Where were your complaints about this regulation from 2000 to 2005? What? You didn't complain? And the sky didn't fall then? Oh, well.. so much for your argument in this thread.
BL.
What regulation? Every attempt I saw by the FCC to "regulate" the Internet up until this point has FAILED UTTERLY in the court system, which has ruled quite consistently that the FCC has no power to do the things it has been trying to do.
Up until 2004, I can find no cases of the FCC doing anything other than "promoting principles".
In 2005, I see a Madison River case where the case was settled before ever being taken to court (no rulings). DSL (a phone based service) was deregulated in 2005 (that means NO REGULATIONS by the FCC, not "more"). The FCC was reminded by the National Cable and Television Association that it had no authority without a Congressional law to implement "Net Neutrality" and they urged them to pursue one.
In 2007, the FCC attempted to deal with Comcast throttling Bit Torrent clients and ordered a cease and desist in 2008, but in 2010 the US Court of Appeals ruled the FCC, "has failed to tie its assertion’ of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress." That means they had
no authority to regulate Internet content or ISP behaviors.
In 2010, the FCC proposed Net Neutrality "principles" that did NOT tell ISPs that they could not charge customers more for higher speeds. "The measure was denounced by net neutrality advocates as a capitulation to telecommunication companies such as allowing them to discriminate on transmission speed for their profit, especially on mobile devices like the iPad, while pro-business advocates complained about any regulation of the Internet at all." What that means is
AS *I* SAID EARLIER, some of your "friends" pushing for "Net Neutrality" want ONE PRICE, ONE SPEED for customers. In other words, they want everyone to have the same speed/access and no faster access for more money. Think of it as the Communism of Net Neutrality. This would mean SLOW SLOW SLOW for those of us that aren't living on welfare.
"
On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission[47] that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, since service providers are not identified as "common carriers."
"
On May 15, 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality."
Here's your "government" scheming to ALLOW fast lanes via FCC regulation. Whatever your beliefs about "Net Neutrality" are today can be changed by the FCC at a moment's notice tomorrow. Do you seriously believe they are no affected by lobbying? Again, how about a CONCRETE LAW instead of a "ruling" ? It won't and HAS NOT stood up in court thus far and I see no reason to believe it will this time either. Look at who controls the courts right now. It's not Obama's side.
"
On January 16, 2015, Republicans presented legislation, in the form of a U. S. Congress H. R. discussion draft bill, that makes concessions to net neutrality but prohibits the FCC from accomplishing the goal or enacting any further regulation affecting ISPs."
Notice the latter part. It STOPS ANY FURTHER REGULATIONS of the ISP. Your Republican Congress at work for big business.
"
On February 26, 2015 the FCC applied common carrier of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the internet."
That is the subject of this thread. The FCC decided it would declare ISP common carriers despite prior court rulings that ISPs are NOT common carriers. I fail to see how this could stand up in court due to prior rulings. The Internet is not a telephone operation save DSL which was already deregulated as such.
All I have to say is those that claim I don't "get it" have nothing to back it up. This talk about "where was I" in 2000-2005? WTF are you talking about??? Again,
WHAT REGULATION? You mean
ATTEMPTS to regulate that were struck down by the courts???
I think it's clear who doesn't know WTF they're talking about on here and it's not me.
As I already said, I'm not opposed to some Net Neutrality rules, but they need to be concise, limited and passed as a LAW, not a FCC ruling. The courts have backed this up so far. But the idea that there cannot be SOME private high speed lanes on the Internet is also absurd. As long as customers have Net Neutral alternatives, I don't see why a business who pays to connect to the Internet cannot offer faster services to individuals willing to pay for it. Should we all be forced to drive Volvos? Should my Netflix 4K experience be RUINED by a bunch of people playing Tux Racer because of "Net Neutrality" rules when it's possible to offer multiple ISPs, some with and some without Net Neutrality. No, a SLOW INTERNET IS A CRAPPY INTERNET.
The
best solution (as would have been with health care) is to offer a Net Neutral government run alternative. If you like it, get it. If you prefer a private offering, get it. The
competition would do us all good.
