 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
edit:
December 14th, @05:52PM
| Eh? No anti-competitive behaviour? Take off the rose colored glasses dipwad!
Edit: Behaviour is spelled wrong in the article? It didn't ask me to change it so I am assuming I have it right  | |
|  | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| Re: Eh? Eh?
said by Cheese  :No anti-competitive behaviour? Take off the rose colored glasses dipwad! Edit: Behaviour is spelled wrong in the article? It didn't ask me to change it so I am assuming I have it right color colour
behavior behaviour
-ize -ise
It's just different ways to spell things. The Brits and Canucks like to use -our but the real American Way™ is just -or. There is no need to tack on a u when it is not needed. | |
| | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs: | Re: Eh? Yea, I know, just commenting  No meaning by it, just thought it was interesting. | |
| | 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Wake up , Ma bell is back. | |
| | | 
TheSaint
join:2002-01-25
Atascadero, CA
clubs: | Re: Eh? Ma Bell is an unwed mother... and don't you forget it! | |
| | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by packetscan :Wake up , Ma bell is back. Yep, I can see this. Everyone can unfortunately. | |
| 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | I Can't Hear You I've got money stuffed in my ears.
(what's going through the mind of the FCC chair after his latest gift package from the telcos)
-tom | |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: I Can't Hear You If you read the article, it's clear that Chairman Martin considers blocking to be anticompetitive behavior. His stance is that rules trying to define it and prohibit it aren't appropriate now.
The FCC, including Martin, did act quickly in the instance of a small ISP blocking VoIP earlier.
In a way, I see his point--if the ISPs are going to start anti-competitive behavior, it may be easier to stop them if there isn't already a rule that they can avoid while claiming to be legal, but this depends on the FCC consistently acting quickly in the future, which isn't really realistic.
This isn't going to be easy--as bandwidth usage increases, various throttles, caps, and forms of incremental pricing will be applied. Although I find it appealing to say that all such usage limitations should be based on the user end, rather than based on the content transmitted or the internet server/peer/whatever reached on the other end, some ISPs may have valid marketing approaches based on such factors ("use SaintNet for porn-free browsing", etc.) and those will take time to develop.
Maybe we would be better off with an active FCC ready to jump on "anticompetitive" practices--if only we had one--but like most posters here, I've usually felt more comfortable with more explicit rules to govern sleazy incumbent conduct.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| rileyjam514
There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
| Whatever he's smoking.... .. I'd like a couple of bricks.
And whatever faith I had left in any government agency (US or otherwise..), well.. that was gone long ago anyway so this really just proves that Homer was right:
"Don't trust anybody over 30!"
--
"It is my destiny to give back to the universe infinitely more than I have taken from it." -- Anonymous | |
| 
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN |  Pocket, meet...
Simple as that. | |
| 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA |  Do we even need to commit
Anyone have this guys address? This to fire up the pen! | |
| | | 
schnuggles
Stays Crunchy In Milk
join:2003-06-07
Deming, NM
| Par for the course This has been the single most anti-consumer FCC brass I have ever known. I keep wondering if some of the CEO's behind this crap just spend nights up wondering "how can I piss off my customer's today?"
--
Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex-Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC) | |
| dgatewood
join:2002-08-12
Euless, TX | please include a post subject. multiple spellings of behaviour. Those from the UK will most certainly spell is with a 'u,' while the Americans will certainly spell it without a u. That is evolution for you. | |
| | | 
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| Re: Plenty of BB competition - Martin is right While your now expected industry apologist comments on competition are wrong as usual, you do realize this subject is about net neutrality, yes? Or did you reach right for your script and not read the articles?
quote:
Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them
Cute the way you jump from the need for a few consumer protection laws to some socialist dreamscape to make a political point. | |
| | 
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | All I want the FCC to do is limit the ISPs on what traffic they can control or limit and allow an open and safe system. | |
| | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| said by TK Junk Mail :For the majority of people in the US, competition exists for broadband access. Most areas have at a minimum cable and telco BB options. Some others also have wireless(fixed and WiFi) as well. And don't forget that 95% of the US is within range of satellite broadband too(though the price is a little high at $60/mo if also a satellite TV subscriber. And both wireless and wired options are popping up monthly. And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others. Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them. Call me back after you actually have been able to grasp the meaning of the original article. | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Nice generalization. Look past that ego and you will see there are some things, especially things with limited resources, that need to be government controlled.
I would agree that a lot of areas have cable and telco BB options. I do not consider satellite or any form of wireless a true competitor to either of those yet. Satellite more so because of its ridiculous cost and bandwidth. Wireless could be, but I am not a big fan of wireless for several reasons.
Regardless of the above, what do you think the others are going to do if the telco's are allowed to do this? If Charter can deprioritize VIOP on their network when it is competing with their own product or if the other company refuses to pay the extortion amount it reduces the consumer's choice. In the end, isn't it the consumer that matters? We, the consumer, are more important then any company exec, employee, or stockholder. Too many, including the FCC A$$clowns seem to be forgetting this.
What is going to stop this from extending this over to the consumer? Gamer's need good connections. When is BS going to start charging them more to route their packets in a manner that is needed to maintain a quality gaming exerience? When is Xbox Live going to start costing $50 a month because MS has to pay extortion money to EVERY major backbone and network node to have their traffic routed to their servers?
If BS wants to prioritize the packets of THEIR internet customers (Customer's signed up with them as their ISP) that is their business as consumers then have a choice. However, they have no right to touch the packets of any other ISP's customers. And if they start touch packets to servers that are not even on their network, they are messing with packets they have no business messing with. | |
| | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Netcong, NJ
| said by TK Junk Mail :And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others. That's so naive. I expect more from you. What happens when both cable and DSL/FTT? players decide this is a good idea?
--
enjoy zesty ranch man-flavored baby tacos responsibly | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by TK Junk Mail :... And as long as there are competing players in the marketplace, the concerns over locking out of users from specific areas of the web are unfounded. Because 1 of the players would use that to get customers from the others. ... As sporkme pointed out above, when there are only a handful of providers, it's easy for them all to squeeze out the true competition, be it Vonage or some new search engine or whatever.
Road Warrior, your logic may apply in a grocery store but not in the broadband market. If I don't like the house brand of corn at Safeway I can easily shop at Kroger later today or next week. Broadband access is a much more "committed" experience--you don't switch providers on a daily or weekly basis. It's more like buying a car or renting an apartment. Should GM be free to suddenly say your warranty is invalid unless you use GM gasoline, or to inform you that the computer in your car will start choking on ARCO gas next week? Should you landlord be able to suddenly decree that you must drop telco broadband and instead hook up to his new LAN?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| said by TK Junk Mail :For the majority of people in the US, competition exists for broadband access... ...Those who want the government to control things are also the same people who think the best solution to everything is a nanny government to run their lives and make all their decisions for them. First, let me start by saying I am a staunch economic conservative republican (not a neo-con) and I strongly believe in less government. However, as a true republican, I also recognize it is the job of the federal government to protect the people both from foreign aggression and from interstate domestic aggression. Thus, I strongly believe it is the governments responsibility, even more so when republicans control every aspect of the fed, to make an example out of corporate criminals that put their pocket books ahead of the country and its people.
The FCC under both dems and repubs have been nothing but friends to the bells and cable companies, granting them monopolies in their respective fields and guaranteeing them profits. Now that we are reaching a point when competition actually may occur (it has not yet, a duopoly is still not good for any consumer) these monopolies are doing everything in their power to use the government to insure their monopoly based profits are protected.
You say we have competition, how many communities in this country actually have 2 cable cos offering service to the same neighborhoods? I would venture less than 1%. How many cities have both SBC(AT&T) and Verizon offering land line services? Again, less than 1% I believe.
This is not competition. And one has to ask themselves why the supposedly separate cable cos do not compete with each other and why the bells don't truly compete with each other. Can you say collusion kids? Yes, I think you can.
So what happens when this rush to broadband slows to a crawl? Well, this so called competition, your one cable co and your one bell co will give a little wink wink and prices will climb again. They all publicly state under $50 a month for broadband is too little, even SBC has stated they believe the broadband rush will only last about 2.5-3 more years, to not worry investors.
