Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Franc Tireur is offline Senior Net Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    289
    Thanked 148 Times in 118 Posts

    U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality

    A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down the latest effort by the Federal Communications Commission to require internet providers to treat all traffic the same, a policy known as net neutrality. The FCC did not have the legal authority to enact the 2011 regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit brought by Verizon Communications Inc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.
    U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality

    I love the comment: "The U.S. pays more for its Internet Service than all the other industrial countries and has the slowest speeds. Now these ISP want to make it slower if you use services not provided by them.

    Please tell me how privatizing everything is better for consumers? I need a good laugh"
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. #2
    robjones's Avatar
    robjones is offline Trail Boss
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    1,115
    Thanks
    513
    Thanked 441 Times in 292 Posts
    My experience with overseas esitors with whom I've worked has always suggested I had better and cheaper access. Granted I only had them in a handful of other countries, and it's anecdotal not "data" per se, but that was my experience. Private companies as a general rule can deliver good cheaper and more efficiently than government. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  3. #3
    Franc Tireur is offline Senior Net Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    289
    Thanked 148 Times in 118 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    Private companies as a general rule can deliver good cheaper and more efficiently than government. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
    I know that I will be off topic, but I think to be fair for everyone, I meant that all the potential consumers should have the ability to receive internet at a decent speed and if they want a faster connection it is their choice to pay more.

    You have either a standard that all companies are following or the state should nationalize the entire modern infrastructure, overwise iit is a chaotic situation where areas or different service offers are available for some and not others.

    As far as the price, many internet providers overseas are faster and cheaper, why in US they aren't doing this? For example, schools are offering educational programs for their students on internet which make it more and more important in the everyday life.

    The public corporations ISP have a bigger potential market, they just need to invest more...to get more customers.

    Not a recent article, but at least it helps understand what I am trying to say


    119 million Americans lack broadband Internet, FCC reports


    The US is a long way from its goal of making broadband Internet available to all 314 million Americans. In its third annual broadband progress report, the Federal Communications Commission says 19 million Americans have no option to buy fixed broadband Internet service, and an additional 100 million Americans that do live in areas where broadband is available are not subscribers. The FCC defines broadband as 4Mbps download speeds and 1Mbps upload speed. So, many people have Internet access that isn't counted in the report. But the US is decidedly behind many other countries. A report last year by the International Telecommunications Union showed the US having 27.6 fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, behind 15 other countries including first place Netherlands, which achieved 38.1 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.
    119 million Americans lack broadband Internet, FCC reports | Ars Technica
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. #4
    robjones's Avatar
    robjones is offline Trail Boss
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    1,115
    Thanks
    513
    Thanked 441 Times in 292 Posts
    Funny part is I recall prior to Big O's initial election when he was promising the most transparent government in history, was gonna put healthcare deliberations on the net before any vote took place, was going to bar lobbyists from the White House, and all kinds of other bullshit that proved to be patently false... he promised to bring about a "free" national wifi network for all to access. Basically the thing government does best is promise bullshit they either can't or have no intention to deliver.

    I have a major distaste for anything that has to be run by the government. Their current healthcare debacle is an example of how efficient and effective they are. In three years they've spent more money than it took to build Google and Amazon, delivered a non-working website that's only been successful at delivering previously secure data to spammers and raising the cost of both insurance and healthcare while getting more people off their insurance.

    All of this was done in the name of lowering the cost of healthcare and improving access to insurance. I have zero desire to get the government involved in delivery of the internet. Anything they deliver they control, and I dont trust government as far as I can throw a Buick. Given the recent NSA flap, would we consider putting the gov in total control of internet?
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  5. #5
    Franc Tireur is offline Senior Net Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    289
    Thanked 148 Times in 118 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    I have zero desire to get the government involved in delivery of the internet. Anything they deliver they control, and I dont trust government as far as I can throw a Buick. Given the recent NSA flap, would we consider putting the gov in total control of internet?
    Well, they could have build the complete infrastructure of fiber optic or other systems in every single town, and I doubt that a corporation could do that alone at this level. Or at least provide some relief to corporations with smart subsidies in the general interests of the people who are not able to get what the others get.

    The big problem of all governments today is their hunger for concentrated power and they handle it in a incompetent matter.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  6. #6
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,087
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 916 Times in 700 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    I have zero desire to get the government involved in delivery of the internet. Anything they deliver they control, and I dont trust government as far as I can throw a Buick. Given the recent NSA flap, would we consider putting the gov in total control of internet?
    It could be worse. Not too long ago the United Nations wanted to take control of the Internet. That is about the only thing worse than having the US government in charge. When it comes to corruption, no one can top the UN.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  7. #7
    iowadawg's Avatar
    iowadawg is offline Free Cell Champion
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Not in Texas
    Posts
    2,122
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    170
    Thanked 362 Times in 311 Posts
    Egyptians want to know when American will overthrow the terrorist in charge.
    So would I.

    Nothing short of a revolution in this country and a complete overthrow of all those now in government (not just elected officials, but the real unelected officials who make all the decisions without any regard to law, constitution or oversight) will change anything.

  8. #8
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,087
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 916 Times in 700 Posts
    Obama will just pardon himself through an executive order.

    If the government keeps us on this path of corruption, the revolution will be here soon enough.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #9
    robjones's Avatar
    robjones is offline Trail Boss
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    1,115
    Thanks
    513
    Thanked 441 Times in 292 Posts
    Fortunately the president cannot pardon himself.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  10. #10
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    3,087
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 916 Times in 700 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    Fortunately the president cannot pardon himself.
    He also cannot create a new law or change an existing law with an executive order, but that has not dissuaded him from doing so. In order to agree that he could not pardon himself I would have to have some supporting evidence that Obama has some degree of respect for the Constitution and rule of law. That only exists when it serves his needs.

    There was a discussion on the local talk radio station a few days ago about a president pardoning himself. A president has full rights to pardon anyone for any crime. There doesn't appear to be any legal issue to stop him, only an issue of ethics, which certainly would not deter him. No president has ever done that, so would need to be tested in court, but as we are seeing under Eric Holder, the outcome of the courts depends upon who is in office and assigning the federal judges. I think the Democrats just took over the DC Court that handles disputes between the parties, and now they dominate that court. That means most decisions are likely to be in favor of the Democrats.

    This reminds me a bit of one of Bill Clinton's classic "Slick Willie" political moves. Bill Clinton's last act as governor of Arkansas was to sign a new law that prevented any Arkansas politician from being prosecuted in Arkansas for any crime committed in office after they left office. At the time the locals were calling it the CYA law.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •