New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

mattlap wrote:

That is a travesty in the biggest economy in the world. Many countries have bypassed the United States in high speed internet access.

And that is BECAUSE of GUB'MINT REGULATION!...

Regulation that says if big bad evil corporation wants to sell their product to people willing to pay for it then big bad evil corporation MUST grease the political system and then buy votes for same by forcing big bad evil corporation to provide high speed internet to all the parasites who don't want to pay for it. Just like everything else they get.

Just imagine the uproar from the entitlement crowd if we took OLD technology and GAVE it to them, and even PAID them minimum wage to install it thus giving them an education to boot... while we upgrade our infrastructure.

These people would NEVER go for it...they have been bought and paid for for too long.

And let's not forget the unions which pretty much quadruples the labor costs and in the case of technology infrastructure, the knowledge base of that labor force is much lower.

then add affirmative action quotas and the inevitable lawsuits that go with it.. that in itself is a huge expense

More reasons we lag behind.

and then it all gets heaped on Joe Taxpayer to pay for it.

these countries that have bypassed us have nowhere near the regulation we do.

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

Moby Grape wrote:

And that is BECAUSE of GUB'MINT REGULATION!...
these countries that have bypassed us have nowhere near the regulation we do.

Here we go again, ignorance & stupidity rears its ugly head.
Our resident moron has it all wrong again & as usual he doesn't have fricken clue:

Quote:

Academics Call For US to Adopt EU Internet Access Regs - Fine with Us!

By Gigi Sohn on April 21, 2010 -

The New York Times ran an op-ed today by 5 academics urging the FCC to adopt European Union (EU)-style transparency regulation rather than so-called â€œheavy-handedâ€ net neutrality regulation that would ensure that US telephone and cable companies providing Internet access donâ€™t pick winners and losers. In an argument we hear often from those companies, the academics suggest that so long as a consumer knows what its Internet access provider is doing, the customer can simply change providers if he or she doesnâ€™t like it.

What the authors conveniently fail to mention is that competition is robust in many EU countries because of regulatory policies that require an Internet access provider to share its facilities with competitors. The Berkman Center at Harvard Law School pointed this out in its comprehensive, but largely ignored (by the FCC) report that looked at broadband deployment and adoption around the world. The United Kingdom, France, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are among the EU countries cited in the report that have adopted â€œopen accessâ€ policies.

But the U.S. doesnâ€™t have that kind of competition, largely because we eliminated those same open access policies in the early aughts. As a result, most Americans have a choice of only two broadband access providers â€“ a cable or a telephone company. In addition, unlike the EU, where there are no monetary penalties for switching broadband access providers, most U.S. companies impose such penalties. It doesnâ€™t do an American Internet user any good if your Internet access provider tells you it is playing favorites when your choices are so limited and you can suffer financial penalties for switching...

...So weâ€™re happy to move the FCC towards European-style telecom regulation. Think the academics will join us?
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/3015

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

oh great...seen their economy lately?

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

try & stay on topic

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

same to you.

edge540 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:42 pm **Posts:** 7910

right
Tell us again how other "countries that have bypassed us have nowhere near the regulation we do."

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

Here's a link to the FCC along with a sample email that explains why it is so important for our government to step up and defend "net neutrality". Remember,the internet belongs to us,not corporate America.
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=437
The FCC must reclassify broadband as a "telecommunications service" so that it can keep the Internet open and free of corporate gatekeepers.Without vital Net Neutrality protections and the ability to enforce them, the Internet will cease to be a public platform for free speech, equal opportunity, economic growth and innovation. Instead, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, which have a commercial incentive to limit the free-flowing Web, will decide whose voices are heard.You still have the power to protect the public interest. Please stand with us and keep the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

splorks wrote:

Remember,the internet belongs to us,not corporate America.

And here I thought it belonged to Algore.

Go figure... :roll:

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

sparks wrote:

Here's a link to the FCC along with a sample email that explains why it is so important for our government to step up and defend "net neutrality". Remember,the internet belongs to us,not corporate America.
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=437
The FCC must reclassify broadband as a "telecommunications service" so that it can keep the Internet open and free of corporate gatekeepers.Without vital Net Neutrality protections and the ability to enforce them, the Internet will cease to be a public platform for free speech, equal opportunity, economic growth and innovation. Instead, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, which have a commercial incentive to limit the free-flowing Web, will decide whose voices are heard.You still have the power to protect the public interest. Please stand with us and keep the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day.

key words here are and the ability to enforce them

I bet sparks can't even tell us what net-neutrality means or who coined the term in the first place.

he can't because he's just another useful idiot who is being told what to do.