Without DSL vs DSL and Cable vs Cable competition, you'll have no real competition in 5 years.
Don't even get me started on the bundling requirements either, how easy is it going to be for your to cancel your phone, tv, cell, and internet when something goes wrong with just one of these services or with their customer service... its not, you are basically going to be a captive customer unless you can afford to pay for overlapping services for all these services, most people can not and when the collusion occurs and these prices balance out between cable and bell what incentive would you really have to switch anyway.
| |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Plenty of BB competition - Martin is right Exactly. As Alfred Kahn* pointed out, "Deregulation does not mean that you fire the policeman."
Additionally, it's good to recognize that not only Republicans cozy up to the incumbent monopolists. Reed Hundt had a fabulous vision for a competitive telco world, so good that the ILECs convinced Bill Clinton to force him out and replace him with William Kennard, who really enjoyed taking years to address anticompetitive conduct.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Disband this circus I said this before, I'm stil saying this: disband the FCC!
It is a horribly corrupted, abused pro-corporation anti-customer comitee, merely carrying out the providers' will.
FCC is simply working against YOU, citizen. It's that simple. | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Disband this circus said by kamm :I said this before, I'm stil saying this: disband the FCC! ... change the administration. This administration and all functions controlled by it have no concern for the public or the consumer at all. They do not believe in regulating business. Kevin Martin does not believe in regulating business (unless it involves obscenity).
Previous FCCs have done good things. The FCC is SUPPOSED to be working for the consumer. We need different people on the FCC.
But yeah, right now, consumers are f'd. | |
| | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
edit:
December 14th, @07:34PM
| Re: Disband this circus I hate to burst your bubble, but broadband is not the only potato on the FCC plate. What seems to escape many here is that the FCC is not run, day by day, by the commissioners, who are political appointees and MAY shape the general direction they proceed in.
The people who DO run the FCC day to day are the people who run the various bureaus and the engineering staff.
This is the same dumb mentality that holds that president Bush is on top of every little thing that happens, has a evil master plan to conquer the world, all his staff just marches in lockstep and only has to issue orders and it is done. Rediculous. People with this mentality simply have no clue how the government-or, anything else for that matter,-runs.
In this case, you are assuming the commissioners are tech geniuses, bought by the evil telcos and marching in lockstep to orders from corporate headquarters-again, rediculous-and all they have to do is snap their fingers and it is so. Yet, anyone who has actually dealt with the FCC in any real manner knows that it is not the commissioners that make the day to day decisions. It is the people who run the wireless telecommunications bureau and the various enforcement bureaus, etc.
Decisions made by the FCC, for the most part, are remarkably non political and even handed. It has allways been so. One needs to ask onesself how, if the commissioners are running things, does the FCC manage to do the technical work it does and come to decisions consistentl that have worked as intended for decades as the commissioners come and go?
Understandably, one is angry when a decision goes against ones wishes, however, that does not mean that it is the wrong decision IN THE LONGER RUN. | |
| | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
edit:
December 14th, @07:47PM
| Re: Disband this circus said by Fatal Vector :Decisions made by the FCC, for the most part, are remarkably non political and even handed. I hate to burst the bubble you're living in but it's not true at all.
FCC is FAR from being non-politcal or even handed.
It has allways been so.
No, it used to be.
One needs to ask onesself how, if the commissioners are running things, does the FCC manage to do the technical work it does and come to decisions consistentl that have worked as intended for decades as the commissioners come and go?
Obviously the asking one never worked in such position if he dares to ask such a silly question - policy decisionas are ALWAYS made by the leaders, rest of the satff - the career personnel, the technical personnel etc - usually prepare and execute, that's it.
It's the same like everywhere else - but the asking one apparently doesn't have the slightest idea about management.
Understandably, one is angry when a decision goes against ones wishes, however, that does not mean that it is the wrong decision IN THE LONGER RUN.
You better read the article first next time - there wasn't any "decision", merely an expression of the current state of mind of this @sshole. However it is obvious that it isn't hte right direction for the customers, even a 10ys old kid could tell you this. | |
| | | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Disband this circus "FCC is FAR from being non-politcal or even handed."
Really? You couldn't prove that by me and I have been around watching what they do for over 30 years.
"No, it used to be."
It still is. All one needs to do is actually go to the FCC website and rummage around, since they post their decisions and very detailed reasonings behind them, instead of having a hissy fit over what the FCC chairman says. Chairman powell said they would push BPL too, yet it hasn't happened. In fact, that initiative was stalled even before he left.
"Obviously the asking one never worked in such position if he dares to ask such a silly question - policy decisionas are ALWAYS made by the leaders, rest of the satff - the career personnel, the technical personnel etc - usually prepare and execute, that's it."
This is, perhaps, true in the corporate world. However, the FCC is not the corporate world. It is a technically oriented agency with a staff that has been around for decades, with a set of "commissioners" That serve 5 years at most, at the pleasure of the president.
Which means they change relitively rapidly and espouse the current stance of the executive, but, in the end, have little or no actual effect on what actually happens. It is the STAFF who make the actual rulings and decisions, as you would know if you actually bothered to go to their website and go below the fluffery.
"You better read the article first next time - there wasn't any "decision", merely an expression of the current state of mind of this @sshole. However it is obvious that it isn't hte right direction for the customers, even a 10ys old kid could tell you this."
The word decision in my post was used within the context of my post and did not referr to any specific decision of the FCC. Yes, we are talking about the opinion of the current chairman of the FCC here and you know he's an asshole....how? Do you know him personally, or, are you just upset because he disagrees with you and has a different viewpoint?
It might be "obvious" to you that it "isn't the right direction for the customers", but not so "obvious" to others who can actually think, know what they are talking about and who do not react to such thigs with emotional hysteronics.
And, a 10 year old kid could not tell any of us this, because he would not have the reasoning powers and experience that adults have to form and express such opinions.
I dont know if you are familliar with my previously stated definitions of a intellectually bankrupt mind, but I daresay your post comes close. Did it ever occur to you that there ARE actually people who know what they are talking about and who ARE able to actually think? If you're going to hang with the intellectuals, perhaps you should learn that skill? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Re: Disband this circus said by Fatal Vector :"FCC is FAR from being non-politcal or even handed." Really? You couldn't prove that by me and I have been around watching what they do for over 30 years. "No, it used to be." It still is. All one needs to do is actually go to the FCC website and rummage around, since they post their decisions and very detailed reasonings behind them, instead of having a hissy fit over what the FCC chairman says. Chairman powell said they would push BPL too, yet it hasn't happened. In fact, that initiative was stalled even before he left. "Obviously the asking one never worked in such position if he dares to ask such a silly question - policy decisionas are ALWAYS made by the leaders, rest of the satff - the career personnel, the technical personnel etc - usually prepare and execute, that's it." This is, perhaps, true in the corporate world. However, the FCC is not the corporate world. It is a technically oriented agency with a staff that has been around for decades, with a set of "commissioners" That serve 5 years at most, at the pleasure of the president. Which means they change relitively rapidly and espouse the current stance of the executive, but, in the end, have little or no actual effect on what actually happens. It is the STAFF who make the actual rulings and decisions, as you would know if you actually bothered to go to their website and go below the fluffery. "You better read the article first next time - there wasn't any "decision", merely an expression of the current state of mind of this @sshole. However it is obvious that it isn't hte right direction for the customers, even a 10ys old kid could tell you this." The word decision in my post was used within the context of my post and did not referr to any specific decision of the FCC. Yes, we are talking about the opinion of the current chairman of the FCC here and you know he's an asshole....how? Do you know him personally, or, are you just upset because he disagrees with you and has a different viewpoint? It might be "obvious" to you that it "isn't the right direction for the customers", but not so "obvious" to others who can actually think, know what they are talking about and who do not react to such thigs with emotional hysteronics. You really make me laugh, kid. You're obviously soooo clueless on this that's just downright hilarious.
You're claiming you're watching FCC for 30 ys - though it's quite obvious from your utter lack of knowledge in your post you weren't more than a funny thought 30 ys ago - and you're claiming 'they are unbiased' and leaders are not setting policies? LOL.
