Looks like the FCC press office has employed Sir Humphrey.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking the American public to tell it if its decision in 2017 to scrap net neutrality regulations was dumb or not. In a striking piece of irony – and one that the FCC is distinctly unhappy about – the watchdog is legally obliged to seek public comment on three issues: how its …
Maybe if we elect a woman proven to have a good head on her shoulders, ethics & morals compass' not skewed completely out of alignment, & so obviously disgusted with the shite the others of the bureau have gotten up to, perhaps this nation (dare I hope the world?) may get returned to some semblence of sanity, diplomacy, & decency?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Emulate San Marino, 2 "captains" serving a 6 month term and several days after they leave office for the public to file complaints to the authorities about their conduct (and possible criminal charges)
Firing Pai is what is desperately needed. But that won't happen on Trump's watch. As, and I could be wrong, I get the impression when I look at him, that he is one of those Apprentice candidates who'll do anything to kiss Trumps arse so to make a buck. Wouldn't surprise me if he's doing stuff at the FCC that, indirectly, benefits Trumps businesses that he refused to give up when becoming President.
Trump's businesses have phone lines. There's no need for "indirectly"; the telcos are in a position to write sweetheart contracts that directly affect those businesses' costs.
But there doesn't have to be any present quid pro quo. I doubt Trump himself devotes any of his (meager) intellectual resources to Pai or the FCC. They haven't aroused his ire, or that of anyone who has his ear. That's really all that matters.
Net Neutrality is to Free Open Internet as PATRIOT Act is to Patriotism.
All the sky is falling boo hoo and support of former Obama-Donor-Super-Bundler and thus appointed former FCC Commissar Tom Wheeler's lies all for naught. None of the bed-wetting came true.
In 2013 100Mbps synchronous account + 5 static IP block = $178 +taxes
In 2020 500Mbps synchronous account + 5 static IP block = $124 + taxes.
Just another excuse for a government created oligopoly to hand attempt to regulate the internet and put the toothpaste back in the tube.
* public safety,
* low income Americans, and
* broadband infrastructure?
Public safety is potentially the easiest one. So can be linked to E911 regulations. Allow (or better, require) ISPs to prioritise 128kbps on all broadband connections using ToS 3&7. Forbid non-public safety apps from using those markings. That would require some definition of public safety, so E911 and the ability to make emergency calls is one, but also should support alarm/alert services and devices like medic alert buttons that can call for help.
Require congestion monitoring at the interconnect level (ie peering/transit) for those services and regulate connection costs between connection provider and PSAP. This would effectively extend (or enforce) some provisions in the "New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act".
Low income and broadband infrastructure are more political than technical, ie how and who to charge for USO-type obligations, which could then go into the slush fund for supporting/subsidising those connections. That's been floated in various countries as a 'broadband tax', which would be regressive if applied to consumer charges, but could be extended to traffic generators.. So charge content providers as well as ISPs. But ideally there would also be an overhaul wrt how USO funds are managed and disbursed.
Always surprising unto those who lick the boots of STATE.
The same federal plantation that drops depleted uranium all over the world for nearly two decades.
Provides liability limits to companies putting tax payers on the hook for disasters like Deepwater Horizon.
Whose FCC encouraged the consolidation of old media into 5 companies.
Lies its people into fake wars over Yellow Cake uranium.
As they say, you can lead a Tax Cow to water, but you can't make them think.
not a bad analogy. More like "Net Neutrality is to Free/Open Internet as CO2 is to global warming" - where people all SAY that 'Net Neutrality' is something that it really is NOT [it's just another gummint takeover of a generally UNregulated thing, in the name of 'freedom' or 'fairness' or some OTHER such *LIE*] in the same way that people *FEEL* (not think) that CO2 (produced by humans) is causing global climate "whatever". (if you want proof view my posting history, no need to create a distraction thread branch here, but from MY perspective, it's a really good point to make).
And, the point is that 'net neutrality' *SOUNDS* like something we would want, i.e. no favoritism, everybody equal, etc., but isn't. In actual practice, it means that UNPROFITABILITY for the fringe cases would COST EVERYONE ELSE A WHOLE LOT MORE (in the name of 'fairness' and 'neutrality')!!! And that's just the beginning of it.
Personally I'd *love* to have a fast-lane that you could pay for. It'd be like 1st class seating on an airline, buying a "fast pass" for commuter lanes and toll roads, and having everything delivered to your house. You pay more to get BETTER SERVICE. The fruits of that extra revenue end up lowering other costs, or improving overall service, because that's how businesses operate. [if you don't *FEEL* [not think, *FEEL*] that I'm right about this, I suggest you need a
clue-bat attitude adjustment].
And this straw-man "poor person" who can't get high speed internet because of NO NET NEUTRALITY has been driving a LOT of "arguments" though. But I see it this way: WHY must *I* only be able to afford LOUSY INTERNET so that the TAXES from that will "help" some "straw man poor person" [not ME] "afford" high speed [faster than what I have I bet] intarwebs *AT* *MY* *EXPENSE* ???
This is a case of GUMMINT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, and *ULTIMATELY* it's what the so-called "Net Neutrality" *REALITY* ends up being - MORE! GUMMINT! TAKEOVER! AND! POLITICAL! PAYOFFS! TO! PROTECTED! AND! FAVORED! CLASSES!!! [people who vote for *them* in other words]
Besides, the FCC really shouldn't be regulating things "that way". Such regulations need to be passed by CON-GRAB (aia 'congress') except they're too busy WITCH HUNTING to bother with it...
FCC commissioners who pushed through a pre-decided outcome and actively ignored public opposition to their plans
They actively polluted the previous survey/poll with huge numbers of fake entries from people who had never gone near it, and indeed, those who were deceased at the time!
That's not ignorance - that's something that someone at the very least should have lost their jobs over.
Upvoted, Bob, because you are correct. However, the AC you replied to is correct, too. Until the ludicrous partisan politics of the USA is sorted out, it doesn't matter who is president - you are all fucked. Work towards building bridges between the two sides, and you might be on the way to where you want to be.
This post has been deleted by its author
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021