Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: DEMOCRATS WANT TO END NET NEUTRALITY!
Will we suffer if the Democrats put an end to Net Neutrality? [4 vote(s)]

YES!
50.0%
No
50.0%
I dont know
0.0%


CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:
DEMOCRATS WANT TO END NET NEUTRALITY!


A long time ago (2006) I got an e-mail from Meg Whitman warning that Democrats wanted to do away with Net Neutrality. I didn't think much of it at the time, but it seems that the Obama Administration is hell bent on killing Net Neutrality.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.

Basically without Net Neutrality big phone and cable companies would be able to regulate what we are able to see and do. Many worry that it would allow these big Internet and phone companies to block out competitors by lagging their content. This means video conferences and other services that conflict with big telephone company products could and most likely WOULD be effected, creating a tier system for Internet billing that would leave many of us with crap for Internet speeds unless we dished out serious cash!

One has to wonder if the most recent WikiLeaks scandle was the effort of people trying to bust up Net Neutrality, meaning documents were leaked on purpose in an effort to sway the government to kill N.N. (Net Neutrality).

The kind of CRAZY SHIT that is being cooked up by Democrats is being fought by the Republicans who feel that having a tiered style network would KILL the small businesses that operate on the Internet, making quality service cost a premium not only to small business, but to individuals like you and I!

In an article by MSN the following is said-

Quote from MSN:

"Net neutrality rules were one of the Obama administration's top campaign pledges to the technology industry and have been among Genachowski's priorities since he took over the FCC more than a year ago.

Many big Internet companies, such as search leader Google and calling service Skype, insist regulations are needed to ensure broadband companies can't use their control over Internet connections to dictate where consumers can go and what they can do online."

END QUOTE.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40463000/

Furthermore you can get more details of just how the current Net Nutrality helps small business and individuals at this link -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THE NET NEUTRALITY AS IT IS NOW! ALLOWING THE BIG PHONE AND INTERNET COMPANIES TO RATION OUT BANDWITH WILL DESTROY THE INTERNET!



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

I think you've got your political parties mixed up Rex.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



$y$Op

Status: Offline
Posts: 330
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I think you've got your political parties mixed up Rex.



I think you need to go back to school and learn how to read Mr. College educated scholar.

A proposal to prohibit broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their networks has an uncertain future with just lukewarm support from large phone and cable service providers and fierce opposition from Republicans.

Come back when you learn how to read PowerStroker! 


 



__________________

All the best!



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

 



A proposal to PROHIBIT broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their networks has an uncertain future with just lukewarm support from large phone and cable service providers and fierce opposition from Republicans.

Come back when you learn how to read PowerStroker! 


 



How bout you come back when you start reading things through?

Let me dumb it down for you.  Republicans want broadband providers to be able to block or discriminate against Internet traffic flowing across their networks.  That's why the Republicans are fiercely opposed to the proposal which would ban such abusive practices.

For fuck's sake Rex, get a clue would you.  Do you want to pay protection money to broadband providers in order to run this site?  Republicans want you to, because they know the broadband companies will give them political contributions in exchange for allowing them to gouge you.

Before you start believing email propoganda from Meg Whitman, you may want to consider how she made her billions, and whether she actually has your interests at heart.



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 02:38:55 PM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

Perhaps I need to explain this rather than try and quote politically motivated new desks. The whole issue is confusing to some, and I will admit at times I have been overwhelmed while reading it also, and that is why every member of this forum got an e-mail of this thread sent to them.

Currently the net neutrality we all enjoy RIGHT NOW is the result of free enterprise. Why should we allow the Democrats to screw that up with regulations? The only thing regulations will do is create "Regulated Monopolies" much like most all utility companies, where as we have commissions that decide what we get, how fast we get it and how much we pay. I myself would rather have a choice when it comes to choosing an Internet provider, rather than have some commission who deal in private behind our backs protected by "Regulations".