Oh boy... at least read up on the subject before you post such arrogant silly crap like you did above - have you heard about Powell? I doubt it - here's a link, kid: »www.usatoday.com/money/companies···.htm[/b]
That's your daily rebuttal - you may want to drop your childish (should I say clueless?) idea about who's making POLICY decisions... suuuure, the staff make decisions, rrrrright... 
I dont know if you are familliar with my previously stated definitions of a intellectually bankrupt mind, but I daresay your post comes close.
I'm really not familiar with *ANY* of your post, pal. You barely hit the 'reply-bar' here, believe me.
Of course this also means I really don't give a flying frog about your namecalling either.
Did it ever occur to you that there ARE actually people who know what they are talking about and who ARE able to actually think? If you're going to hang with the intellectuals, perhaps you should learn that skill?
Have you ever worked anywhere yet? I mean other than cleaning McDonalds?
I doubt it - otherwise you wouldn't claim such silly thing like FCC policies usually made by the staff... let me just call this utterly clueless post.
So much for your 'who know what they are talking about' - that's definitely not you, pal. | |
| |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
edit:
December 19th, @12:28AM
| Ummm, perhaps you should fuckin read first instead of posting silly crap?
From 2003:
»www.usatoday.com/money/companies···ll_x.htm
"Powell says the tighter rules are outmoded as cable threatens free broadcast TV, but, "(Congress) makes the rules, and we implement them. I think that's completely fine." Yet he ripped the legislative proposals as hollow because they don't offer guidance on ownership regulation. "It is, in some ways, an anti-vote," he says.
And when critics rail against big media, "I'm not sure what problem people are trying to solve. I don't have the sense I don't hear every viewpoint from the left to the right on Fox, MSNBC and CNBC."
Powell says he can "absolutely see the argument" that easing media limits further could give too much influence to a handful of behemoths, but insists his changes are moderate. "It's an amazingly gradual, modest package. The difference between 35 and 45 (%) is the network might own five more stations in the United States. So no, I do not think that's the end of democracy."
But Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project notes the national cap was 25% before Congress raised it in 1996. "This is a very substantial increase. Chairman Powell persistently trivializes the heartfelt concerns of the public."
Schwartzman, some say, dealt Powell his most stinging defeat when he persuaded a U.S. appeals court this month to block all the FCC's new regulations from taking effect until it rules on a broader challenge to them. Washington media lawyer Christy Kunin says the stay indicates the court believes the challenge has at least "some merit."
But Powell contends: "The court's decision has been radically exaggerated. It has merely said, 'Let's chill out,' and gives us a fair chance to consider" the case.
He also dismisses complaints that he could have handled the media ruling with more sensitivity, perhaps heeding calls to delay the vote another 30 days to give the public a chance to comment.
"The commissioners who asked for the 30 days weren't going to change their vote in any way."
Powell concedes the drumbeat of protest against his media plan "is intense. I'm a human being." But, "I don't personalize policy."
The son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Michael Powell is a former Army officer, Justice Department official and antitrust lawyer who is deemed a rigorous intellectual analyst but short on the political skills required of an FCC chairman. He admits discomfort with the swirl of politics. "I like to think of the agency as more judicial than legislative. And when it gets infected with whose constituency is going to win, I don't like that. It's very unsatisfying when you realize somebody's voting a certain way for political reasons."
Powell cites deregulation of the wireless industry and promotion of high-definition TV among his biggest successes. He denies rumors he's poised to step down. There's nothing imminent. The criticism, he adds, "is not fun. But it's what you're forced to endure to be successful in this job." "
Wow, look at that! He's clearly using singular, isn't he? He's defending HIS point. Where did your staff go, ehem?
2005:
»www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21···rom_fcc/
"Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell is stepping down after serving four years as chairman and approximately six years as a commissioner.
A strong proponent of deregulation, Powell leaves behind a mixed bag of achievements. While he has done much to promote broadband adoption and to protect the growing VoIP industry from regulatory overhead, he has an ideological streak which persuades him that pretty much anything industry wants is automatically good.
Indeed, sometimes it is, as we have seen with VoIP regulation. On the other hand, Powell has behaved as if media consolidation could not possibly have a downside.
