(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/header.png)
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/1.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/2.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/3.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/4.png)
^^ Ted Cruz. Another proud member of HH and 'me's' team. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on November 11, 2014, 02:38:44 PM
^^ Ted Cruz. Another proud member of HH and 'me's' team. :rolleyes:
It will be very interesting to see how they spin this one.
Quote from: Bo D on November 11, 2014, 03:22:46 PM
It will be very interesting to see how they spin this one.
It'll probably be met in the same way as they met that stupidity about climate change on the election thread. With silence. :rolleyes:
Okay, you guys have been baiting me to bite on something all day... :razz:
I will give you my SPIN on this......I think Net Neutrality is a good thing, I think Cruz to an extent IS politicizing this, but his POINT is, it is the first step into allowing the FCC and our government to gain more regulatory control over the internet...and since we bought into the "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" line....it is hard to accept Obama and his intentions anymore. I think we need to address the infrastructure first and foremost.
But honestly, this shouldn't be a conservative or a liberal thing, it needs to be addressed.....and this type of regulation is cautiously needed.
Quote from: Locutus on November 11, 2014, 03:32:25 PM
It'll probably be met in the same way as they met that stupidity about climate change on the election thread. With silence. :rolleyes:
No sense in arguing with you guys, what will it accomplish? I am confident with my stance.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2014, 03:54:06 PM
No sense in arguing with you guys, what will it accomplish? I am confident with my stance.
That's what Larry Craig said. :biggrin:
See, no point........... :no:
But, I will admit it was a good comeback for EX.... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2014, 04:20:00 PM
See, no point........... :no:
But, I will admit it was a good comeback for EX.... :razz:
Well HH, as to the subject of net neutrality, it seems you're close to being on the right side of this issue. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on November 11, 2014, 04:21:30 PM
Well HH, as to the subject of net neutrality, it seems you're close to being on the right side of this issue. ;D
I am always on the RIGHT side of the issue..... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2014, 04:24:57 PM
I am always on the RIGHT side of the issue..... :razz:
Depends on your definition of RIGHT in this statement. :razz:
Quote from: Locutus on November 11, 2014, 04:31:58 PM
Depends on your definition of RIGHT in this statement. :razz:
I think we KNOW what I meant...the right side is the RIGHT side.........that is why I am on the right side things because they are RIGHT....a very logical and appropriate name... :yes: :razz: ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2014, 04:35:24 PM
I think we KNOW what I meant...the right side is the RIGHT side.........that is why I am on the right side things because they are RIGHT....a very logical and appropriate name... :yes: :razz: ;D
Henry's idea of right. :toilet: :toilet: :toilet: :toilet: :toilet: :toilet: :toilet: :thubb:
The FCC passed net neutrality. :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Locutus on February 26, 2015, 02:29:40 PM
The FCC passed net neutrality. :clap: :clap:
Yep, they passed it so we could find out what's in it.
Quote from: me on February 26, 2015, 04:03:57 PM
Yep, they passed it so we could find out what's in it.
Bull!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on February 26, 2015, 04:03:57 PM
Yep, they passed it so we could find out what's in it.
I dare you ... in your own words, tell us what "Net Neutrality" is.
This should be good .... :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Bo D on February 26, 2015, 04:22:36 PM
I dare you ... in your own words, tell us what "Net Neutrality" is.
This should be good .... :icon_twisted:
She even has pictures at the top of this thread. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on February 26, 2015, 04:24:55 PM
She even has pictures at the top of this thread. ;D
Won't work ... there are some words under the pictures. And some of them are big!
Do either of you know what's in it for sure?
Quote from: me on February 26, 2015, 05:59:30 PM
Do either of you know what's in it for sure?
I refuse to answer until you answer my challenge first .... (two can play your game)
"I dare you ... in your own words, tell us what "Net Neutrality" is."
Quote from: Bo D on February 27, 2015, 08:44:54 AM
I refuse to answer until you answer my challenge first .... (two can play your game)
"I dare you ... in your own words, tell us what "Net Neutrality" is."
The name they gave the bill taken from an old commercial which stated that the net should be free for everyone. That is not, however, what it actually is now. It is the FCC making rules and regulations governing the internet.
Quote from: me on February 27, 2015, 01:10:07 PM
The name they gave the bill taken from an old commercial which stated that the net should be free for everyone. That is not, however, what it actually is now. It is the FCC making rules and regulations governing the internet.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
I told you it would be good!
