Typhoid

I have to wait a YEAR?!!!!!!! Nooooooooo!!!!!!!

Especially for all of you Tomcat phlyers- you turkeys..... :) Happy Thanksgiving to all

Remember to set your scales back 10lbs tonight.......

Fun times

Doing some celebrating this Thanksgiving. As son-in-law and daughter landed in the states a short time ago, for the first time in a very long time no one in the family is deployed and everyone will be home safe for Thanksgiving.

That does not mean that the private companies didn't build their networks. They absolutely did. The government initially established their own network and continues to build and operate government networks. But that does not translate to our taxpayer dollars bulding what the private companies have built. They built their own networks and charge their customers for it. saying our tax dollars built what the companies use is somewhat like saying that since the KC-135 was built for the USAF, all the airlines commercial 4 engine jets were taxpayer funded. It doesn't track. I do not dispute that satellite networks are not as fast as land based systems via cable or telephone. My point was that there absolutely is competition and alternativs are available for just about everyone.

We the taxpayers did not build the Internet network and fiber optic connection system that the private companies use to provide service. The companies built that on their own dime, and charged back to the users. Why do you think the government built that and gave it to the companies? And 4G isn't exactly bad. It won't support some uses but certainly handles most individuals' needs.

Opened up my latest American Rifleman and 4 pages in is an advertisement from Dish Network for bundled Internet and TV service. Starting at $60/month with up to 4G service. I have it on good authority here that such capability and competition doesn't really exist and that no one actually has such competition available. It is a shame to see such a formerly trusted magazine engage in apparent fiction.......

Member of City Council http://combatace.com/topic/77819-starting-a-new-gig-soon/ which includes Vice Chair Board of Directors of the Colorado Springs Utilities Vice Chair Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (18 member governments including 3 counties for transportation planning) "As a political representative you certainly have to have a thick skin" oh yea..................!!

"It is good to see that individual people are taking this serious (no matter side they are on) and are thoughtfully seeking out their elected representatives at all levels of government." While I am catching a load of flack here; not one, single local constituent has contacted this local, elected official on this issue. at the local level there are just the franchise agreements of course.

Quite a record and a man to be proud of!

Happy Birthday!!!

Dave and Erik, One side does want to leave it alone Eric, I'll grant the point that it was not the Chairman, but his comments are still germane So far as fear-mongering, the entire basis for the false-flag Net Neutrality push is nothing but fear mongering of what the "evil corporations" MIGHT do, not what they have done. This is one of those times that I genuinely hope that I am wrong and you all are right. But nothing in my past or present experience gives me any confidence of that. Out

I was not going to comment further since I had already stated my opinion, and it is clear that none of us are going to change anyone else's mind. However, an article today and the link reinforces a point I had made earlier which is that what is being proposed isn't really what it seems to be. It is now becoming clear that Net Neutrality is really a false flag to sell something very different - the seizure of control of the internet by the FCC. The real reason for that was revealed by the FCC Chairman's comment. This is not about Net Neutrality, which is already the reality without any government intervention to force it. This is about RAISING TAXES ON ALL OF YOU http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/14/obamas-plan-backdoor-internet-tax/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokva3JZKXonjHpfsX56ewkWKexlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4CRMBnI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D and; http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/223751-obama-couldnt-be-more-wrong-on-title-ii "the FCC already is planning a “spending spree” on USF subsidies." and you all thought this scheme was going to save you money. if you like your Internet, enjoy it while you still have it. It won't last for long under these proposed rules. be careful what you wish for. out.

no, it's not. The FCC wants to regulate the internet by reclassifying it to a public utility where they WILL REGULATE THE INTERNET. by the way, a story out (I'll get the link later) that AT&T is putting on hold any plans to build out further internet capability because of the uncertainty over NN. If this is regulated by the FCC - all that investment will be cancelled. No build out, no increased capabilities, no further investments in expansion. if you like your internet, you can keep your internet..............

"I do not want cable companies or the federal government to regulate the internet." we agree

not saying they won't. every business is in it for the money. But rolling the entire Internet under the FCC regulatory authority as a utility isn't the answer. Competition is. Competition will keep the abuses down by giving people the option to shift from cable to phone or back again. That is what keeps companies honest, the competitor who will take their customers away from them and put them out of business. Skybeam offered me a faster service with a higher price and higher volume. But the current speed is fine for my current use. I have no doubt that your service would water my eyes. Just a question of my own use and priorities. At the moment, I don't have time to use it. My college sons would like the higher volume and speeds. I asked them how much they wanted to contribute...................... This will just have to be one of those things we won't agree on. respectfully

