FCC approves Net Neutrality rules

wordsworth said:

oth the intended and unintended consequences of any government act are usually not known by the people at the time of the act being passed.

All your hyperbole aside, this is not a new law. This law has been on the books in one form or another for almost 100 years, we are well aware of "the consequences" of what it does. Interestingly enough, the Telecommunications Act of 1934 is only 21 years younger than the income tax act.

The only thing that's new here is applying it to "broadband" communication lines. That's pretty much it.

You know then all the intended and unintended consequences of what the FCC voted on. You're better informed than the rest of us then, good for you.

wordsworth said:

You know then all the intended and unintended consequences of what the FCC voted on. You're better informed than the rest of us then, good for you.

I'm saying that you need only look at the consequences of the phone system. In most aspects, internet connections have been treated this way for quite some time anyways since most people got their internet over phone lines for a very long time. This is basically enshrining something that was effectively happening anyways, and was being threatened to be altered by phone providers who thought they could use loopholes to get around it, by claiming that broadband wasn't phone lines.

Bottom line renewal time will show the results if not sooner because the terms are clear isp's can change the contract rules at anytime

Mystere said:

I'm saying that you need only look at the consequences of the phone system. In most aspects, internet connections have been treated this way for quite some time anyways since most people got their internet over phone lines for a very long time. This is basically enshrining something that was effectively happening anyways, and was being threatened to be altered by phone providers who thought they could use loopholes to get around it, by claiming that broadband wasn't phone lines.

You've been saying the same thing throughout this thread. You do not know what will come of this as it's not possible for any of us to know, and as I suggested in my first post sometimes those in government now do not know what later politicians might do. Right now, for example, providers are not required to contribute to the universal service fund as reiterated by FFC lawyer Melissa Kirkel in the FCC meeting. That could always change, and if it does consumers will pay for that, not the corporations. What I've said is not hyperbolic fear mongering, it is based upon the historical record of our government which necessitates that we must always treat with great scepticism anything a politician or bureaucrat says.

The thread at sevenforums was removed on this topic and this one may be as well so anything written is gone anyway so I'm done here.

Comcast is actually considering the change favorable because now it will allow them to go ahead with the merger. As said in a previous post. Really simple fix just change the name of level of service, instead of Broadband at 3 mbps, it would be called economy internet high speed at 3mbps, and High speed Broadband would be called Broadband High speed internet with speeds starting at 25 mbps. This way everyone remains happy. Fcc wants at least one affordable rate for internet service, so more people will get it whether it is high speed or broadband.

So it has been removed
Often this type of thread turns into a political nightmare
We'll just have to wait and see what happens to both this thread and rates

wordsworth said:

You've been saying the same thing throughout this thread. You do not know what will come of this as it's not possible for any of us to know, and as I suggested in my first post sometimes those in government now do not know what later politicians might do. Right now, for example, providers are not required to contribute to the universal service fund as reiterated by FFC lawyer Melissa Kirkel in the FCC meeting. That could always change, and if it does consumers will pay for that, not the corporations. What I've said is not hyperbolic fear mongering, it is based upon the historical record of our government which necessitates that we must always treat with great scepticism anything a politician or bureaucrat says.

These fees have not made it impossible for anyone to have phones, since everyone, including small children have their own phones these days (most of which also have broadband internet service on those phones). I fail to see why such fees will have any kind of impact in Internet service, particularly since they only affect service defined as "broadband" (much of which existing service no longer even meets that definition).

People tend to get upset on the internet about things that amount to nothing. Remember the gigantic fuss over Open Office XML? Remember how if ISO 29500 were approved it was nigh the end of the world? Ummm.. Nothing happened. Life went on. Both ODF and OOXML are just fine, the universe did not end.

Remember SCO vs Novell? That didn't cause the end of the world either? And, in fact basically ended both companies... neither of which had any real effect on anyone else.

Remember "Palladium", DRM, TPM, Trusted Computing and a whole ton of other things the Internet claimed would be the end of the world as we know it? Yep, all of them basically went through as planned and... nothing happened....

So please, curb your enthusiasm... history has shown that such outrage is almost always misplaced. Not that a good amount of skepticism isn't needed, but it's just not the end of the world.

wordsworth said:

You've been saying the same thing throughout this thread. You do not know what will come of this as it's not possible for any of us to know, and as I suggested in my first post sometimes those in government now do not know what later politicians might do. Right now, for example, providers are not required to contribute to the universal service fund as reiterated by FFC lawyer Melissa Kirkel in the FCC meeting. That could always change, and if it does consumers will pay for that, not the corporations. What I've said is not hyperbolic fear mongering, it is based upon the historical record of our government which necessitates that we must always treat with great scepticism anything a politician or bureaucrat says.

The thread at sevenforums was removed on this topic and this one may be as well so anything written is gone anyway so I'm done here.

Is that a promise. . .:)