Help Us Prevent Cable Company F..kery

[+Dave 2,322]

[+Spectre8750 167]

This is about power and control. I thought you guys knew our government was out of control? They are not working for our benefit anymore. The first line of defense for us is communication, the government will not allow that. When the shit hits the fan we will be cut off from one another. And in the mean time our right's are being taken away one by one. There are other ways to keep businesses from controlling the internet and fees by preventing unfair business practices without giving our rights up to what WE can do. Mark my words, things are getting more brown shirt everyday and you guys will realize it when it's to late.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Spectre8750

[+Dave 2,322]

This is about power and control. I thought you guys knew our government was out of control? They are not working for our benefit anymore. The first line of defense for us is communication, the government will not allow that. When the shit hits the fan we will be cut off from one another. And in the mean time our right's are being taken away one by one. There are other ways to keep businesses from controlling the internet and fees by preventing unfair business practices without giving our rights up to what WE can do. Mark my words, things are getting more brown shirt everyday and you guys will realize it when it's to late.

 

 

Ok, now we are heading into tin foil hat territory. Sorry, shit isn't great but isn't that bad either. Going to have to whole hardily disagree with you. As far as the internet goes, the government IS NOT taking it over they are keeping the playing field level. The ISP's want to tell us who, what, when, why and where. Example, cables TV rates have gone up and up and up and the service has gotten crappier and crappier. That is why all those companies rank so low in customer satisfaction.

[+Typhoid 231]

Typhoid

 

I am sorry, but you have this anti Obama thing clouding your judgement.

 

There is nothing I can find saying the FCC is going to tax anything.

 

Have we ever caught him in a Truth yet?

 

Regulating under Title II is precisely what gives them the power to tax/fee providers - and ultimately you.  The Chair of the Commissioner admitted that but "promised" that is "not their intention" - yet....

 

What should give you pause, all of you pause, is that these regs are still secret.  No one really knows what is in these regs or not because they haven't released them yet.  So everyone will be held to regulations that no one knows what they are. 

 

Erik, do you have your site licence application and application fee ready yet? 

 

I'll hold further comment until we can all see what is actually in the regs, but the fact that no one actually knows what the regs (not passed legislation) are should be very troubling to everyone. 

 

So we will see.  I quite honestly hope, my friend, that I am wrong and you are right, but I rather doubt it given the track record so far. 

 

In the meantime, the FCC statement;

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

 

dissenting statement from Commissioner O'Reilly;

http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a6

 

dissenting statement from Commissioer Pai;

http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5

 

you should all read those dissenting opinions carefully because they go into the details that the Soros and Ford Foundation $170million funded net-neutrality media campaign avoided mentioning. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by Typhoid

[+Dave 2,322]

So we will see.  I quite honestly hope, my friend, that I am wrong and you are right, but I rather doubt it given the track record so far. 

 

Now I do agree with you there. I am in the wait and see mode myself now that it passed. I hope we who wanted it are not wrong down the road. 

[FastCargo 412]

Here's a simple way to understand it:

"If you cannot regulate yourselves, we will do it for you...and you won't like it."

The ISPs, including mobile providers, have no one to blame but themselves.

 

I am not a fan of large governments, but governmental intervention is not always a bad thing.  It can result in things like establishing standards and enabling protections.  Does anyone think auto makers would create cars that last as long, be as safe and efficient as they are now if the government had not passed and enforced standards that they needed to adhere to?  What about things like telephone and electric power regulation?  Far as I can tell, the world hasn't ended, but both have been Title II for a long time.

There has been very little I have seen that says the government is going to start enacting some sort of draconian censorship measures or tax the snot out of the internet.  As the NSA revelations have shown, they didn't need NN regulations to get into everything already.

And as an additional note, ISPs have already been caught doing the exact things NN advocates warned about.  People talk about Netflix as the prime example, but it goes beyond that.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-looks-settle-ftc-lawsuit-over-premium-sms-charges/2014-10-22

 

http://www.techvibes.com/blog/whats-in-a-text-message-the-real-cost-of-sms-and-just-how-badly-wireless-carriers-are-ripping-you-off-2011-07-05

 

http://fortune.com/2014/04/22/why-the-feds-should-block-comcasts-merger-with-time-warner-cable/

 

http://gizmodo.com/the-comcast-time-warner-cable-merger-may-not-happen-1682094691

 

http://jirout.me/att-data-overage-fees/

 

http://bgr.com/2015/02/26/verizon-fcc-net-neutrality/

 

Somebody stop me...I've got more...

 

Oh, and remember when AT&T said they weren't going to invest in more high speed because of the impending NN vote?  About that...

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article10441850.html

Seems like there's still competition even under impending Title II regulation.  Bluff called.

 

And don't get me started on the idea a few years ago of mobile ISPs charging for 'tethering'... an ability that cost them absolutely ZERO dollars but they charged for it anyway...it took the FCC to weigh in with a lawsuit to get Verizon (and by extension, other mobile ISPs) to stop doing that shit.

http://lifehacker.com/5933152/the-right-to-tether-what-the-verizonfcc-settlement-means-to-you

FC

 

[RUSTYMORLEY 162]

At the end of the day whatever the arguments are - it's really about screwing money from users, rather like speed cameras in Britain which are springing up all over the place fleecing motorists and making millions for the government !!!!!!!!!! 

[FastCargo 412]

Man, I can't make this shit up:

 

http://www.appy-geek.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=37172634

 

FC

[+Typhoid 231]

The list of who paid for what in that article left off the part where the contract between the content provider and the carrier was listed.

 

Which part of the new regulations address that part?

 

Loaded question since the FCC staff is still writing the regs, IN SECRET, that were "passed" last month. But we have to pass them in order for us to be able see what's in them, right.........?