That is not even close. In fact, It's a downright, ignorant lie! No one connected with Net neutrality has EVER advocated free access!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Net neutrality has always been about the concept of no one getting special treatment on the net, not allowing the ISPs to demand more money from providers like Netflix for high bandwidth streaming. Equal access for everyone.
Quote from: Bo D on February 27, 2015, 01:22:40 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha:
I told you it would be good!
Even the pictures didn't help. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on February 27, 2015, 01:28:02 PM
Even the pictures didn't help. ;D
That must be really embarrassing for her.
On second thought .... is it possible she's so ignorant that even embarrassment isn't possible?
Quote from: Bo D on February 27, 2015, 01:22:40 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha:
I told you it would be good!
That is not even close. In fact, It's a downright, ignorant lie! No one connected with Net neutrality has EVER advocated free access!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Net neutrality has always been about the concept of no one getting special treatment on the net, not allowing the ISPs to demand more money from providers like Netflix for high bandwidth streaming. Equal access for everyone.
I said the NAME for it was taken from an old commercial back in the mid 90's, not the bill itself. The FCC is wanting to govern the internet by imposing rules and regulations on content, speed, availability, and what they can charge. No one, except them, really knows what's in it for sure. You are assuming it will be a good thing just like some are assuming it will be a bad thing. It could be a mix of both. Stuff it Mr. Smartass #2
The FCC voted 3-2 in favor of "Net Neutrality" rules, barring service providers from intentionally blocking or slowing web traffic, creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet.
The need for such legislation proves once again, big business absolutely CANNOT be trusted to do the right thing by consumers. EVER!
I remember when broadband first became available and it was quick and responsive. It still is IF you want to pay in excess of 100 bucks a month for it. Otherwise, you are forced to pay between 50 and 80 bucks for "tiered" speed rates that ISP's like COMCRAP restricts at times because they can, and because they need the bandwidth to service the big businesses and their high speed access.
For years I enjoyed free access to that exact super quick business class broadband service, courtesy of my employer. I never paid a lot of attention to the complaints of friends and neighbors who carped about the sluggish speeds they were being subjected to. I always assumed it was their equipment or a break in their line or something. WRONG! I found that out once I had to join them in the slow lanes reserved for the average users. . .
THAT is exactly one of the reasons this legislation is so important.
Then there's the countless number of times COMCRAP and their ilk have subjected streaming services to the very same treatment, intentionally slowing the broadband speeds for customers using HULU, NETFLIX, etc., just so they could hold their customers hostage in exchange for those streaming services obscene demands for higher fees for the use of "their" lines and bandwidth.
And make no mistake, companies like COMCRAP are notorious for that and a whole lot more! :rant:
Quote from: Bo D on February 27, 2015, 04:28:25 PM
On second thought .... is it possible she's so ignorant that even embarrassment isn't possible?
Ding, ding, ding!
Quote from: Bo D on February 27, 2015, 04:28:25 PM
That must be really embarrassing for her.
On second thought .... is it possible she's so ignorant that even embarrassment isn't possible?
Have you seen all the regulations and rules? Do you know for sure beyond a shadow of a doubt there will be no unforseen consequenses from this? Do you not remember the commercial I'm referring to from the mid 90's. It was back when there was only dial-up this particular service was not charging yet and the commercial was set in a court room and the big thing was "net neutrality, the network should be free for everyone".
Quote from: me on February 28, 2015, 01:25:50 PM
It was back when there was only dial-up this particular service was not charging yet and the commercial was set in a court room and the big thing was "net neutrality, the network should be free for everyone".
That isn't even remotely close to what net neutrality is all about.
It's scary some of the absolute shit that I've seen my friends regurgitate on FaceBook since this FCC action. Most of the people opining against net neutrality don't have a fucking clue what it's all about. That certainly doesn't stop them from blowing off publicly about it. :rolleyes:
Here's an example right here.
The number one reason that every American should consider net neutrality a grave threat is that the Muslim Brotherhood Congressman Hakim Muhammad (Keith Ellison) is dancing after hearing that the FCC voted to approve strong net neutrality rules.
7 Reasons Net Neutrality Is a Threat to Your Freedom
By Nick Sanchez Friday, 27 Feb 2015
The FCC's Democrat majority voted on Thursday to fix something that ain't broken by approving new regulations for the Internet. Republicans are dissenting, darkly suggesting that the new rules in government hands are a threat.