Net Neutrality is not exactly my burning issue of the day, but I was about to cite the same wiki article in order to ensure we are on the same frequency. Erik, my comment that you are arguing my point was based on your para; "This isn't just about consumers it's about every aspect of the internet business from the consumer to the provider. It takes both to work and that's not mentioning the backbone carriers and every little end point that they connect to. Traffic can't be regulated, it's worked all these years as is and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings." that is just about the best argument there is for leaving the Internet alone. Gov't didn't build the Internet, private, free-market enterprises built it. First ask yourself - what's broken? I very key point that I will emphasize here is the last part of that "..... and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings." No! The judicial proceedings blocked the FCC from implementing their regulations. This is where your argument is on the other side. The FCC proposed implementing what is being called "Net Neutrality" by regulation and Federal District Court blocked that because the FCC doesn't have the regulatory authority to implement what they proposed. They are rewriting their regs in order to comply with the court but the opponents are NOT the ones trying to change it through judicial proceedings. the President weighed in asking the FCC to reclassify Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from “information services,” their current classification under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, to “telecommunications providers” under Title II – in essence, making the Internet a public utility. What that means is very well described by the WSJ; http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-vs-the-internet-1415667174 which outlines the steps that any service provider would have to step through in order to set or change any rate. From that article; “Like the telephone companies of old, broadband providers would be required to ‘file a tariff’ at the [Federal Communications] commission, meaning they would submit mountains of paperwork and ask the government to approve the prices they intend to charge for services. The bureaucrats would then consider whether the prices are fair. FCC bureaucrats would also hold sway over plans to expand or build digital networks.” another very good summary is at; "https://patriotpost.us/articles/30889 this will undermine the ability of the various service providers to provide those services and to be able to recover their costs. That will lead to less service, not better service. Dave, you shell out $228 a month?!!! I shell out $46 for a set volume, and if I go over I shell out an additional $2 per 10 gbytes. and thanks to my grandkids who watch Netflix, I do that just about every month. But the next step up costs more than I shell out in extra costs, although it comes with higher speeds and much more downloads. But these volumes are just volumes, not by type of service. Here is the key point - the ISP's have to build the capacity to meet the demand and gaming, video streaming and similar high volume services are driving the need to expand capacity. It is appropriate for those who use those services to pay for those costs, that is a standard cost-of-service determination that utilities (electric, gas, water) do now. Tiered rates allow that to happen. Here is the key point, why should a low volume user like me subsidize your high volume? Some of the points being made to justify NN are based on what some people think the ISP's might do. At the moment they are not doing that, or I certainly haven't seen it either here in practice nor in the franchise renewal agreements that I will vote to approve coming up here soon. "Net Neutrality needs to stay in place. That's the reality." "This is what is in place now that we are trying to protect." NO, that is not currently in place. at least not here in the US nor in most countries around the world. Those rules are what the FCC is proposing, in part, and what the Federal District Court blocked as exceeding the FCC's authority without legislation. The President, also, has no authority over the FCC and cannot legally order them to implement any rules. "If I play online too much they can throttle it back, if I stream too much they can throttle it back and if I want to prevent the throttling back, they will want more money." correct. That is tiered rates which are legal today in utility services across the country (water, gas and electric) as well as Internet. My ISP provides tiered rates for different levels of service. If there is a flat rate, then the low end user (me) is subsidizing the high end user (you) and THAT, my friend, is the crap sandwich here. The rational for tiered rates is what I stated above, the ISP has to build the infrastructure and bandwidth to supply that, which costs more money. Those who use that should be the ones who pay for that. Not the small user. That is why there are tiered rates and commercial rates. You want the services, you should pay for the services. what is being sold as NN really isn't what it is being sold as. Respectfully yours.

"Traffic can't be regulated, it's worked all these years as is and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings." Do you realize that you just agreed with me? "Net Neutrality needs to stay in place." It's not in place. This is a new regulatory regime that will change the incredible success of the Internet into a gov't run utility. Does it not strike anyone as just a little ironic that the Elected Official (gov't) and Utility Board Director here doesn't think this is a good idea?

yep, a scale model.

Every single one of you has the option of going wired or satellite internet. Most of you have the option between the phone company Internet service and cable company Internet service. There is competition for Internet service. The idea of regulating the Internet as a utility with federal rate hearings is a very bad idea. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, but take note of my comments and we'll review the results of the already court declared illegal actions a few years down the road. Respectfully, out.

Yea. Her father worked for NASA and made a similar claim about her mother.......

I was afloat aboard USS Belknap, 6th Fleet Flagship, a component of US Naval Forces Europe, a component of US European Command. Very, very happy to see that wall come down!! I came home with a piece of the Berlin Wall that I was going to make into a suitable plaque. when cleaning my desk one day, Janice saw this old rock sitting there and threw it out........!!!!

Nope. I really don't care what he is or isn't. Irrelevant. What I care about is what he does and how he does it. I don't think this should be dictated without any legislative authority in defiance of a federal district court ruling. The court ruled that the FCC lacked the legislative authority to implement the proposed rules. Also of note, the FCC is an independent commission and the President lacks the authority over the FCC. "How" is important.

There are several internet options available in most places; phone company, ISP wired, radio, satellite, and multiple providers within those options. I have four options where I am. If you don't like your provider, switch to another - while you still can...........