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

Moby Grape wrote:

sparks wrote:

Here's a link to the FCC along with a sample email that explains why it is so important for our government to step up and defend "net neutrality". Remember,the internet belongs to us,not corporate America.
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=437
The FCC must reclassify broadband as a "telecommunications service" so that it can keep the Internet open and free of corporate gatekeepers.Without vital Net Neutrality protections and the ability to enforce them, the Internet will cease to be a public platform for free speech, equal opportunity, economic growth and innovation. Instead, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, which have a commercial incentive to limit the free-flowing Web, will decide whose voices are heard.You still have the power to protect the public interest. Please stand with us and keep the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day.

key words here are and the ability to enforce them

I bet sparks can't even tell us what net-neutrality means or who coined the term in the first place.

he can't because he's just another useful idiot who is being told what to do.

After reading hundreds of your bigoted,hate filled posts, I believe that a twenty dollar hooker possesses more wisdom than you do. Plus, hookers come with happy endings!

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

sparks wrote:

Moby Grape wrote:

key words here are and the ability to enforce them

I bet sparks can't even tell us what net-neutrality means or who coined the term in the first place.

he can't because he's just another useful idiot who is being told what to do.

After reading hundreds of your bigoted,hate filled posts, I believe that a twenty dollar hooker possesses more wisdom than you do. Plus, hookers come with happy endings!

can't even tell us what net-neutrality means....

told ya he couldn't answer it.

hook line and sinker...

net-neutrality is a spiffy little cool sounding term that works on idiots like sparks but in reality in means nothing but net-REGULATION.

the communications industry is one of the few left since obama broke the economys back that are still infusing money into the economy and our communications infrastructure.

What this regulation will do is force these industries to provide, at no cost to the lazy welfare parasites, unlimited access to their products and their equipment.

regulation will entirely wipe out any competition and stifle progress.

And,...because of these regulations, prices will skyrocket and you morons will blame big bad evil corporation. It works on you idiots every time.

name one entity where government regulation oops,... I mean neutrality... improved things?

he can't answer that either.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

sparks wrote:

Plus, hookers come with happy endings!

I wouldn't know, I married a nice girl.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

74 Democrats defy Obama man's net neut plans
Register

Seventy-four Democratic members of the US House of Representatives have sided with telcos in the ongoing dust-up over the Federal Communications Commission efforts to preserve net neutrality.

"We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and the jobs that come with it," reads a letter from Houston, Texas Rep Gene Green, signed by a total of 74 members of Obama's own party.

The proposal that the letter derides is FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's "Third Way", his self-described "narrow and tailored approach" to internet regulation floated earlier this month in response to the April decision by a federal appeals court that sharply restricted the FCC's internet-regulatory powers by overthrowing the commission's sanctioning of Comcast for choking BitTorrent traffic.

Based on a legal framework created by the FCC's general counsel, the Third Way is Genachowski's tightrope-walking attempt to satisfy both the supporters and opponents of net neutrality by having the FCC assume regulatory powers over only the transmission component of broadband-access service, but to steer clear of any controls over content, services, e-commerce, apps, and the like.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/25 ... nachowski/

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

getting all their ducks in a row before November huh?

just like China and N Korea

Quote:

Obama Internet kill switch plan approved by US Senate
TECHWORLD.COM, by Grant Gross

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

http://news.techworld.com/security/3228 ... e/?olo=rss

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

White House considers executive order,
leaves Internet takeover a possibility
Daily Caller, by Josh Peterson

The White House has left open the possibility of enacting its Internet agenda via executive order after the failed effort to bring the Democrat-supported cybersecurity bill to a full vote in the Senate last week.

In response to a question from The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political newspaper, about whether President Obama was considering advancing his partyâ€™s cyber-plan through an executive order, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didnâ€™t rule out the possibility.

â€œIn the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,â€ he said via email.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/06/white ... z22mjwXdWX

DICTATOR 101

control information in order to control the masses.

thank the parasite, thank splicks, thank chuckie, thank the peter puffer, and thank every other HOPE and CHANGE swallowing ass holes...

Northwest Indiana Discussion

New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access

Who is online