The very idea that many news desks are reporting this idea of a tier system as something new is WRONG. Right now we have a tier network where as you can choose how much you want to pay.

For example a 756Kbs package where I am at can be had for $19.00 a month. This would be considered the 1st tier. You can choose to upgrade your speed to over 3Mbps for around $60-80 per month. There are even faster packages out there should you choose to go with fiber. These data plans mentioned are DOWN-STREAM speeds. Usually the UPSTREAM speed ratings are much lower than your downstream, but this just goes to prove there has ALWAYS been a tier system in effect every since the dial up modem.

Back in the 1980's and early 1990's when I ran a B.B.S. system on dial up, speeds were largely dependant on your hardware. For example the first modems operated at 300 Baud, then 1200 Baud came out and then finally 2400 Baud. It was rumored at the time that 2400 baud would require a special phone line to handle the speed, which later turned out to be bullshit. It is also important to realize that a Baud rating is not the same as a Kbs rating, and all of the connections made back then were "Peer to Peer" if you will. This means that you dialed a phone number over a regular phone line and connected directly with another computer. The B.B.S. systems back in the mid 80's and early 90's usually only supported 1 user at a time.

In the mid 1990's the Internet took a different direction, where as companies like AOL (America online) set up computers with multiple modems and allowed more than just one user to connect at a time. This is when the Internet really took off, yet you were still using a regular telephone line dialing up to gain access to the Internet provider. Speeds at that time were 28kbs, then 33kbs and then finally 56kbs, all of which ran on regular old copper telephone lines. It was at this time that "Regulations" were instated by the FCC limiting the data transfer speeds of dial up modems to 56Kbs.

In the mid to late 1990's Broadband was introduced in an effort to bypass these FCC mandated data transfer speed "REGULATIONS". At first it was the cable companies in my area that were offering Broadband, which ran thru a Coax cable, the same copper TV cable that are used today for your television. Shortly thereafter broadband was offered thru the telephone lines also. In either case people were no longer "Dialing up" to gain access to the Internet. Speeds increased dramatically to upwards of 756Kbs, which at the time was considered VERY FAST. It is important to realize that this is when the tier system started to take effect. So now it was no longer a matter of paying a one time fee to purchase new peice of hardware to increase your speeds, you had pay a PER MONTH fee in addition to buying new hardware.

In the 2000's speeds started to approach 1 Mbps and beyond, and the tier system was totally in effect. Fiberoptic lines were now starting to become available which could be considered the "Top Tier", costing the most money and offering the highest data transfer rates.

Now that I have explained to you the rise of the Internet it is important to realize that all of this was made possible because of a free enterprise system. Competition brought about faster and faster data transfer speeds. The FCC regulations claiming that dial up modems could only transmit at a maximum speed of 56K are much like what the FCC and the Democrats are trying to do with Broadband today by putting regulations on speeds. What the "Next" big thing will be is hard to say, however instead of just having a telephone bill for an unlimited calling plan, the FCC Regulations forced people that wanted more speed to either pay a Broadband Cable provider or Broadband telephone provider a per month fee IN ADDITION TO A TELEPHONE AND A CABLE TV BILL and of course new hardware.

Still don't get it? Well here is where I tie it all in.... The same copper telephone lines that we used back in the day at 2400 baud are the SAME copper lines we are pushing upward of 3 Mbps today! Only instead of having to pay for just ONE telephone line with an unlimited calling plan, we not have an additional per month fee for broadband and one for cable TV and or a telephone line.

We have the FCC and REGULATIONS to thank for all of these new cost. The 56Kbs "REGULATED CAP" on the dial up modem ensured that internet providers could find a new way to charge people more.

This is the SOLE REASON I SAY FUCK ANY NEW REGULATIONS! PERIOD! The Republicans know it's all just one big fucking scam to place another regulation that will basically put a cap on all copper line transmissions, thus bringing about the age of fiber. When that happens say goodbye to Comcast and your silly little cable companies. They may feel safe now because they have copper lines everywhere, but the regulations they will likely put on copper line transmissions is only the start.