The commission's chairman, Tom Wheeler, said the new rules will ensure net neutrality by barring Internet service providers like Comcast from charging companies like Netflix for priority data transmission. Considering that ISPs don't do this, and currently treat all data transmission equally, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, accused the FCC of trying to "fix something that is far from broken."
Here are 7 reasons why the FCC's new net neutrality rules could be a threat to your freedom.
1. The FCC's new rules are a heavy-handed government takeover of the Internet.
Under the new rules, broadband Internet is classified as a public utility for the first time ever. This gives the government wide control of private companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, reducing their incentives to invest in their respective networks. Without this investment, broadband technology will develop more slowly, and prices will be higher for consumers.
2. Net neutrality subsidizes large companies like Netflix and Facebook who don't need it.
In November, it was widely reported that Netflix alone accounts for over 35 percent of all Internet traffic in the US. If broadband providers were able to charge Netflix a small fee for the high volume of data they send, they could pass that money onto consumers in the form of lower monthly bills.
3. The new rules subvert democracy and the will of the people.
CBS News reported that two in three Americans are opposed to the idea of government regulating the Internet. Other polls show that opposition to net neutrality is even higher.
4. The new regulations will stifle free speech.
Lee E. Goodman, former chairman and a current commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, told Newsmax TV that a government takeover of the Internet will chill political speech.
"The government will regulate the content — and specifically the political content — that the American people can both post online to express their own political opinions, and the political content and information that people can access from the Internet," said Goodman, who was appointed to the FEC in 2013 by President Obama.
5. The rule-making process was corrupted by the White House.
President Obama and White House staffers used backchannel meetings to pressure chairman Wheeler into creating the strongest possible net neutrality rules over the more moderate approach he originally intended. In this way, the White House operated "like a parallel version of the FCC itself," The Wall Street Journal reported.
6. The commission's vote wasn't transparent.
The new set of rules ushered in by Thursday's 3-2 vote were not provided to the public for comment. Ahead of the vote, one of the agency's five commissioners, Ajit Pai, tweeted a picture of the 317-page plan that he was barred from showing the public. Even after the vote, the rules will not be published publicly for many days.
7. The new rules will hurt the right to privacy, and further empower the federal government to spy on its citizens.
After Edward Snowden leaked the NSA's secret PRISM surveillance program in 2013, it became clear that the federal government is interested in snooping around in the private affairs of its citizens. Now that the federal government controls the web, its ability to spy will only increase.
Quote from: Locutus on February 28, 2015, 01:31:23 PM
That isn't even remotely close to what net neutrality is all about.
It's scary some of the absolute shit that I've seen my friends regurgitate on FaceBook since this FCC action. Most of the people opining against net neutrality don't have a fucking clue what it's all about. That certainly doesn't stop them from blowing off publicly about it. :rolleyes:
I said that was where the name probably came from not that it was what it was about. I also said we will find out what it really is for sure now that it seems to have passed. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on February 28, 2015, 01:31:23 PM
That isn't even remotely close to what net neutrality is all about.
It's scary some of the absolute shit that I've seen my friends regurgitate on FaceBook since this FCC action. Most of the people opining against net neutrality don't have a fucking clue what it's all about. That certainly doesn't stop them from blowing off publicly about it. :rolleyes:
Out of all the RW idjits I've seen complaining about it, there hasn't been ONE - not ONE - who had a real clue as to what they were blowing off about. I think I've seen more sheer stupidity shown on this issue then practically any other. It's utterly ridiculous!
Quote from: Y on March 02, 2015, 05:08:29 PM
Out of all the RW idjits I've seen complaining about it, there hasn't been ONE - not ONE - who had a real clue as to what they were blowing off about. I think I've seen more sheer stupidity shown on this issue then practically any other. It's utterly ridiculous!
Have you read the entire bill and do you know all there is to know about it?
Quote from: me on March 02, 2015, 05:18:59 PM
Have you read the entire bill and do you know all there is to know about it?
There is no bill. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 03, 2015, 08:59:56 AM
There is no bill. :rolleyes:
Ok, let me rephrase it. Have you checked out all the regulations and rules?
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 09:33:05 AM
Ok, let me rephrase it. Have you checked out all the regulations and rules?
Yes; it's pretty much spelled out in a document available on the FCC website.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 03, 2015, 10:38:53 AM
Yes; it's pretty much spelled out in a document available on the FCC website.