 

I found it particularly interesting to read that The Evil Comcast is FOR net neutrality and poor, abused Netflix already regrets this regulatory overreach.

 

But as noted before, we'll see how badly everyone got screwed whenever the FCC finally gets around to releasing their post-vote written regs.

[+Spectre8750 167]

If you could only see what's behind the Green Door! If our government was concerned about our welfare why do they want to take out rights away? My tinfoil hat's off to you, but they see a way to funnel money from any source possible using any reason they can to control and bleed. If we're here more then a couple years I see it getting worse not better. That's kinda been the trend the 50 years now.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Spectre8750

[+Typhoid 231]

still no published regs for any of us unwashed masses to read and evaluate. 

 

what are key people saying about this?

 

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-what-people-are-saying-post-adoption-obama-internet-plan

 

I particularly like the Netflix CEO comment and the characterization of these regs as "Net Neutering" -  spot on!

 

and why so long to publish the regs voted on in an open meeting?

 

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/fixing-flawed-and-non-existent-editorial-privileges

 

never mind the man behind the curtain!!

[+Erik 1,812]

Good news. This morning, the FCC released the full text of the historic new net neutrality rules, and now it’s clearer than ever that these rules will protect free speech, and that Comcast and their allies in Congress have been lying to you.

 

You can read them in full here -- but since it's 313 pages (of fiery, Comcast-slaying justice), we wanted to give you a quick rundown of what the rules do and don't do. But don't stop reading after the summary, because Comcast is already on the attack and there's more to do right now.

 

• ISP’s and their friends in government can't block you from visiting a website. So you can visit any site that you want.
• They can't slow down access to websites. So the sites you want to visit will come to you as quickly as the sites Comcast wishes you were visiting.
• They can't speed up or make certain websites load faster. This is absolutely critical, because if they could speed up certain sites, that functionally means slowing down other sites.
• They can’t get between you and any content, application, service, or anything else that you want to access online. That is explicitly one of the rules. Just in case the other rules don’t cover something.
• There are no new taxes or fees anywhere in the rules, and there’s nothing limiting investment. At all. Period.

 

All of that is to say two simple, wonderful words: we won.

[+Spectre8750 167]

I have the full 400 page regs, and that's not all there is to it. But we'll see how it's implemented.

[+Typhoid 231]

I have the full 400 page regs, and that's not all there is to it. But we'll see how it's implemented.

I've been slogging through it. The correct phrase is not "we won" the correct phrase is "you've been had".

 

There are no new taxes, fees, etc. - yet. The "forebearance" sections should be read clearly for what they are - a "pinky promise" not to raise fees, taxes, etc., until they think they can get away with it.

 

The degree of control by the FCC is huge, invasive and oppressive.

 

I am still reading through it all but it is far less about "Net Neutrality" than it is about imposing Title II. Which is what this really was all about all along. On to the Courts and the Congress

[+Erik 1,812]

I've been slogging through it. The correct phrase is not "we won" the correct phrase is "you've been had".

 

There are no new taxes, fees, etc. - yet. The "forebearance" sections should be read clearly for what they are - a "pinky promise" not to raise fees, taxes, etc., until they think they can get away with it.

 

The degree of control by the FCC is huge, invasive and oppressive.

 

I am still reading through it all but it is far less about "Net Neutrality" than it is about imposing Title II. Which is what this really was all about all along. On to the Courts and the Congress

 

I'm sorry you feel this way. Call your congressman and complain about it. It's been offered that this is the way the FCC can regulate the internet under the Title II jurisdiction it has while offering the public and private business the safeguards it can. This will help private business from being extorted by the cable providers. Just recently Sony released that their PS4 / HBO GO customers on Comcast won't be able to use this service because Comcast blocked it. This after they extorted Netflix last year. Regardless of the examples provided that internet service providers like Comcast are up to no good you're still "stanning" for them. Comcast is fearful that the internet will take over their TV customers. Why pay $140 to Comcast when you can stream it over the internet and pay for exactly what you want in an al la carte type service. This is off track however but the rules are now public and they will be challenged by the cable companies and I wouldn't doubt that within the year SCOTUS will rule on it's legality. So please stop yelling fire in a crowded theater it doesn't help your arguments in the slightest. I mean first you complain about only wanting to only pay for what you use and we fought to give you just that now you're complaining this is exactly what you didn't want because it's "invasive and oppressive". I mean how else could it be? The way it is right now with no regulation and running under the free commerce idea can't continue because the cable companies challenged it. We didn't challenge the ideas and founding principals of the internet. The cable providers couldn't resist extorting new business, we didn't start this fight, they did. We worked to have our voice heard, it was, and the decisions are in our favor.

 

I appreciate you sticking with this, but you of all people should recognize when you're swimming with the sharks. Keep swimming they promise they won't eat you.

[+Spectre8750 167]

I don't know how many of you out there are lawyers and understand legalese but the wording is such that if a company or a group or an individual offends another group or individual you can be fined and imprisoned! Your content will be under strict scrutiny!

Edited March 15, 2015 by Spectre8750

[+Dave 2,322]

I don't know how many of you out there are lawyers and understand legalese but the wording is such that if a company or a group or an individual offends another group or individual you can be fined and imprisoned! Your content will be under strict scrutiny!

 

 

I didn't read that anywhere. 

[+Typhoid 231]

That's what Title II opens up.

 

And yes, I have discussed this with my Congresscritter, we represent each other in our respective districts and talk frequently

 

Erik, Comcast is an Internet company. You have not ensured what I need, you are campaigning to take it away and force me to subsidize large volume users.

[+Spectre8750 167]

FCC-15-24A1_Internet Regs.pdf 2.6 MB

 

Edited March 15, 2015 by Spectre8750