Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Not all political appointments are hacks, and not all are party hacks either side. This is why I would sometimes put my trust in them versus a guy I elect and lies to me. By the way how can you tell if a politician is lying to you? His mouth is open. (shameless old joke I know) Stewart At 08:48 PM 4/9/2010, you wrote: It is not a perfect world, in any sense of the way. There's an opinion piece in today's Post br Robert McDowell, who is an FCC commissioner. It is noteworthy that he was reappointed in June of last year, and was the first Republican to be so appointed to an independent agency by BHO. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Here's what he thinks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040803375.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
It is not a perfect world, in any sense of the way. There's an opinion piece in today's Post br Robert McDowell, who is an FCC commissioner. It is noteworthy that he was reappointed in June of last year, and was the first Republican to be so appointed to an independent agency by BHO. Unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Here's what he thinks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040803375.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
That part is true, but commissions many times have to interpret poorly or very vaguely written law (because politicians like to have it both ways. And I mean that in the worst sense.) It is not a perfect world, in any sense of the way. The FCC is trying to make decisions in the public interest using vague and dual meaning laws meant to not accomplish much but get the pols elected again and again. Sometimes I would prefer to let a commissioner make a decision in my best interest because no one else would. Commissioners tend to be less invested in the decisions they make and less influenced by industry than the pols. Stewart At 05:33 PM 4/9/2010, you wrote: Of course Congress makes its decisions for political reasons! That's their job. Politicians are the ones who should be making law, not commissions. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions at election time. Stewart Marshall wrote: And Congress does not do this either? Stewart At 10:57 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: Yes, we are communicating, but we are not Telecommunicating. When the laws governing regulation of it were established, Telecommunication was the telephone. My point is that voice is but a small element of the world of broadband and Congress should be the body to set its regulation, if it is to be regulated, not an FCC with political appointees who swing depending on the party in power. John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? Are we not communicating here? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2800 - Release Date: 04/09/10 02:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Of course Congress makes its decisions for political reasons! That's their job. Politicians are the ones who should be making law, not commissions. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions at election time. Stewart Marshall wrote: And Congress does not do this either? Stewart At 10:57 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: Yes, we are communicating, but we are not Telecommunicating. When the laws governing regulation of it were established, Telecommunication was the telephone. My point is that voice is but a small element of the world of broadband and Congress should be the body to set its regulation, if it is to be regulated, not an FCC with political appointees who swing depending on the party in power. John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? Are we not communicating here? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2800 - Release Date: 04/09/10 02:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
And Congress does not do this either? Stewart At 10:57 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: Yes, we are communicating, but we are not Telecommunicating. When the laws governing regulation of it were established, Telecommunication was the telephone. My point is that voice is but a small element of the world of broadband and Congress should be the body to set its regulation, if it is to be regulated, not an FCC with political appointees who swing depending on the party in power. John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? Are we not communicating here? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Yes, we are communicating, but we are not Telecommunicating. When the laws governing regulation of it were established, Telecommunication was the telephone. My point is that voice is but a small element of the world of broadband and Congress should be the body to set its regulation, if it is to be regulated, not an FCC with political appointees who swing depending on the party in power. John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? Are we not communicating here? No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 14:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
I'll take that as no you don't have a link. Sent from my iPod On Apr 8, 2010, at 17:53, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:46 PM, mike wrote: Got an url for that one? Why would the 'Bushies' try and stop Comcast from packet shaping and then do this? It is the Temerity of Nope. Whats left of the republican party is afraid to allow anything good for the country or not to pass during this administration. So they just say no and hope nobody notices that they blocked extending unemployment insurance payments during a recession largely of their own making. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:18 PM, tjpa wrote: On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? The Bushies reclassified them so they could more easily escape justice. Now Comcast is changing its name so it can more easily escape justice. *** *** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** *** *** *** -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) *** ** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** *** ** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:46 PM, mike wrote: > Got an url for that one? Why would the 'Bushies' try and stop Comcast from > packet shaping and then do this? > It is the Temerity of Nope. Whats left of the republican party is afraid to allow anything good for the country or not to pass during this administration. So they just say no and hope nobody notices that they blocked extending unemployment insurance payments during a recession largely of their own making. > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:18 PM, tjpa wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: > > > >> I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to > >> regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to > regulate > >> Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications > >> company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of > the > >> FCC. Am I wrong? > >> > > > > The Bushies reclassified them so they could more easily escape justice. > > > > Now Comcast is changing its name so it can more easily escape justice. > > > > > > > > * > > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > > * > > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: > I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to > regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate > Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications > company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the > FCC. Am I wrong? > > Are we not communicating here? -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