All of it or part of it? There are over 100 pages.
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 01:06:39 PM
All of it or part of it? There are over 100 pages.
Maybe you can find a video on Youtube since you're so against reading. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bo D on March 03, 2015, 01:16:58 PM
Maybe you can find a video on Youtube since you're so against reading. :rolleyes:
I'm asking if you all have read it in it's entirety or just parts of it. I've heard both good and bad and have never made a statement for or against. You all, on the other hand, seem to think it's all good and are chomping at the bit to get it going.
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 01:20:39 PM
You all, on the other hand, seem to think it's all good and are chomping at the bit to get it going.
There is nothing to, "get going." These rules essentially maintain what has mostly been standard practice since the inception of the internet.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 03, 2015, 01:23:05 PM
There is nothing to, "get going." These rules essentially maintain what has mostly been standard practice since the inception of the internet.
Then why do we need them again? Are you 100% positive there are no new regulations or rules in those hundreds of pages?
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
Then why do we need them again? Are you 100% positive there are no new regulations or rules in those hundreds of pages?
Refer to the pictures on the very first page in this thread. Particularly this part here:
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/3.png)
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 01:37:07 PM
Refer to the pictures on the very first page in this thread. Particularly this part here:
THe pitures are real nice, but theys some awful big words
:icon_twisted:
Ok, so if they can't get the extra bucks from the companies I guess the customer will end up paying more, you know they'll get those bucks from somewhere. :wink: Is that part covered under the "new" regulations?
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 01:37:07 PM
Refer to the pictures on the very first page in this thread. Particularly this part here:
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/net_neutrality/3.png)
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10982917_791409814266600_3932040863801005318_n.jpg?oh=08a82a86265ff4d87a35b43410f37a38&oe=557B9620)
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 02:27:09 PM
Ok, so if they can't get the extra bucks from the companies I guess the customer will end up paying more, you know they'll get those bucks from somewhere. :wink: Is that part covered under the "new" regulations?
Think about this (if you can)
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast charges NetFlix extra so they can stream movies at the same speed as everyone else. Do you honestly think NetFlix is going to eat those extra charges? Net Neutrality forbids those extra charges.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 03, 2015, 02:38:59 PM
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10982917_791409814266600_3932040863801005318_n.jpg?oh=08a82a86265ff4d87a35b43410f37a38&oe=557B9620)
:biggrin: :yes:
BTW, Bo D, I didn't mean for ole' Morgan to be pointing at your post, which is spot on. ;D
:biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on March 03, 2015, 03:14:02 PM
Think about this (if you can)
Without Net Neutrality, Comcast charges NetFlix extra so they can stream movies at the same speed as everyone else. Do you honestly think NetFlix is going to eat those extra charges? Net Neutrality forbids those extra charges.
So you're thinking you'll get to stream movies cheaper and faster.
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 03:39:42 PM
So you're thinking you'll get to stream movies cheaper and faster.
Clueless. :wall:
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 03:42:06 PM
Clueless. :wall:
How true!!! Isn't it crazy how she spins things around. NOWHERE did any one EVER claim that.
All we are saying is they can't charge us more than normal for downloads at the same speed as everything else.
Quote from: Bo D on March 03, 2015, 03:46:15 PM
How true!!! Isn't it crazy how she spins things around. NOWHERE did any one EVER claim that.
All we are saying is they can't charge us more than normal for downloads at the same speed as everything else.
Doesn't streaming a movie take more bandwidth than other activities?
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 03:50:07 PM
Doesn't streaming a movie take more bandwidth than other activities?
Depends on the activities.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 03, 2015, 03:51:47 PM
Depends on the activities.
....or the kind of porn you're streaming. :icon_twisted: ;D
So now we've established that the comcrap and others can't charge companies like Netflix for the extra bandwidth of streaming movies but what do the other regulations and rules cover? I mean you read the whole thing so spill it.
The Order protects consumers no matter how they access the Internet, whether on a desktop computer or a mobile device.
Bright Line Rules: The first three rules ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:
• No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
• No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.
The bright-line rules against blocking and throttling will prohibit harmful practices that target specific applications or classes of applications. And the ban on paid prioritization ensures that there will be no fast lanes.
A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices. The Order establishes that ISPs cannot "unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage" the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers. Today's Order ensures that the Commission will have authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, and provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet)
^^ ....which is exactly the concept described in the pictures and big words on the very first post to this topic.
