FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
Apparently Ajit Pai is substantially opposed to the concept of democracy, which uses the "count" of votes, not the content. He said that the count doesn't... count.
-
Still more insanity.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Still more insanity.
The top rated comment there is as accurate as it could be. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Still more insanity.
The top rated comment there is as accurate as it could be. . .
hahaha you mean this?
-
@jaredbusch Yup lol.
-
We support the FCC chair's efforts to review and consider rolling back these rules and believe that the best way to get fair rules for everyone is for Congress to take action and create regulatory and economic certainty.
What does economic certainty mean? That they can now make money regardless of their business strategy? That public pressure won't affect them? This seems oddly like the federal government entering into a trust with the ISPs.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
We support the FCC chair's efforts to review and consider rolling back these rules and believe that the best way to get fair rules for everyone is for Congress to take action and create regulatory and economic certainty.
What does economic certainty mean? That they can now make money regardless of their business strategy? That public pressure won't affect them? This seems oddly like the federal government entering into a trust with the ISPs.
They did that the moment that private ISPs owning the last mile access to customers was allowed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
We support the FCC chair's efforts to review and consider rolling back these rules and believe that the best way to get fair rules for everyone is for Congress to take action and create regulatory and economic certainty.
What does economic certainty mean? That they can now make money regardless of their business strategy? That public pressure won't affect them? This seems oddly like the federal government entering into a trust with the ISPs.
They did that the moment that private ISPs owning the last mile access to customers was allowed.
I didn't used to agree with this, but today - oh yeah - THIS! The city should own this... it allows the possibility of choice, something we are completely lacking in today.
-
-
At least the senate is starting to wonder what is going on...
-
-
-
I'm really curious what these costs are to ISPs by having to comply with Title II?
I'm curious how complying with Title II makes ISPs not want to invest in better/more infrastructure.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I'm really curious what these costs are to ISPs by having to comply with Title II?
I'm curious how complying with Title II makes ISPs not want to invest in better/more infrastructure.
Because it forces them to serve people that are not profitable to serve.
-
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I'm really curious what these costs are to ISPs by having to comply with Title II?
I'm curious how complying with Title II makes ISPs not want to invest in better/more infrastructure.
Because it forces them to serve people that are not profitable to serve.
That there is the issue. The business looks at an installation project and sees a pricetag of X, and then say it would require us to charge X per month to recoup this in X years.
So they just don't want to. It's understandable, but also unreasonable, as improvements is what makes everything better.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I'm really curious what these costs are to ISPs by having to comply with Title II?
I'm curious how complying with Title II makes ISPs not want to invest in better/more infrastructure.
Because it forces them to serve people that are not profitable to serve.
That there is the issue. The business looks at an installation project and sees a pricetag of X, and then say it would require us to charge X per month to recoup this in X years.
So they just don't want to. It's understandable, but also unreasonable, as improvements is what makes everything better.
Which would have some merit... if the governments, state and federal, weren't putting massive grants out there to improve infrastructure.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I'm really curious what these costs are to ISPs by having to comply with Title II?
I'm curious how complying with Title II makes ISPs not want to invest in better/more infrastructure.
Because it forces them to serve people that are not profitable to serve.
That there is the issue. The business looks at an installation project and sees a pricetag of X, and then say it would require us to charge X per month to recoup this in X years.
So they just don't want to. It's understandable, but also unreasonable, as improvements is what makes everything better.
Which would have some merit... if the governments, state and federal, weren't putting massive grants out there to improve infrastructure.
The issue though is businesses and residence over inflate the price of renovation improvements. So the grants while accurate, don't cover the costs.
-
-
Verizon already busted for throttling the competition.
-
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Verizon already busted for throttling the competition.
And it begins. . .
