 Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Great Big corporations who would love nothing more than to screw consumers out of every penny they have, making the rules by which the FCC will protect said consumers from said corporations.
What a great F&*king idea!
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/4x 2048Mb G.Skill/WD Raptor 300Gb/3x WD20EADS 2TB/2x PNY GTX 260/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler/Antec Twelve-Hundred |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·MSN
| I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet! I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet, MUCH MORE then people in other countries pay (and they get faster service to boot!). I should be able to do what I want with it-without big companies telling me what I can and can not do. Already they have not only raised rates, but eliminated UUCP and Usenet. They routinely block port 25, making it impossible to use my company's email server.
This crap is like telling me that I can only drive my car to certain stores to shop.
I don't WANT turnpikes on the Internet, thank you very much! |
|
 JAAuldeWeb DeveloperPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Williamsport, MD
kudos:3 | The jury (errr, Karl) is in Remind me to keep Karl out of my Jury pool should I ever find myself on the wrong end of an accusation.
The NYT accuses Google of 1) conspiring 2) with Verizon to have their traffic prioritized. When the results of said conspiracy are shown, it turns out NYT was correct on item 1, dead wrong on item 2. But that doesn't matter to ol' Karl, not at all. NYT accused them so they must be guilty. 
--
My Development Sandbox | LinkedIn Profile |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Camelot One
Re: Great said by Camelot One: FCC will protect said consumers from said corporations. I never saw where it was the job of the FCC to PROTECT consumers. I saw where it was to regulate telecommunications and to encourage competition, but nothing about protecting consumers.
»fcc.gov/aboutus.html
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
educates and informs consumers about telecommunications goods and services
enforces the Communications Act
regulates AM, FM radio and television broadcast stations, as well as cable television and satellite services
oversees cellular and PCS phones, pagers and two-way radios
addresses public safety, homeland security, national security, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management
allocates spectrum for non-Government use and provides expert advice on technical issues
Telecomm Act
»www.fcc.gov/telecom.html
The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.
»www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt
To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure
lower prices and higher quality services for American
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of
new telecommunications technologies.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to JAAulde
Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in Anymore, sourcing the NYT is about as credible as sourcing Wikipedia......
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
JAAuldeWeb DeveloperPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Williamsport, MD
kudos:3 | reply to qworster
Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet! How is an ISP's decision to discontinue provision of services such as UUCP and Usenet related to Net Neutrality? Are they blocking access to, or throttling traffic to/from, actual UUCP and Usenet providers?
--
My Development Sandbox | LinkedIn Profile |
|
|
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | reply to JAAulde
Re: The jury (errr, Karl) is in There were a significant number of stories last week using this same anonymous source, claiming a Google/Verizon deal was afoot, and that it wouldn't apply to wireless (Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Dave Burstein). The Times was only one outlet. In fact I think Burstein scooped them all.
Google and Verizon deflected these leaks by focusing on one error in one story: The Times claiming there would be paid prioritization or "pay tiers."
Yes, the Times story sucked. It clearly sounded like it was written by someone who either didn't understand what his source was telling him, or just started covering the neutrality debate yesterday (or both).
But by and large the stories were correct. Verizon and Google were working on a neutrality agreement that didn't apply to wireless in order to try and pre-empt tougher rules. Rules being crafted using an ongoing FCC process they both claimed to be dedicated to...
edit to add links.... |
|
1 edit | Do They Think We're Morons??? Come on people. This is laughable! ISP's police themselves. We see how thats worked so far.
The saddest part is that Google is seein' the $$$'s and so thusly they are no friend of the consumer like they used to be...no evil, not hardly |
|
| So... ...how much will these new rules cost the consumer? |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | reply to Linklist
Re: Great said by Linklist:I never saw where it was the job of the FCC to PROTECT consumers. The FCC seems to believe it is one of their primary goals. Many of your examples of their roles and responsibilities are related to the fundamental description of "consumer protection", either directly or indirectly.