The Bushies reclassified them so they could more easily escape justice. Actually Clinton signed the 1996 Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 Read the paragraph under the Title VII bullet that begins: "The Act makes a significant distinction ..." That should clarify any confusion (yeah, rght), * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Net neutrality involves very different things for different people. Congress could write a bill that does all kind of things that mean the complete opposite to what you think NN means...and call it the NN bill. As far as paying more if we 'use' more by downloading more...right now tv is almost all digital, it comes across as a signal to most homes just as the internet...I believe at least. Why is it I can leave my tv on 24/7 if I want, but if I use my internet 24/7 they turn me off? One thing specifically I think should be made clear by providers when you get access to the internet is a clear line of 'too much'. How much can I download before you charge me more? Before you turn me off? Give me a number. Are you going to implement packet shaping? When? Why? What packets will be affected? On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: > b_s-wilk wrote: > >> >> This is screaming for an update of the definition of telecommunications. >> With more people using VOIP and cellular services, of course >> telecommunications include cable services. It needs to be revised in the >> FCC's code. >> > > That was my point exactly, except that I would say it the other way around, > that telecommunications is a subset of broadband. Back when, > telecommunications was the telephone. As an end user, you weren't concerned > with competing with other users (unless you were on a party line) > > I still don't understand all that net neutrality involves. Certainly, I > don't think a network provider should discriminate on the sources of content > i.e. selling the right to MS to give preference to Bing searches over Google > (or vice versa), but I do believe that network providers could charge by > volume of usage, i.e. packets per month. This assumes that broadband is not > a limitless facility and that higher users should pay more. I am a bit > sympathetic (but only a bit) with Comcast who built their broadband networks > to provide THEIR TV programming and then have to provide everybody else's TV > programming as well (Hulu, Netflix, etc), but, as you point out, they are > also now trying to get into every one else's business. > > So I agree, that if there is to be regulation, Congress should come up with > new standards and not let the FCC have to wrestle with it, especially as > folks complain when it has either a liberal or conservative bias. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
b_s-wilk wrote: This is screaming for an update of the definition of telecommunications. With more people using VOIP and cellular services, of course telecommunications include cable services. It needs to be revised in the FCC's code. That was my point exactly, except that I would say it the other way around, that telecommunications is a subset of broadband. Back when, telecommunications was the telephone. As an end user, you weren't concerned with competing with other users (unless you were on a party line) I still don't understand all that net neutrality involves. Certainly, I don't think a network provider should discriminate on the sources of content i.e. selling the right to MS to give preference to Bing searches over Google (or vice versa), but I do believe that network providers could charge by volume of usage, i.e. packets per month. This assumes that broadband is not a limitless facility and that higher users should pay more. I am a bit sympathetic (but only a bit) with Comcast who built their broadband networks to provide THEIR TV programming and then have to provide everybody else's TV programming as well (Hulu, Netflix, etc), but, as you point out, they are also now trying to get into every one else's business. So I agree, that if there is to be regulation, Congress should come up with new standards and not let the FCC have to wrestle with it, especially as folks complain when it has either a liberal or conservative bias. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Got an url for that one? Why would the 'Bushies' try and stop Comcast from packet shaping and then do this? On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:18 PM, tjpa wrote: > On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: > >> I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to >> regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate >> Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications >> company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the >> FCC. Am I wrong? >> > > The Bushies reclassified them so they could more easily escape justice. > > Now Comcast is changing its name so it can more easily escape justice. > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote: I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? The Bushies reclassified them so they could more easily escape justice. Now Comcast is changing its name so it can more easily escape justice. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? Isn't Comcast's VOIP telecommunication? They promote it heavily as part of their double and triple play packages. Paid VOIP is telephony, only over broadband. What's the difference between that and landline and mobile communication [except that the latter work when the power's out]? Is Comcast exempted from FCC telecommunications regulations whereas Verizon or AT&T DSL aren't exempted because they uses the same lines as landline telephones? Why? This is screaming for an update of the definition of telecommunications. With more people using VOIP and cellular services, of course telecommunications include cable services. It needs to be revised in the FCC's code. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the FCC. Am I wrong? mike wrote: You mean like where the FCC under Bush tried to make throttling illegal? Now the courts decided the FCC can't do that, so back to the big providers deciding what content they want to give you at what speed. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, b_s-wilk wrote: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon. Then they said that Comcast's stock went *down*. What's up with that? Comcast's "win" isn't exactly a success. The FCC is an independent Federal agency that makes many of its own rules. The Bush administration's anti-government appointees effectively eviscerated the FCC by not enforcing existing rules and making new consumer-hostile rules that prevent protection of consumer privacy, truth in billing, and competition. It's possible for the FCC to rewrite its rules to return the regulations that were removed by the previous administration's appointees. In the long run, this could be a boost to 'net neutrality--if the current commissioner has the guts to do it: reinstate consumer protection, promote competition, and require Internet Neutrality. While the FCC is doing its job, enforcing consumer-friendly rules--unlike in the past administration where they didn't do much of anything and let the broadband companies write the rules--Congress can try to pass legislation to protect consumers and ensure 'net neutrality. If this doesn't happen, the United States, which was first in Internet penetration, then fourth, now twenty-second, will continue to fall behind other industrial countries in broadband penetration, speed and affordability. Let the "party of NO" have a real filibuster on the floor of the Senate, reading the phone book and Finnegan's Wake or whatever. Then when that one senator can't stand up and talk any more, the Senate can vote on something good for the people. How about requiring a capella singing filibusters? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2796 - Release Date: 04/07/10 02:32:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
You mean like where the FCC under Bush tried to make throttling illegal? Now the courts decided the FCC can't do that, so back to the big providers deciding what content they want to give you at what speed. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, b_s-wilk wrote: >A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal >>Communications Commission lacks the authority to require >>broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet >>traffic flowing over their networks. >> >> I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon. Then >> they said that Comcast's stock went *down*. What's up with that? >> > > Comcast's "win" isn't exactly a success. The FCC is an independent Federal > agency that makes many of its own rules. The Bush administration's > anti-government appointees effectively eviscerated the FCC by not enforcing > existing rules and making new consumer-hostile rules that prevent protection > of consumer privacy, truth in billing, and competition. > > It's possible for the FCC to rewrite its rules to return the regulations > that were removed by the previous administration's appointees. In the long > run, this could be a boost to 'net neutrality--if the current commissioner > has the guts to do it: reinstate consumer protection, promote competition, > and require Internet Neutrality. > > While the FCC is doing its job, enforcing consumer-friendly rules--unlike > in the past administration where they didn't do much of anything and let the > broadband companies write the rules--Congress can try to pass legislation to > protect consumers and ensure 'net neutrality. If this doesn't happen, the > United States, which was first in Internet penetration, then fourth, now > twenty-second, will continue to fall behind other industrial countries in > broadband penetration, speed and affordability. > > Let the "party of NO" have a real filibuster on the floor of the Senate, > reading the phone book and Finnegan's Wake or whatever. Then when that one > senator can't stand up and talk any more, the Senate can vote on something > good for the people. How about requiring a capella singing filibusters? > > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon. Then they said that Comcast's stock went *down*. What's up with that? Comcast's "win" isn't exactly a success. The FCC is an independent Federal agency that makes many of its own rules. The Bush administration's anti-government appointees effectively eviscerated the FCC by not enforcing existing rules and making new consumer-hostile rules that prevent protection of consumer privacy, truth in billing, and competition. It's possible for the FCC to rewrite its rules to return the regulations that were removed by the previous administration's appointees. In the long run, this could be a boost to 'net neutrality--if the current commissioner has the guts to do it: reinstate consumer protection, promote competition, and require Internet Neutrality. While the FCC is doing its job, enforcing consumer-friendly rules--unlike in the past administration where they didn't do much of anything and let the broadband companies write the rules--Congress can try to pass legislation to protect consumers and ensure 'net neutrality. If this doesn't happen, the United States, which was first in Internet penetration, then fourth, now twenty-second, will continue to fall behind other industrial countries in broadband penetration, speed and affordability. Let the "party of NO" have a real filibuster on the floor of the Senate, reading the phone book and Finnegan's Wake or whatever. Then when that one senator can't stand up and talk any more, the Senate can vote on something good for the people. How about requiring a capella singing filibusters? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
On Apr 6, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Now, I don't know where this case is going to go. Likely to the Supreme Court. But the fact of the matter is that the cable and telephone companies built these networks and shouldn't be penalized for charging what the traffic will bear. Except they do not pay their fair share for their use of the public right of way. They happily take that and then turn around and take the public to the cleaners. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon. Then they said that Comcast's stock went *down*. What's up with that? It comes down to is an information service, as broadband is currently classified, regulable as a telecommunications service, which is the FCC's mandate. If it isn't, net neutrality gets a hit because the high volume users hog the available bandwidth, which is Comcast's point. But that's moot if the network has clearly specified speed limits in its pricing model. What is happening here is that cable uses a shared bandwith model that favors high usage users at the expense of low usage users. Sort of a "tragedy of the commons," in effect. The cable operations want the ability to impose caps in software. The phone companies all ready have caps built in. If Betty decides she wants to run flat out, 24/7/365 at maximum rate, that's OK if she gets it from a phone company. That's what she's paying for. Cool, right? No. Uncool if she's getting service from a cable company, because every byte she transfers is a byte that is not available to the other folks on that service. Which sort of sucks and is why cable companies oppose net neutrality. Now, I don't know where this case is going to go. Likely to the Supreme Court. But the fact of the matter is that the cable and telephone companies built these networks and shouldn't be penalized for charging what the traffic will bear. I guarantee that that will be an unpopular statement. But that is what it is. I'd prefer to be regulated in the telecommunications space, frankly, rather than the information provider space. I'm familiar with that and can understand it. If that turns out to be the case, and it would overturn this ruling, I can deal with it and live with it. But I always approached this from a utility standpoint and not a wild west shootout perspective. The unintended consequences of the OK Corral approach to regulation are what led to the current state of affairs. Anyway, I suspect this view would not exactly be popular on my side of the fence, so as usual, I speak only for myself and not for my company. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
Quoting Mike Sloane : A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon. Then they said that Comcast's stock went *down*. What's up with that? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] FYI: News Alert: Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
NYTimes.com News Alert wrote: Breaking News Alert The New York Times Tue, April 06, 2010 -- 11:23 AM ET - Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the F.C.C.'s authority to impose so called "net neutrality" obligations. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
