FCC Officially Approves New Net Neutrality Regulations
Finally....the American consumer wins, GREAT DAY!!!
I am a recovering Republican so before I get totally assaulted by the Fixed News, insHANITY or mega-dildo (that could be ditto I dunno?) crowd please take the time to independently read through what happened here. Cut the party line & freely think for yourselves & likely see this is a big win for consumers. I know it's preached the government "can never do anything right & shouldn't be involved in anything at all" (except constant costly, with lives & money, wars against various 3rd world countries & taxpayer-funded mega-corporate government bailouts) but I for one am very proud of the FCC. A referee on the field is exactly right & whether Obama, Romney, Reagan or Clinton were in office this is the right thing to do. The mere fact that a...
(continues)
(continues)
...
"I know it's preached the government "can never do anything right & shouldn't be involved in anything at all" (except constant costly, with lives & money, wars against various 3rd world countries & taxpayer-funded mega-corporate government bailouts)"
No serious republican or conservative believes or says any of this. Misrepresenting the other side doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you are accurately representing your side.
This is a power grab by the government, plain and simple. If you can walk us through how exactly this is a win for the consumer we would all love to hear it. But everything I have read about this shows that it will lead to increased work for the corporations that provide these services which will translate ...
(continues)
No serious republican or conservative believes or says any of this. Misrepresenting the other side doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you are accurately representing your side.
This is a power grab by the government, plain and simple. If you can walk us through how exactly this is a win for the consumer we would all love to hear it. But everything I have read about this shows that it will lead to increased work for the corporations that provide these services which will translate ...
(continues)
...
I don't have a political "side" buddy. I voted for Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Obama & Romney to show what "side" I'm on. Power grab to police/monitor mega-corporations running roughshod over us consumers & weaker companies? Forcing Netflix to pay an extortion fee for a "fast lane" or be throttled out of existence seems ethical to you? Selling me 50Mbps internet speed and delivering 3Mbps? There is a time & place for government oversight. This is one those times & places.
...
I don't think you understand how an isp works do you? Net neutrality won't fix the promise of this speed. That is the nature of the beast. This is more of a government power grab.
...
Everything you've read shows it will lead to excess work for mega-corporations? I'd think it would be less work. They could close down their "extort Netflix & Amazon Prime" Departments right away. Maybe when they sell say 30Mbps, they should DELIVER 30Mbps?? If the new oversight requires them to deliver what they claim, so be it. Lower your promised speed or do what you need to be honest. As far as "advancement of technology", South Korea, Japan & Europe likely have MORE regulation then we ever will......& VASTLY SUPERIOR internet/wireless speeds/networks & an average cost far less than what we pay (excluding Canada who actually gets gouged worse than we do). I don't get the overreach argument. Isn't some oversight & basic services wh...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Anytime there are more regulations to follow someone at the company has to continually be making sure they are following them, meaning more man hours which means increased operating costs which will inevitably be passed down to the consumers.
You are also misrepresenting what companies promise to deliver. You don't see the cell carriers saying "Ulimited 4G internet" you see them saying "Unlimited 4G internet*". That "*" is very important because it directs you to the fine print where the parameters of the promise are laid out. Which maybe you want to argue that as misleading advertising but everyone should know to be skeptical of advertising.
Of course South Korea, Japan and European countries have better internet. South Korea has a...
(continues)
You are also misrepresenting what companies promise to deliver. You don't see the cell carriers saying "Ulimited 4G internet" you see them saying "Unlimited 4G internet*". That "*" is very important because it directs you to the fine print where the parameters of the promise are laid out. Which maybe you want to argue that as misleading advertising but everyone should know to be skeptical of advertising.
Of course South Korea, Japan and European countries have better internet. South Korea has a...
(continues)
...
The largest win in this ruling is that the FCC now has the authority to investigate damaging claims that are usually ignored by ISPs and beyond the limits of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The claims are estimated to be thousands upon thousands. Class action lawsuits are brought forth but usually settles with pennys on the dollar when distributed amoung the plantiffs. Most will not pursue because of the low return(not worthwhile). Some carriers such as AT&T have succeed in having a clause where plantiffs of complaints need to have it settled through mediation. The wireless industry has one of the fewest regulations and behemoths such as comcast and time warner have consistently shown that they dont care because of the monopoly they have...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Sure there may be a few things in it that sound pretty good. But you have to weigh those against the harm it will cause. There is too much vagueness in it that leaves it up to special committees to interpret whether companies are following the law or not. That just opens the door for more corruption, allows them to pick and choose who to go after or more importantly, who not to go after. The rules need to be more clear and not have lines in it that say things like: "...And it supports the Commission’s authority to address interconnection disputes on a case-by-case basis,..."
...
The agony of this whole debate is that both parties are expecting a perfect scenerio. We need to accept the fact that compromises will be met. I don't expect this ruling to be perfect and I suspect many of the smaller provisions,whatever they are, will most likely not be instituted within the rules. The goal, however, was to play hardball with the ISPs. It was never intended to be a full on assault on these providers. It is understood that the providers are to make money. It is also understood that they need to maintain the building and expansions of its networks. The offset, is that we as consumers need to remain the focus of businesses. Netflix for example should be able to pay for high speed delivery to consumers without blockage by carri...
(continues)
(continues)
...
No. The agony of this debate is simple. One group of people think they have the right to take from another group. Those people are the reason we have the 2nd amendment.
...