»reboot.fcc.gov/consumers/taskforce
"The goal of protecting and empowering consumers is among the Commission's most important responsibilities," said Chairman Genachowski at the time.
|
|
| Really? You're really stretching here, Karl, by maintaining that the news reports last week got things right. The New York Times pretty plainly reported that Google and Verizon had reached a business arrangement about payments for the movement of traffic. That is demonstrably, 100% false.
You can twist the words all you want, but under any common understanding of the term "business arrangement," the New York Times got it wrong.
The entire premise of the reports last week--that a business deal had been reached between Verizon and Google--was wrong. Given that fact, saying that "the majority of the information leaked appears to be true" is just plain dishonest; if I report one week that rotten eggs are delicious, healthy, and a good source of Vitamin C, the majority of the information isn't true if it turns out the following week that I was duped into thinking that oranges are rotten eggs, and, really, it was oranges that I was talking about in the first place.
And then suggesting that the companies are doing something wrong by trying to correct that misinformation--and getting defensive when otherwise smart people such as yourself refuse to see the problem--well, that's just weird. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
1 edit | Brooke, would Google or Verizon happen to be one of your clients?
Edit-Looks like it is Verizon. |
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | reply to brookeOB1
You're really stretching here, Karl, by maintaining that the news reports last week got things right. From Bloomberg on Friday:Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said.
The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday and asked not to be identified before an announcement. From the Washington Post on Friday:Google and Verizon have come to an agreement on how network operators can manage Web traffic, according to two sources briefed on their negotiations.
The agreement, expected to be announced within days, comes as the Federal Communications Commission tries to get major Internet content firms and network service providers to strike a deal on disputed points of so-called net neutrality rules. It's unclear how the deal will affect the direction of those discussions. From Dave Burstein of DSL Prime last Wednesday:Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant. Hmm.
The NY Times article stunk, and only because it confused managed service prioritization with "paid tiers" and paid prioritization of residential services. The rest of the leaks (which simply stated a deal was coming, and likely wouldn't apply to wireless) were correct. Google and Verizon simply focused on the Times story error as PR deflection to downplay the breadth of the talks and vilify the press. Meanwhile this very clear PR talking point about this "not being a business deal" is strange and irrelevant, given the thrust of the policy arrangement (or whatever you'd like to call it) is clearly focused on keeping neutrality rules away from wireless to protect the Android/Verizon business deal.... |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | ''Lawful" ? said by karl :
Obviously, the term "lawful" is a nod to leaving the door open for ISPs to engage in anti-piracy protections.
Since they referred to 'lawful' in every line, I suspect that VZW/Google lobbyists will be writing 'laws' to their liking.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to Camelot One
Re: Great i do not have any love for these big corporations.they will screw over the consumer in the end.
the FCC needs to get its act together and protect the people they serve.and those people are consumers whether they are rich or poor. |
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | reply to JAAulde
Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet! UUCP and Usenet aren't, but blocking port 25 is a violation of net neutrality principles. Albeit a widely accepted one now since at this point you should have an option to use a more secure port to send emails such as 443 or 587 (outlook's SMTP over SSL). That isn't to say that port 25 can't be secured to use TLS and other solid security measures, but it normally isn't. |
|
 kingdome74Emotionally UnavailablePremium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:2
·Verizon FiOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| If You're... ...looking to the FCC, an agency fraught with corruption and petty politics since it's inception, for protection means as a consumer you're already lost. No one, especially the government, is going to protect you from shit. Either you do it yourself and arm yourself with as much information as possible or just open up your bank account and give them your password. |
|
patrickpPatrick
join:2002-05-03
Bloomington, IL Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to ptrowski
Re: Really? said by ptrowski:Brooke, would Google or Verizon happen to be one of your clients? Edit-Looks like it is Verizon. You very well could be on to something there, BrookeOB1 just joined BBR today 2010-08-09.
Patrick in IL
Frontier DSL 7.1/768 |
|
| reply to Camelot One
Re: Great Spend 20bil or so on depreciating hard assets and then complain. |
|
 PToN
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX | reply to qworster
Re: I pay BIG BUCKS for my Internet! I dont know what kind of Business class service does not allow usage of port 25... You probably need to stop using residential services and move to a business class service.
Business class services will not block any ports, as far as i've seen and experienced. |
|