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 04:52:20 PM
^^ ....which is exactly the concept described in the pictures and big words on the very first post to this topic.
I just thought I would post it in terms for the literate among us. :biggrin:
:biggrin: :icon_twisted:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 03, 2015, 02:38:59 PM
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10982917_791409814266600_3932040863801005318_n.jpg?oh=08a82a86265ff4d87a35b43410f37a38&oe=557B9620)
:food24: :rotfl: . . . err. . . wait. . . :spooked: . . . It's true! :shots:
Shouldn't the bolded part have been figured out first? Did you all read the statements of the commissioners? Sounds to me like even though they passed it they don't necessairly agree with it, or certain parts of it anyway.
QuoteMajor Provisions Subject to Forbearance:
Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation, tariffs, and last-mile unbundling.
o
Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to
contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. The question of how best to
fund the nation's universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated
proceeding that was already underway.
o
Broadband service will remain exempt from state and local taxation under the Internet
Tax Freedom Act. This law, recently renewed by Congress and signed by the President,
bans state and local taxation on Internet access regardless of its FCC regulatory
classification.
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 07:04:18 PM
Shouldn't the bolded part have been figured out first?
Why? If it's being considered separately (and it really has nothing to do with net neutrality anyway), why would it need to be addressed first?
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 07:08:20 PM
Why? If it's being considered separately (and it really has nothing to do with net neutrality anyway), why would it need to be addressed first?
It does, however, have something to do with getting money from someone to fund the USF which will now be attached to it. If they can't collect it from the providers where do you suppose it's going to come from?
Quote from: me on March 03, 2015, 07:34:14 PM
It does, however, have something to do with getting money from someone to fund the USF which will now be attached to it. If they can't collect it from the providers where do you suppose it's going to come from?
It will probably be attached as a dollar or so surcharge to your monthly Internet bill, just like it is for phone bills, etc. So what? From the highlighted part of your very own post, the USF train had already left the station in advance of the net neutrality decision. So attempting to muddy the waters by commingling it with the net neutrality decision isn't going to work.
Here are the charges on my latest cell phone bill from AT&T reflecting the USF for this past month:
Administrative Fee
$0.61
Federal Universal Service Charge
$1.42Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
$0.52
Total Surcharges & Fees
$2.55
I'm not going to bitch and moan over an extra $17.04 per year on my Internet bill, especially since things were already headed in that direction independent of the net neutrality decision. At any rate, that's chump change.
Do you have a problem with the concept of Universal Service?
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 07:42:18 PM
It will probably be attached as a dollar or so surcharge to your monthly Internet bill, just like it is for phone bills, etc. So what? From the highlighted part of your very own post, the USF train had already left the station in advance of the net neutrality decision. So attempting to muddy the waters by commingling it with the net neutrality decision isn't going to work.
Here are the charges on my latest cell phone bill from AT&T reflecting the USF for this past month:
Administrative Fee
$0.61
Federal Universal Service Charge
$1.42
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
$0.52
Total Surcharges & Fees
$2.55
I'm not going to bitch and moan over an extra $17.04 per year on my Internet bill, especially since things were already headed in that direction independent of the net neutrality decision. At any rate, that's chump change.
Do you have a problem with the concept of Universal Service?
That is for the phone not your internet which isn't, or wasn't, subject to that before.
Quote from: me on March 04, 2015, 12:42:00 AM
That is for the phone not your internet which isn't, or wasn't, subject to that before.
And the internet will not be subject hereafter. "
Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to
contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. "
Don't you even read what you post?
Quote from: Locutus on March 03, 2015, 07:42:18 PM
It will probably be attached as a dollar or so surcharge to your monthly Internet bill, just like it is for phone bills, etc. So what? From the highlighted part of your very own post, the USF train had already left the station in advance of the net neutrality decision. So attempting to muddy the waters by commingling it with the net neutrality decision isn't going to work.
Here are the charges on my latest cell phone bill from AT&T reflecting the USF for this past month:
Administrative Fee
$0.61
Federal Universal Service Charge
$1.42
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
$0.52
Total Surcharges & Fees
$2.55
I'm not going to bitch and moan over an extra $17.04 per year on my Internet bill, especially since things were already headed in that direction independent of the net neutrality decision. At any rate, that's chump change.
Do you have a problem with the concept of Universal Service?
