FCC Could Redefine Broadband Access Rules
to serve what purpose?
it sounds like they just want increased control of telecom providers and tell them how to do business.
i know a lot of people dont agree with what i'm saying...and you dont have to...that's what makes this country great.
i'm a proponent of freedom of choice. if you cannot afford a service, you have the freedom not to choose it. i'm blessed enough to have a job where i can afford cable internet and tv.
if one cannot, there is always earthlink or netzero. it may not be broadband but it's something and it's dirt cheap.
discuss...
i know a lot of people dont agree with what i'm saying...and you dont have to...that's what makes this country great.
i'm a proponent of freedom of choice. if you cannot afford a service, you have the freedom not to choose it. i'm blessed enough to have a job where i can afford cable internet and tv.
if one cannot, there is always earthlink or netzero. it may not be broadband but it's something and it's dirt cheap.
discuss...
...
To a point, I agree.
It IS the responsibility of the consumer to make sure they are purchasing services that can fit into their budget. It IS the responsibility of the consumer to decide what needs to be sacrificed in order to fit into their budget ...
BUT ...
I believe the government is SUPPOSED to be there to protect the people ... from military attacks, violent citizens ... and greedy companies. Yes we have a choice, but when all the greedy bastards come together (in one way or another)and decide to stick it to ya all in the same way, we need someone to speak on our behalf! And although there are still alternate options, if we do nothing and stay quiet, the other companies will follow suit ... look at the 5G cap on datacards...
(continues)
It IS the responsibility of the consumer to make sure they are purchasing services that can fit into their budget. It IS the responsibility of the consumer to decide what needs to be sacrificed in order to fit into their budget ...
BUT ...
I believe the government is SUPPOSED to be there to protect the people ... from military attacks, violent citizens ... and greedy companies. Yes we have a choice, but when all the greedy bastards come together (in one way or another)and decide to stick it to ya all in the same way, we need someone to speak on our behalf! And although there are still alternate options, if we do nothing and stay quiet, the other companies will follow suit ... look at the 5G cap on datacards...
(continues)
...
The market needs to regulate from greedy companies. People vote with their feet and money. The government can not even handle mail and make a profit.
...
Just because the USPS is the laughing stock of the parcel delivery industry does not mean that internet regulations won't be a good experience... who am I kidding, they cant even stop an oil leak in the middle of the ocean
...
Mentat said:
who am I kidding, they cant even stop an oil leak in the middle of the ocean
That's bp you need to blame.. they're the ones trying to cap a pipe gushing hgh pressure oil 5000 feet underwater...
...
@ Overman, last time I check the US government has done way more deep sea operations than BP... the first thing the president did when the leak started was send lawyers to BP to place the blame... a good president would have fixed the leak IMMEDIATELY (not have a party at the white house) then gone after BP for financial compensation.
But, all that has happened is a whole lot of nothing but speeches about fixing the problem... thats a great leader for you.
But, all that has happened is a whole lot of nothing but speeches about fixing the problem... thats a great leader for you.
...
i understand what you're saying and i dont mean to come across as a crazy conservative but i dont trust the government to look out for anyone other than themselves. the republicans are just as bad as the democrats. many things that they do in the interests of the consumer end up only exacerbating things. i will admit there are a lot of greedy companies out there who are only profit minded. but customer's should chose to not subscribe to those companies and vote with their wallets.
That's what i do.
That's what i do.
...
There comes a time though that the little people get stepped on by the corporate giant ... no matter how you 'use your wallet'. Without government regulations, we would be down to just one carrier and forced to use that service or go without. You cant have it both ways ... either they intervene and set operating proceedures to TRY to keep things fair, or they dont and we all suffer.
There are times when governement intervention is all too needed. Im in no way saying this is one of those times, just trying to see both sides of the issue.
There are times when governement intervention is all too needed. Im in no way saying this is one of those times, just trying to see both sides of the issue.
...
The purpose of net neutrality is to ensure equal access to the internet, so that internet providers can't charge a fee to owners of a website and say, "pay the fee, we'll let people access your site faster, don't pay the fee, we won't, and your site may not even load at all."
It isn't about increasing control. It's about ensuring equal access.
And leaving it up to "the market(which should never be trusted with anything important ever; see also: stopping deep-water oil leak)" to regulate itself won't work, because in many areas people only have maybe one or two choices in internet. Me, personally, I have to have cable internet from Charter or I'd be stuck with garbage DSL from AT&T, and if every internet provider violates net neutral...
(continues)
It isn't about increasing control. It's about ensuring equal access.
And leaving it up to "the market(which should never be trusted with anything important ever; see also: stopping deep-water oil leak)" to regulate itself won't work, because in many areas people only have maybe one or two choices in internet. Me, personally, I have to have cable internet from Charter or I'd be stuck with garbage DSL from AT&T, and if every internet provider violates net neutral...
(continues)
...
What Internet provider is forcing web site owners pay a fee to let people access thier site?
Why are we relying on the government to "fix" anything? Look at social security and Medicare? Come on dude. If those companies are commiting such attrocities then thier subscribers will leave and that company will go out of business. It's a natural process. You make poor decisions, you suffer the consequences. We shouldn't leave it to the government to "rescue" us. My Internet costs me 54.00 after taxes. I have charter too. I've known people who have had them and had huge issues but I haven't had any problems. If they screwed me over I'd get uverse. We have choices. Let Americans make them for themselves. I for one am not going to let corrupt gove...
(continues)
Why are we relying on the government to "fix" anything? Look at social security and Medicare? Come on dude. If those companies are commiting such attrocities then thier subscribers will leave and that company will go out of business. It's a natural process. You make poor decisions, you suffer the consequences. We shouldn't leave it to the government to "rescue" us. My Internet costs me 54.00 after taxes. I have charter too. I've known people who have had them and had huge issues but I haven't had any problems. If they screwed me over I'd get uverse. We have choices. Let Americans make them for themselves. I for one am not going to let corrupt gove...
(continues)
...
None are, yet, because they're not yet allowed to. The industry push against net neutrality is them attempting to gain the ability to do it.
If these companies have monopolies in certain areas, and all of them are doing it, do you just go without internet? I couldn't. This isn't about Americans being free to choose in a competitive market. This is the possibility of Americans being subject to collusion by all of the internet providers.
If these companies have monopolies in certain areas, and all of them are doing it, do you just go without internet? I couldn't. This isn't about Americans being free to choose in a competitive market. This is the possibility of Americans being subject to collusion by all of the internet providers.
...
This forum is closed.