Please show us examples of these atrocities that actually exist OUTSIDE of your imagination.
...
Waiver of the Right to Class Actions in Arbitration Agreements Upheld
A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court provides what may prove to be the biggest incentive in the future for companies to favor arbitration over litigation. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740; 179 L. Ed. 742; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3367 (U.S. April 27, 2011), the Court upheld a mandatory arbitration provision, which included a waiver of the right to participate in a class action, contained in a two-year service agreement.
This benefits the carriers in the event of disputes brought by consumers who feel misled or have met a barrier in getting results that may have been breached by the carriers
The goal of some of the new rulings would offer a more l...
(continues)
A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court provides what may prove to be the biggest incentive in the future for companies to favor arbitration over litigation. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740; 179 L. Ed. 742; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3367 (U.S. April 27, 2011), the Court upheld a mandatory arbitration provision, which included a waiver of the right to participate in a class action, contained in a two-year service agreement.
This benefits the carriers in the event of disputes brought by consumers who feel misled or have met a barrier in getting results that may have been breached by the carriers
The goal of some of the new rulings would offer a more l...
(continues)
...
So... you don't support the idea of fulfilling a contract?
I have no doubt that if AT&T decided mid-contract that text messages are no longer included would be met with cries for government intervention and lawsuits to hold the accountable for the contracts.
So why is it an individual should not be held to that same standard. If you do not like the idea of arbitration you can choose someone else... or just sue them anyway. If you have a legal case you can sue and prove the arbitration process was corrupted somehow.
I have no doubt that if AT&T decided mid-contract that text messages are no longer included would be met with cries for government intervention and lawsuits to hold the accountable for the contracts.
So why is it an individual should not be held to that same standard. If you do not like the idea of arbitration you can choose someone else... or just sue them anyway. If you have a legal case you can sue and prove the arbitration process was corrupted somehow.
...
I absolutely support fulfilling contracts and I would never stand behind a consumer trying to back out of one for no reason.
That is not what the waiver I showed you is about. The waiver changes the folcrum point and favors any corporation that faces class action lawsuits. It proposes the consumer to face individual one on one confrontational dispute. There are advantages to arbitration for the consumer, but so far the interest has lied in favor of a company's bargaining and financial power. The ruling of this Supreme Court waiver is still being investigated as a one way appeal on contracts. It is believed to be only binding for the consumer and not the corporation. So far, unsurprisingly, many corporations in every industry have adopted ...
(continues)
That is not what the waiver I showed you is about. The waiver changes the folcrum point and favors any corporation that faces class action lawsuits. It proposes the consumer to face individual one on one confrontational dispute. There are advantages to arbitration for the consumer, but so far the interest has lied in favor of a company's bargaining and financial power. The ruling of this Supreme Court waiver is still being investigated as a one way appeal on contracts. It is believed to be only binding for the consumer and not the corporation. So far, unsurprisingly, many corporations in every industry have adopted ...
(continues)
...
Boy Brad I have to admit you are one helluva good conservative! Nice to talk with you, I mean that. If only everyone could be so thoughtful in their positions. Europe actually does have more land area than the U.S. does. It seems Europe has a lot more selection of carriers too. Here in Montana T-Mobile & Sprint are both non-existent. We have only AT&T & Verizon to choose from. With regards to the cell carriers, I mean it is insane. Selling "unlimited" then putting arbitrary 3GB or 5GB caps before "network optimization" kicks in to "protect the network for all users" while people on "metered" data plans up to 100GB can continue to use the network at anytime with no throttles. A company like CableOne selling me 50Mbps internet in Bois...
(continues)
(continues)
...
It's political because you have paid liars claiming to save us from something that doesn't exist.
And it is sad because you have non-paid nitwits promoting this agenda so they can feel important.
This is on par with black americans who vote for the party that promoted slavery for 200 years and still promotes abortion which targets low income black families.
So, consider yourself a traitor to your own cause, Mr Sharpton. Too bad you did not get paid like he does.
And it is sad because you have non-paid nitwits promoting this agenda so they can feel important.
This is on par with black americans who vote for the party that promoted slavery for 200 years and still promotes abortion which targets low income black families.
So, consider yourself a traitor to your own cause, Mr Sharpton. Too bad you did not get paid like he does.
...
Netflix was not being extorted by Time Warner, Comcast, etc. for "fast lanes"? Hit google & get back to me. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc don't gouge their customers with price & policies for years? ISP's have not been lying to us on speeds for years? I will have to admit that Comcast in Albuquerque was the ONLY time I've ever received the speed I was sold & paid for. AT&T in Chicago, Comcast in Jacksonville, CableOne in Boise, CenturyLink & now Charter here in Montana have all promised me speeds......I HAVE NEVER achieved even once (most of the time not even close!). I've been adversely affected by "unlimited" data throttles with AT&T. There is a bureau, agency, department, office, etc in Washington to seemingly handle everything & the...
(continues)
(continues)
...
No. They were not being extorted. Go ahead and hit that google yourself. They opposed net neutrality when they WANTED to pay for that fast lane.
...
Show us your "facts". You claim Im a liar and wrong... you claim you have done your fact checking.
Cite your source(s) please.
FYI...
Any response not containing the requested sources of YOUR facts will be taken as an admission that YOU are the one who is wrong and/or a liar.
Cite your source(s) please.
FYI...
Any response not containing the requested sources of YOUR facts will be taken as an admission that YOU are the one who is wrong and/or a liar.
...
This forum is closed.
