for farming 50 acres of crops except he works 1/20 as hard. There is no incentive for a plumber to fix 4-5 houses a day when he gets paid the same to milk out 1 house all day. Socialism...
(continues)
...
Researcher

Oct 24, 2009, 12:47 PM
A little here. A little there. Word it as it is "good for us". There are those who will not be happy until we are not able to have any speech.

Forget your opinions or what the current government wants, we still have a Constitution.

As the song says, you never know what you've got until it is gone.
...
GettingSleepy

Oct 24, 2009, 3:49 PM
So basically it's coming down to who do you want to control the internet, government or big businesses I take it?
...
murmermer

Oct 24, 2009, 5:58 PM
...by big business you mean the internet providers?

It is YOU that pays 'Big Business" if you don't like the way they are controlling your internet connection pick another company- here in St. Louis we have 4 providers we can choose from for High Speed Internet. So when AT&T started cutting my 3Mbps speed down to ~500kbps (for no apparent reason) I switched to Charter. If Charter starts limiting where I can go to on the web then I will switch to Hughes Net or Verizon... there is always a choice
...
mbjupiter

Oct 25, 2009, 1:39 PM
The beauty of a free market/capitalism is the creation of what's called "niche marketing" it's not in the best interest of business for everyone to be broke, which creates a niche for a lower costing option. for instance, with the introduction of FiOS in my area, and it replacing DSL for the higher cost option, i now only pay $20 a month for verizon DSL. It's not the fastest, but it's cheaper, and certainly enough for me, and if I don't like it, with wireline services I could have Comcast which is faster, FiOs which is even faster, but mroe expensive, HughesNet which is a great alternative, but the technology is still pricy, but again, it's a niche, for people who can't get DSL, Cable or FiOS. Now with wireless companies in on it, i have eve...
(continues)
...
murmermer

Oct 27, 2009, 1:19 PM
exactly, why would anyone want a single entity to decide all of the pricing for any given product?
...
WiWavelength

Oct 27, 2009, 4:09 PM
murmermer said:
exactly, why would anyone want a single entity to decide all of the pricing for any given product?


Few would want that, just as few would want a broadband ISP oligopoly (or even monopoly) to decide all Internet access policies for consumers. But, of course, you, murmermer, have two opposite reactions to two parallel situations. Get some consistency in your reasoning, man!

Additionally, Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to do w/ setting price controls or mandating price structure. That is left to competition (what relatively little there is) in the broadband ISP marketplace.

AJ
...
mbjupiter

Oct 28, 2009, 10:15 AM
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with prices, but what you don't see is that we're heading in that direction, it's only a matter of time, considering that now we have someone to dictate how much we get paid.
...
WiWavelength

Oct 28, 2009, 10:50 PM
mbjupiter said:
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with prices, but what you don't see is that we're heading in that direction, it's only a matter of time, considering that now we have someone to dictate how much we get paid.


First, regarding "it's only a matter of time," leave your asinine assumptions & specious speculation at home. Government bailout oversight has nothing to do w/ Net Neutrality regulations.

Second, when for profit companies have to ask the public for handouts, the public has every right to place restrictions on how those companies can use that public money, including how those companies compensate their executives.

Third, reconcile your rationale. You impugn our public...
(continues)
...
mbjupiter

Oct 29, 2009, 5:45 PM
It's not the bailed out companies that i'm concerned with, it's companies that did not ask/nor accept bail out money that are my concen, which WAS suggested. When it reaches that point, that's when I have a real problem with government control. Only time will tell, but the fact of the matter is that the telecommunications companies built the infrastructure, therefore they have a right to regulate it. If you build a house, should your neighbor tell you what you can do with your house, if you think so, then you have a more warped sense of reality than you claim that I do.
...
WiWavelength

Oct 29, 2009, 11:55 PM
mbjupiter said:
Only time will tell, but the fact of the matter is that the telecommunications companies built the infrastructure, therefore they have a right to regulate it.


Many of the telecommunications companies were granted sanctioned monopolies and built infrastructure w/ public subsidies (taxes, right of way). Those telecom companies now provide a public service; they exist at the pleasure of the public. When they face little, if any, competition and still violate the public trust, then the public has the right to place regulations on those telecom companies.

mbjupiter said:If you build a house, should your neighbor tell you what you can do with your house, if you think so,
...
(continues)
...
mbjupiter

Oct 30, 2009, 12:49 PM
I'm speaking on a matter of principle with my house analogy, and you're going to have to provide proof of all the taxpayer money that went into these companies, if any, how much was taxpayer money, then we can go over how much money we, as consumers have paid our government to continue to regulate this, who's taken more money, the government or the private sector?
...
murmermer

Oct 30, 2009, 3:03 PM
WiWavelength has no principles which is why he believes so strongly that this administration is making the right decisions. He deems it necessary for business school dropouts and failing lawyers to tell profitable companies how to run their business. Socialist advocates BELIEVE there is no better solution than the Governments solution. WiWavelength doesn't care about the majority (more than 50%) because HE is unhappy. He doesn't know the hopes and dreams of real CITIZENS here in the US because he is to busy promoting illegal immigrants and "free" healthcare for everyone except tax payers and all those other liberal incentives that drove this country into $12 trillion worth debt
...
Researcher

Oct 24, 2009, 5:59 PM
You miss the point. You are so ready to place fault. I want no controls. What part about free speech is not clear?

There are some who do not like porn on the net. So they want it banned. But like it or not there is that darn free speech issue.

If you say ok let the government control the content then can you always trust that you will get the entire story. What about if the dems loose and the party switches? What about the personal bias of the person who bans the info? Or do you take it to a committie? Is the group balanced and fair? To what side?

If a business screws up I want to find out the whole truth. If government dose the same I want to know that too. Do you get your news from one source over the other? You have a choice. Th...
(continues)
...
egor0128

Oct 25, 2009, 8:22 AM
WELL I DO KNOW CHANGE IS GOING TO HAPPEN.BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP.THEY ARE TIRED OF BEING LIED TO. I THINK THE PEOPLE ON THE HILL ARE GOING TO GET A BIG WAKE UP CALL. YOU SEE ITS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CONTROL AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT.AND THAT IS A FACT.
...
mbjupiter

Oct 25, 2009, 12:53 PM
The truth is, the whole idea of a socialist government is unconstitutional, especially wen implemented in the way you describe.

Do you really want me to decide what's best for you? or would you ratehr have a right to decide for yourself? Should I be able to tell you what you can eat, where you can shop, who you can do business with and what you put into your body? If you say you'd like that, you're lying. It's downright slavery. you wouldn't like it, so don't do it to me.
...

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 Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.