Big companies like AT&T aren't fucking with copper anymore. They are going door to door offering fiber. Not only that they now offer television packages. Comcast and WoW can crank up the juice on their copper wires until they melt but that isn't going to be able to keep up with fiber optics that will transfer data at the speed of light.

So then what will we have? A regulated Monopoly that will basiclly be considered a uttility, overseen by a comission where as you have no competition. Let's not forget how small Comcast is... Not long ago they tried to buy Diseny and were told to fuck off with their low ball offer.

Any new regulations we allow the FCC and the Democrats to cook up will basically be a complete repeat of everything I have just mentioned above since the 1980's but with much faster speeds and of course more cost to US! Not only that, as the copper wire companies start to go bust because they can not compete, we will all be suck with a regulated monopoly and some commission full of pencil necks who will dictate what we pay. If we don't like it? Well then we can go without, much like how things work with your local regulated Energy or Gas monopolies.

These people are smart guys! SMARTER THAN YOU! SMARTER THAN ME EVEN!

This is why I am sticking with the Republicans! Because right now they are sticking their middle fingers up at new FCC regulations.

DONT BE FOOLED BY THE MEDIA OUTLETS! READ THIS THREAD!  



-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 03:30:29 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Oh, you sad little man...

SELLC wrote:

Perhaps I need to explain this rather than try and quote politically motivated new desks. The whole issue is confusing to some, and I will admit at times I have been overwhelmed while reading it also

That is very apparent.

Currently
the net neutrality we all enjoy RIGHT NOW is the result of free enterprise.

Wrong, the internet was invented originally by the US military - a socialistic branch of our government. 

Why should we allow the Democrats to screw that up with regulations?

The regulations would be to make Net Neutrality LAW, rather than relying on the broadband providers to excersize their own discression.  Thus far there haven't been too many issues, but that will soon change unless the Democrats succeed in making Net Neutrality LAW.

The only thing regulations will do is create "Regulated Monopolies" much like most all utility companies, where as we have commissions that decide what we get, how fast we get it and how much we pay.

The broadband giants are ALREADY monopolies.  Only by regulating them, will we ensure they continue to play fair rather than using their enormous power to control internet content.

I myself would rather have a choice when it comes to choosing an Internet provider, rather than have some commission who deal in private behind our backs protected by "Regulations".

The only way you will actually have a choice, is if the broadband corporations are held accountable by a commission of freely elected officials.  Do you think your electric rates would go DOWN if that monopoly weren't regulated?

You're argument is like saying we would be better off if the Oil companies had no regulations.

"How dare those Government assholes require us to have functioning blowout preventers on our deep water exploration rigs.  Just leave us to our free market principles already."



 



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 03:32:43 PM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker you didn't even read the entire thread. I know because you failed to respond to it all.

It's okay if can not get your small mind around it. If you would just admit it I would be more than happy to dumb it down for you.

Tell you what.. Read what I wrote above VERY carefully, and then read what I am about to write about the FCC after this. If you do read it, and actually UNDERSTAND IT, I promise I will watch the 2nd half of your little Maddow video.

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:
How bout you come back when you start reading things through?


I have a better understanding of whats going on PowerStroker, please re-read what I have said. 

PowerStroker wrote:
Let me dumb it down for you.  Republicans want broadband providers to be able to block or discriminate against Internet traffic flowing across their networks.  That's why the Republicans are fiercely opposed to the proposal which would ban such abusive practices.


No PowerStroker! The Democratswant to place regulations on broadband providers, much like they did with regular phone lines back in the 1980's. They want to use the FCC to enforce it! It has NOTHING to do with traffic in the sense of what you can access, but everything to do with how fast you can access it. There have been no regulations on content EVER and to do so would mean people would go elsewhere to get service. Reguations on the other hand pave the way for Regulated Monopolies, where as what you are saying WILL be true. 


PowerStroker wrote:
For fuck's sake Rex, get a clue would you.  Do you want to pay protection money to broadband providers in order to run this site?  Republicans want you to, because they know the broadband companies will give them political contributions in exchange for allowing them to gouge you.

 
PowerStroker how long have you been going online? I have been since 1983. Trust me buddy, what I said above is ALL TRUE, LOOK IT UP! You are almost getting your head around it, but my next major post should put things in perspective.

PowerStroker wrote:
Before you start believing email propoganda from Meg Whitman, you may want to consider how she made her billions, and whether she actually has your interests at heart.

 
You are very much right about Meg, and I am fighting Meg on her own turf within eBay. I agree with you that eBay and PayPal have lost touch with the small guy and I am beating them brutally even as we speak. I can provide links if need be. Meg's problem with regards to Net Neutrality is that she does not have the history to get her head around it either. I NEED YOU TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE. Please!

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Ok Rex, I did read in entirety your deal, and wrapped my head around it, so feel free to start Rachel Maddow any time now.

Here is where we have a slight disconnect:

You never mentioned CONTENT, which is what the Net Neutrality debate is REALLY about.  You are correct on your history of how the speeds have increased over the years as far as I can tell, and yes, it was the free market that brought us higher speeds...  A COMPETITIVE free market, which is becoming less and less the case as more and more providers merge.

Now, I should tell you that this issue isn't exactly new on my radar screen.  I have been paying attention to this for a while and have become very concerned with a specific merger - Comcast and NBC.  Now, why does this matter to me you may ask?  It's because Comcast is the nations largest broadband provider, and NBC is one of the nations largest CONTENT providers.  This becomes a problem in that there is now a new conflict of interest emerging if that merger is approved - and it will be.  What will certainly happen unless the Democrats do something about it, is that Comcast customers will experience lightning fast connection speeds to NBC content, and really slow speeds/errors/lockups ect when trying to access content from a competitor of NBC, and this is only the beginning. 

The Net Neutrality battle isn't about being able to pay more to get more speed, you will always be able to do that.  It's about having to pay more to get fast speeds to content that is a competitor of, or ideologically opposed to that of your broadband providers board of directors.  Essentially, what the Democrats want to do is make a rule that says no broadband provider can slow down or limit access to things that they disagree with.  Republicans however seem to think differently on the issue. 
Make no mistake, the Net Neutrality that "we enjoy right now" is under serious threat unless regulations are imposed to protect it.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

WRONG POWERSTROKER!

Limiting content would be illegal under anti-trust laws and also under the constitution.

If an internet provider tries that they will get the shit sued out of them. Your idea that we need to put regulation on content going thru the Internet is redundant. We already are protected from them sorts of things by the constitution and other laws.

ComCast is NOT the biggest broadband provider. Obviously you are lying to me about reading it all. Let me ask you this, does ComCast offer Fiber optic? No they do not. I mean they do have some fiber lines that connect their main hubs, but they are not laying fiber like AT&T, and really if they cant afford to buy out a Mickey Mouse company like Disney, then it's clear they wont be able to keep up with the big boys that are pushing fiber at the speed of light.

The net neutrality we enjoy now is NOT under serious threat. Regulated monopolies are what kill our options. We all know what kind of bullshit the Democrats pulled with healthcare, so I guess they want us to pass a net neutrality bill to see whats in it? Sorry but that isn't going to happen. The Democrats spent their super-majority on the flawed healthcare law that is sure to be repealed or changed so much that it can't even be considered the same law.

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:


Oh, you sad little man...That is very apparent.


When you finally get your head around what I am trying to tell you I'll be more than happy to accept your apology. I am trying to pass onto you over 27 years of ON-LINE fist hand knowledge. Please don't sell yourself short, read and understand it. Even if it hurts you will be smarter in the end.


Wrong, the Internet was invented originally by the US military - a socialistic branch of our government.
  


No PowerStroker.. I am talking about the internet as we know it. If you want to get technical about it Morris code was the first internet and at it's core is the bassis of everything we have today.


The regulations would be to make Net Neutrality LAW, rather than relying on the broadband providers to excersize their own discression.  Thus far there haven't been too many issues, but that will soon change unless the Democrats succeed in making Net Neutrality LAW.


No PowerStroker! Free enterprise is the way to go my friend. Broadband providers exercise their discretion based on the CUSTOMER purchasing services in a competitive market. Regulation and regulated monopolies kill competition and leave us with a take it or leave it environment. Is that what you want?
 

The broadband giants are ALREADY monopolies.  Only by regulating them, will we ensure they continue to play fair rather than using their enormous power to control internet content.
The only way you will actually have a choice, is if the broadband corporations are held accountable by a commission of freely elected officials.  Do you think your electric rates would go DOWN if that monopoly weren't regulated?

You're argument is like saying we would be better off if the Oil companies had no regulations.

"How dare those Government assholes require us to have functioning blowout preventers on our deep water exploration rigs.  Just leave us to our free market principles already."


No they are not! AT&T is the only giant! They are the only ones laying fiber. Fiber IS the next big thing. With fiber you can download an entire movie in under a minute. And that's not a stream like TV, that's the whole damn movie in HD! Think about how your TV works. It steams video faster than most copper internet plans today, and to think they had the power to do this since the 1960's.... Without any wires! GASP! 

No PowerStroker! We do not need commissions! We need competitors. Ever tried to dispute something with a regulated monopoly? If not Ill tell you how it goes, they tell you to screw off, if you don't like it you can go without Gas or Electricity. Then you call the commission and maybe a week later someone will call you back and tell you to screw off in a nicer way. Then when you go to the media they tell you they wont cover issues regarding to regulated monopolies or commissions. I have e-mails to PROVE this from several news agencies when I had problems with a utility company. Do you want to see them?

Oil companies have regulations, but they are not a regulated monopoly. If BP pisses you off you can go accorss the street to speedway, or Mobil. With a regulated monopoly it's screw you take it or leave it. Ever notice how gas stations that are on the same street across from each other fight to have the lowest price and the cleanest and best looking facilities? Now try going to a gas station 100 miles in the middle of the desert. It would be dirty, and you would get a take it or leave it attitude. Sure their prices are regulated, but the service in most cases will suck.


-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 04:43:46 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

You just wait Rex, there are things that are worse than regulated monopolies... They are called UN-regulated monopolies, and pretty soon, those will be the only 2 choices. Though monopoly may not be the appropriate term, because it insinuates that a single corporation controls a majority of the market share, Oligopoly is more appropriate, but to the consumer there really isn't much difference between the two.

I have a feeling you are going to eat your words in terms of content being protected by anti-trust laws and the Constitution. When was the last time a Republican enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act anyway?

In the new Republican world, Corporations have the same, if not more rights than people. We have already seen corporations envoke 1st ammendment rights (free speech) by contributing to political campaigns in unlimited amounts of money. What's to keep them from envoking their "free speech" right to only provide the content they agree with?

The Conservative majority on the supreme court will side with any corporation who tries because conservative judges apply literal readings of the constitution. Unfortunately when the constitution was written, it just laid several rights that people have... It should have said "natural persons" so as to differentiate from corporate persons, that was the intent of the founders after all, but conservative judges don't care about intent.

I did read your entire thing by the way, so grab some popcorn buddy, it's Rachel Maddow time!


-- Edited by PowerStroker on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 06:50:23 PM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Let me reiterate: 



A proposal to PROHIBIT broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their networks has an uncertain future with just lukewarm support from large phone and cable service providers and fierce opposition from Republicans.




Doesn't sound like the way things are ALREADY headed are very "net neutral." 

Perhaps some government regulations can be imposed to protect net neutrality?