Powell supported many good things, such as allowing consumers to keep their telephone numbers when switching carriers, the establishment of a national do-not-call registry to deter telemarketers, and a push to open up more bandwidth to private use.
But he also supported the so-called broadcast flag, a scheme making it illegal to sell digital TV receivers without copy protection technology. While always spoken of in terms of piracy prevention, this sort of technology promises to give content owners and distributors an extraordinary degree of control over the ways in which media can be used by those who pay for it.
Perhaps his worst policy has been to promote further ownership consolidation of TV, newspapers, and radio networks. Powell's dismissive comments that the internet and cable TV provide enough diversity of content could not have been made without full knowledge that the eight or so media behemoths that own virtually all of TV, radio, newspapers, book publishers, music labels, and movie studios also own the cable TV networks and a great deal of online content as well.
In all, most people will find something to regret, and something to celebrate, in Powell's departure. There has been no word about who the President might choose to replace him. Certainly, he now has an opportunity to do a lot worse than Powell. ®"
Oooops, it's talking about the Powell-legacy! Ooops, it's 10 ys together. Hmmmm...
Now please, tell us, how is that you, people, 'in the know' were completely and utterly dead (ummm Fatally? ) clueless when you claimed such stupid thing like policies have been made by staff etc, hmm?
At least read up before you try to act like somebody has any idea - it's well known that these top dogs are heavily leaning this way or that way.
It's also well-known Powell-era was VERY FAR from being unbiased. Even Reps were rallying against the truly corrupt nature of Powell's reign at the end.
Last but not least please forget this silly - and obviously clueless - idea about the 'strong' staff and 'weak' chairman. It just makes you look silly, nothing else, no matter how 'nice' you're trying to depict this idiotic idea. | |
| 
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY
| wow when the FCC gets involved people bitch when they don't get involved people bitch.
The FCC doesn't need to get involved. Perfect example NY
Verizon and Cablevisions competition is giving everyone cheap service.
15 dollar Unlimited VoIP
30/2 Mbps speeds for 55 dollars.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
| |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Re: wow said by HardwareGeek :when the FCC gets involved people bitch when they don't get involved people bitch. The FCC doesn't need to get involved. Perfect example NY Verizon and Cablevisions competition is giving everyone cheap service. 15 dollar Unlimited VoIP 30/2 Mbps speeds for 55 dollars. 1. O-M-G... I'm a New Yorker too but even I can see how silly is to act like NY would be the 'perfect example' for average broadband situation in the country.
2. It's good to read the article before commenting it - it is about letting ISPs to prioritize their own packets... | |
| | | 
Seaguy
@qwest.net | Re: wow 2. It's good to read the article before commenting it - it is about letting ISPs to prioritize their own packets...
No, it's about ISP's prioritizing their CUSTOMER's packets which they have paid for. | |
| | AnnaS8
join:2005-05-26
Annapolis, MD | It is called...RTFA!
Things like this is why I support »www.eff.org/ | |
| 
actor90
The Future Is Now
Premium
join:2003-07-21
L.E.H.T., NJ
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Clueless I tend to be more of a libertarian than anything else, I voted for Bush. However, the President has truly blundered appointing Martin, a man who believes that he is on the FCC to be a moral crusader. I am all in favor of being a strong believer in God. Martin, however, takes it a step too far, he has his head so far up his rectum that he thinks the most important issue facing the FCC is T&A on television. What he should be doing is his job, to regulate enough so that the consumer has as much choice as possible, but not over regulate to the point it stifles competition and innovation. A very thin tight rope to walk. Martin has decided to jump off the rope and hit us all in the head with his bible.
So in the future will see some ISP's ruining our on-line experience in favor of promoting their preferred services. Cable companies scrambling to rearrange channel line ups and placing filters on their systems to appease a zealot Chairman at the expense of more channels and better service for their customers. In the end we all loose because Kevin Martin decided he would rather waste his time bullying the cable industry to be more moral, then being a smart regulator who acts when needed but does not over react.
--
Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC Chief: Net Neutrali-wha?
Plenty of BB competition - Martin is right