|
Before you make any demands...You should really understand what you are demanding. I'm sure that Leahy's understanding on Neutrality is based on the noisiest (read not correct) group explaining Neutrality to him. | |
|
|
2 recommendations |
NotDem
Anon
2014-Oct-20 3:27 pm
Re: Before you make any demands...Doesn't matter as he is looking for enhanced campaign contributions from Comcast. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Before you make any demands...thats exactly what this shyster is looking for. He does not have the greatest record when it comes to neutrality stuff and pro consumer stuff. | |
|
| NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
2 recommendations |
to battleop
Every time I read one of your posts, a song comes to mind: quote: Some people say a man is made out of mud But a poor man is nothing but muscle and blood Muscle and blood, and skin and bone With a mind that's weak and a back that's strong
You load 15 tons, and what do you get Another day older, and deeper in debt St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the Corporate store
| |
|
| | |
Re: Before you make any demands...Do you really think that the people who are explaining Net Neutrality to him really have everyone's best interest in mind? These are the same people who often don't know the difference between a Fully Automatic Gun (you pull the trigger once and it goes bang a bunch of times) and and a Simi-Auto (you pull the trigger once and it goes bang one time).
Congress critters are some of the most ill informed people you can find. The form their opinions based on what they are told on topics they don't understand. If it's an election year it's even worse. | |
|
| | |
2 recommendations |
Re: Before you make any demands...Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they are ill informed. For all you know, Leahy knows how to read, write, understands net neutrality, etc. Let's take you for example. Just because you always post like a free-market republican, we don't automatically assume you're a creationist, racist, xenophobe, etc | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Before you make any demands..."we don't automatically assume you're a creationist, racist, xenophobe, etc"
Contrary to what Democrats tell you White Americans are not the only ones who are Racist and Xenophobic. | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Before you make any demands...That's a different topic. Point is to not accuse well educated people of being ill informed just because you and they don't agree. Unless you have any other basis for making that claim. If you do, let's hear it. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | alchav join:2002-05-17 Saint George, UT
1 recommendation |
to NormanS
said by NormanS:Every time I read one of your posts, a song comes to mind: quote: Some people say a man is made out of mud But a poor man is nothing but muscle and blood Muscle and blood, and skin and bone With a mind that's weak and a back that's strong
You load 15 tons, and what do you get Another day older, and deeper in debt St. Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the Corporate store
NormanS I really like your Post, but I don't think anyone really understands Net Neutrality, especially those Political Fat Cats! | |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA
1 recommendation |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Oct-20 3:29 pm
Neutrality? How is it neutral to require only ONE of many providers to have special restrictions?
IF in fact any regulation is required, it MUST apply to all equally.
I'm guessing this becomes a lot less important in about 14 days (election day) | |
|
| fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Oct-20 4:44 pm
Re: Neutrality?said by tshirt:How is it neutral to require only ONE of many providers to have special restrictions?
IF in fact any regulation is required, it MUST apply to all equally. Agreed. Regulators should not be allowed to impose a condition on a merger that cannot be applied in general under the law. The courts have said regulators cannot impose NN rules absent reclassification, so what gives the FCC the right to hold these two companies hostage to NN, just because they want their merger approved? That selective enforcement strike me as not "neutral". | |
|
| |
to tshirt
Don't worry. Leahy is working on the legislation if you read his letter. | |
|
| | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Oct-20 7:07 pm
Re: Neutrality?said by bluefox8:Leahy is working on the legislation if you read his letter. I read the letter and I see no legislation, only that he asks Comcast to extend their commitment, and that the FCC move to re-enact meaningful rules (like the ones that were struck down??? ) Considering he suddenly took up this cause in july, that letter at this late date, seems rather weak, and again one sided. Why attack the one company that has committed while doing nothing against the one(s) that fought the letter and the spirit of the "rules"? I'm not really against those principals, if a way can be found to apply them with equal weight to all players, but do fear the chilling effect they may have on investment if unfairly applied or not thoroughly explored as to their exact effect. Congress and the board of the FCC has a habit of jumping onto the call for action buzz, and then enacting imbalanced legislation that may never have the intended effect and is rarely fully corrected to provide the needed relief. Rather than tie all this to the merger, it would be better to take a year or 2 to assure industry wide reform while keeping investment attractive. Even the best of the net neutral ideas would be useless if it causes expansion to freeze at this point as far to many do not even have even a single broadband solution available. | |
|
| | | 4 edits |
Re: Neutrality?said by tshirt:said by bluefox8:Leahy is working on the legislation if you read his letter. I read the letter and I see no legislation, only that he asks Comcast to extend their commitment, and that the FCC move to re-enact meaningful rules (like the ones that were struck down??? ) First page, last paragraph: "That is why I have introduced legislation with congresswoman.. that would ban paid prioritization arrangements." You might claim that where is the legislation. Well, here it is: » www.multichannel.com/new ··· n/375205said by tshirt: I'm not really against those principals, if a way can be found to apply them with equal weight to all players, but do fear the chilling effect they may have on investment if unfairly applied or not thoroughly explored as to their exact effect. Congress and the board of the FCC has a habit of jumping onto the call for action buzz, and then enacting imbalanced legislation that may never have the intended effect and is rarely fully corrected to provide the needed relief.
Rather than tie all this to the merger, it would be better to take a year or 2 to assure industry wide reform while keeping investment attractive.
Even the best of the net neutral ideas would be useless if it causes expansion to freeze at this point as far to many do not even have even a single broadband solution available. Yeah if they apply to all ISPs that would be great. We can finally have ISPs doing the job of providing internet access, not manipulating it as they see fit. Investment will always remain attractive as the high costs of putting up infrastructure have the positive side-effect of keeping out competitors. Companies with big cash piles go for that. The customer demand for internet connection is only going up. So you have a combination of rising demand and lack of competition = profit. If somehow the ISPs don't end up choking new businesses like Netflix, then it's a win for capitalism and win for customer. Who could argue against that? That's why net neutrality/ban on paid prioritization/whateveryouwanttocallit is important. | |
|
| | | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Oct-20 11:28 pm
Re: Neutrality?Ok I see that but the link is back to june, so I assumed it died before passage, I see nothing current or likely to arise before the expected approval of the merger. again a single target is a bad idea, better to give the FCC power and Responsibity for broad public rule making. | |
|
| | | | | 1 edit |
Re: Neutrality?It takes time and support to get a bill through congress. Even FCC which has direct authority to reclassify ISPs under Title II needs time for rule making. Leahy Bill: » www.opencongress.org/bil ··· 113/show | |
|
| | | | | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Oct-21 2:53 pm
Re: Neutrality?anything that didn't pass in early summer is dead for this congress, I guess we will see if he try's again next year. | |
|
|
shmerl
Member
2014-Oct-20 3:41 pm
Don't ask for any promisesJust tank that deal and be done with it. No matter what promises they would give, bigger Comcast will mean worse market and even less competition than the current highly unhealthy situation. | |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16 Premium Member join:2005-12-15 Forest Grove, OR |
NOYB
Premium Member
2014-Oct-20 3:42 pm
Isn't There an Impending Election?nuff said | |
|
|
A "polite" letter wont cut itIn order to get this "net neutrality" that everyone has a slightly different definition for, The TWC/Comcast Merger needs to be struck down already. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Attention FTC/FCC--KILL THIS DEAL!I think this might be a way to provide cover for the FTC/FCC to kill the deal. I sure hope so. I may be the only customer in the country to get great service from TWC but I really do. And I don't want that to change. I'm sure California will be Comcast country and I'll be screwed. The only other ISP is Verizon DSL. And to get that requires also having POTS with them. At my vacation home I have Charter with excellent service from them as well. (I know, I know, I'm very lucky I guess.) I just know Charter's deal with Comcast is going to give California away too since Charter isn't that big here. And again it's Verizon DSL as the alternative with a waiting list. These three giant corporations have way too much power over Internet users. There is absolutely no customer centric reason that I can see to allow this deal. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
NotAHater
Anon
2014-Oct-20 5:28 pm
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!umh.. well some of us want this deal. While they are the biggest and have the most incentive to screw their customer, they are actually better than most cabelco/telco competitors. I've used Comcast at relatives homes and can't wait for them to come to my town.
FCC Please let this deal go through... the alternative is worse... | |
|
| | |
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!Some people want to follow satan, kill puppies, stop paying taxes and never move out of their parents basement. However, that simply does not make it right. | |
|
| | | |
NotAHater
Anon
2014-Oct-20 7:14 pm
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!Wow! If someone has an alternative opinion, just attack the person? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!You didn't reveal where you live and if Comcast is actually coming to your town, you didn't reveal who your ISP is currently, you didn't reveal what quality of service you have now nor how you think Comcast will impact it. You're just trolling and you certainly didn't express an informed detailed "alternative opinion". | |
|
| | | | | |
why60loss
Premium Member
2014-Oct-20 11:55 pm
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!I want the deal to go though. The sooner there piss poor upload speeds, uptime get thrown out a window the better. Sure it may be better than like Century link DSL, but that wasn't hard when they didn't give one care in the world when service %100 didn't work for over 3 weeks.
105/10 in an area where the only other choice is 1mbs DSL from Verizon for $39.99 a month, that works with out a flaw is mind blowing when it was the same cost as 15/1 from TWC who unlike Comcast couldn't keep the service up much less the rated speed.
Read my review of time warner cable if you want to know more about why I think this.
Right or wrong, this is my view point and it's likely not going to change. TWC can take there spilt in half junk cabling along with all there 80 year old tech contractors and shove it out a window.
Comcast, the state of NC hopes you save them from 30 year old plant and Verizon like hack job repairs of taping together a spilt wire.
Signed the bitter ex TWC, Century link and AOL Customer/User that found modern working internet on Comcast. | |
|
| | | | | | DocDrewHow can I help? Premium Member join:2009-01-28 SoCal Ubee E31U2V1 Technicolor TC4400 Linksys EA6900
|
DocDrew
Premium Member
2014-Oct-21 1:32 am
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!You do realize that when most deals like this go through the new company doesn't just replace everything, right? The local techs, equipment, and cabling won't change, just the name and upper management. Physical changes at the local level will take time, just like they would had the company not been bought out. The new company doesn't buy it just to toss it out. | |
|
| | | |
to Skippy25
What's with the personal attack? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Attention FTC/FCC--ALLOW THIS DEAL!I didnt personally attack anyone.
I simply pointed out that just because someone or even a group of people want something to happen does not make it a good thing.
When we are talking about taking the 2 worst companies and making them one larger horrible company surely nothign good comes. | |
|
|
A PromiseA wise man once said...
"But a promise is a comfort to a fool!"
Enough said. | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Customer service standardsI'd rather see Comcast agree to end the use of offshore call centers and locate call centers in each service cluster they serve and only answer the phones in the local service cluster for customers in that cluster. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Do what ?Leaky Leahy wants a "promise" from Comcast ?
Certainly you jest ?
That's like Neville Chamberlain asking for a promise from Hitler ! | |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2014-Oct-21 1:25 am
"helping to ensure that vertical integration does not threaten competition""Vertical integration"; Ma Bell was killed because she was "vertically integrated". | |
|
|
|