I'm still trying to get a real handle on all of this, but Netflix is STILL just $7.99 a month, also chump change for what you get.
I understand the complaint and the possible regulations, but is this just the beginning of rules and regulations, that could have a more hurtful impact down the road?
Big Gov and Big Business....both suck! We need a fix, but not sure how we get there...
Quote from: Bo D on March 04, 2015, 09:15:40 AM
And the internet will not be subject hereafter. "Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to
contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. "
Don't you even read what you post?
QuoteMajor Provisions Subject to Forbearance:
Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
utility-style rate regulation, including rate regulation, tariffs, and last-mile unbundling.
o
Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to
contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254. The question of how best to
fund the nation's universal service programs is being considered in a separate, unrelated
proceeding that was already underway.
:point:
:dizzy2:
Quote from: Bo D on March 04, 2015, 12:02:28 PM
:point:
:dizzy2:
Has she ever had a salient point? ;D
https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/myth-v-fact-what-s-the-truth-about-net-neutrality?utm_content=sf189006179&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=U.S.%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce&sf189006179=1
Myth v. Fact: What's the Truth about Net Neutrality?
MAY 07, 2018 - 12:00PM
NEIL BRADLEY
Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer
In the next few weeks, the Senate is expected to consider a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that will undo the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) "Restoring Internet Freedom Order," rather than working to pass bipartisan legislation that establishes a net neutrality framework and does not over regulate the Internet.
Before Senators vote to impose Great Depression-era regulations on the Internet, it's important to set a few things straight.
Myth: Those who support net neutrality will support the Senate CRA legislation to restore the Obama-era FCC's internet rules.
Fact: Many people and organizations, including the U.S. Chamber and much of the business community, support net neutrality, but oppose the Senate CRA legislation to restore the FCC's rules. Why? Because the FCC's rules went well-beyond net neutrality by regulating the Internet like a public utility.
Regulating the Internet like a public utility – using a 1930s era law – has real world consequences. The most damaging consequence: less investment in the broadband necessary to deliver high-speed Internet to more homes, schools, and businesses across the United States.
All over the country, communities saw a decrease in broadband investment during the two years that the Obama-era FCC treated the internet like a public utility, broadband investment declined for the first time outside of a recession. For example, one broadband company in Arkansas decided to withdraw plans to reach unserved rural communities because of the regulations.
The fact is, reinstating the Obama-era net neutrality regulation means fewer Americans have access to the latest high-speed connections.
Myth: Restoring the Obama-era FCC rules is the only way to get net neutrality rules that will prevent Internet service providers from slowing or blocking content.
Fact: Legislation is currently pending in both houses of Congress – H.R. 4682 and S. 2510 – that would codify net neutrality into law without going the additional step of regulating the Internet like a public utility, which we already know is extremely anti-growth.
Incredibly, of the 48 Senate Democrats who have cosponsored the CRA resolution under consideration, not one of them have cosponsored legislation that would achieve net neutrality without taking the extra step to regulate the Internet like a public utility.
What's their goal? To achieve net neutrality or to give the federal government the power to regulate the Internet just like it regulated phone companies in the 1930s?
If the goal is to achieve net neutrality, bipartisan legislation will bring the most certainty to American consumers and job creators and will drive much-needed investment and innovation in the internet. That's a fact.
We urge the Senate to establish net neutrality the right way, promote a free and open Internet, and put rural and other unconnected Americans first by voting "no" on the net neutrality CRA.
I hate to say this but we told you this would happen.
https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/ (https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/)
Quote from: Bo D on September 03, 2018, 10:28:25 PM
I hate to say this but we told you this would happen.
https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/ (https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-throttled-california-firefighters-and-this-wasnt-the-first-time/)
Comcrap and Sprint are both guilty of it as well. . .
Again the Republican controlled FCC screwed the American citizens by selling out to big corporations. I wonder how much money the Republican party and the FCC chairman got for this turd decision. When are the 33% of the far right Christian Republicans going to wise up and quit voting against themselves. :doh: They are bat shit crazy :bat: :knife:
When you have corporate/capitalist interests basically running the government, this is what you get - screwed. The FCC no longer acts for the public's interest - remember that we, the public, own the airwaves and they are to be operated for our, the public's, benefit and not those of corporate interests. Just look how the media is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and how much less return the public gets for those public airwaves. Less and less content, and more and more commercials/ads. Even the 'news' is primarily infotainment and commercials disguised as 'news'. Pure BS.