 



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

It's a fricking SMOKE JOB PowerStroker and you can't seem to find your way out of it.

We do not need a commission for telecommunications companies to hide behind when they anal rape us for charges.

If you did not read what I wrote about how in the past government used the FCC to ensure that simply buying a new modem to increase speeds over regular telephone lines came about then perhaps you enjoy writing a check each month for Internet, TV, Telephone and a cellphone. Maybe you want to pay even more?

Think about how calling your internet provider to get a better deal will result in them saying "I'm sorry we are regulated by the FCC to charge X amount of dollars and if you don't like it you wont be getting on the internet".

Also think about how when there is a problem you will be forced to endure a form of moderation before the commission who by the way all have a stake in the company you are trying to resolve a problem with. Sure it might only take 20 calls and 2-3 months to fix a billing error. Who cares if you wont have service for that 2-3 months unless you pay the disputed amount. And how will you feel when you have solid proof they fucked you and take it to the media only to be told "Were sorry that company is regulated by the commission so we can help you or report on this issue".

I promised you the e-mails where I had PROOF of this and I am now going to post them up along with photos. The details are an electric company which operates as a regulated monopoly under the oversight of the Michigan Public Service Commission broke the law and started service on a meter that was red flagged by the city as unsafe. Needless to say raw power was going directly to ground and my bills we coming in at a little under $1000 per month. I had proof of everything yet the media said their policy is not to get involved with regulated monopolies, and that I would have to contact the Michigan Public Service Commission. I refused to pay the outrageous amount because our bills prior were only $180-$200 per month. What happened was Detroit Edison come out and shut off the power and it stayed that way for almost 2 months before the commission did a damn thing! This was in the middle of WINTER and my electric company also had rights to the natural gas in that area. I am telling you this is a BAD IDEA! You can not sue a regulated monopoly. If there is a problem you are just fucked until it's  until they get around to dealing with it. I should also mention that the building next door to mine burnt down less than a month after I moved. I was able to sue the landlord and also go out and rent another building, however DTE got away scott free and because they were a regulated monopoly under the authority of a commission I did not have the luxury of using another energy provider, nor was I able to sue them! 

Here are the e-mails.

From FOX2 Problem Solvers - Debra Lawson#foxtv.com

Thank you for your e-mail.  Regrettably, the Problem Solvers do not mediate,
process or handle in any way utility billing or service issues.  There are no
plans to pursue news stories on these issues, and the station is not in a
position to interpret any company's policies or methods of operation.  We do
appreciate the seriousness of the situation you have described, therefore we
are willing to forward the matter to DTE Energy's management staff for
intervention.  To do so, the address is required.

Any further contact will be direct to you, without any communication by FOX 2.


FOX 2 PROBLEM SOLVERS

----------------------- End of e-mail ---------------------------

Yet another time more recently I moved into our new house and the local Gas company "Consumer Power" hooked up service on a meter that had sat un-used for over 2 years and was almost 30 years old. Naturally it was leaking gas and my bills were outrageous. According to the laws set forth by the Michigan Public Service commission all meters must be replaced any time a home or building sits vacant for more than 8 consecutive months in a row. I literally HAD THEM BY THE BALLS yet I still went without gas trying to dispute the charges, meanwhile I had to deal with the smell of natural gas leaking.

This time I went directly to the MPSC instead of the news and the issue is STILL NOT RESOLVED! Unable to sue them because they are regulated by a commission and unable to seek another gas provider because they have a legal monopoly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And how could any of us forget about how the Public Service commission allowed other people to register business names similar to ours despite their policy that like names were not allowed. There is a thread about this entire situation with all the details including on company with the SAME NAME AS OURS got a $2,000,000 (2 million dollar) Obama relief act loan under our business name before they even registered the name! What did the commission do about it? NOTHING! I was unable to sue the commission because... Well they are a commission!

Here is the link - http://autotrend.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=91042&p=3&topicID=33799937

So don't you give me no shit about how we need regulations and commissions because it's a crock!

Below are photos of the faulty equipment tagged by the city, and our 30 year old meter with bugs, condensation and tree branches in the meter area that sat for over 2 years without service!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Is it any fricking wonder I am so angry!?

Commissions and REGULATIONS are BAD NEWS PowerStroker! Let's hope you never have to deal with this kind of thing but trust me there are many out there who do!


Attachments
__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

THESE REGULATIONS JUST DO NOT WORK! It's a scape goat to allow a monopoly while taking all liability off the company!

Free enterprise is the way to go! If a company does not perform you can use a different company while you sue the one that did you wrong. That is not the case when a commission is involved with a regulated service.

Every time you try and resolve an error with a regulated company they will simply hide behind the commission who will then just sand bag you and do absolutely nothing.


__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

The free market naturally leads to oligopolies and monopolies unless Regulations like the Sherman Anti-trust act are enforded - which they rarely are lately.

A government commission is accountable to we the people

A private company is only accountable to it's shareholders

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

A government commission is accountable to we the people

A private company is only accountable to it's shareholders



Keep dreaming... A government commission is accountable to the companies it regulates.

A private company is accountable to it's customers who will go elsewhere if the product of service is inadequate.

How about that un-employment rate spike? Meanwhile Obama is on vacation once more, only this time he is in Afghanistan rooting on troops of his mission-less war.


__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Did the Afghanistan trip cost another 10 Trillion bucks, or just another 2 Billion?

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

I think he was only gone for a day so it's entirely possible that he only spent $200 Million.

Getting back on topic with Net Neutrality and Regulations it's also important to realize that in addition to fiber optics there is also another new means of getting Internet broadband that not many people know about yet.

Recently Electric Companies have found a way to provide Internet thru your power lines! This means that soon you could be plugging your modems into an electrical outlet inside your home. Given the amount of power that runs thru the power lines there is a HUGE amount of bandwidth to be had there, which might also become more cost effective than running fiber lines into peoples homes. Just about anyone who has a home will have electricity, thus the monopoly begins as electric companies are a regulated monopoly most everywhere as I have mentioned above.

Additionally, given the vast amount of bandwith available this could pave the way for the power companies to dominate the market in telephone service, Internet service, and television.

If you think about it, you can see that given the fact that anyone who uses a computer will naturally have to have power this could be the "Next Big Thing" putting ComCast and AT&T out of business.

Do you see where I am going with this yet PowerStroker? Getting your head around it yet?



-- Edited by SELLC on Saturday 4th of December 2010 01:31:29 AM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

I heard something about that actually, I don't know when it's actually going to be implemented, but as far as I'm concerned, the more competition the better.

I'm still a lot more worried about broadband providers altering the speeds based on whether they like the specific content you're searching for or not, than I am about how much a specific data plan will cost.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I'm still a lot more worried about broadband providers altering the speeds based on whether they like the specific content you're searching for or not, than I am about how much a specific data plan will cost.

That's Democrat propaganda PowerStroker!

If it were true then how come they are not doing it now or for the matter last 10 years? It's because it's illegal and this is just another way to regulate us into paying more money for less in addition to killing off AT&T and ComCast.

Trust me as much as I hate both of them, I like knowing I can bounce between them in the event one starts treating me poorly.

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

Well I just got kicked in the groin by two other commissions today!

Just opened two letters, one from the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission and another one from the bureau of automotive regulation and nothing but bad news.

So now I got a Judge that more than certainly has a hard on for me, and a fricking Dodge that I have to give reach around to my attorney in order to take possession of! You can read more about these two new revelations in the V8 Cafe.

I just can't fricking win with these commissions and regulators!  WTF!?

Oddly enough the date on the MJTC letter was the same date as this thread was started, and while I think it would be a stretch to say the person in charge was following this thread, I can't help but to think calling them pencil necks prolly wouldn't have helped if they were.

Point here is folks that Government regulators and commissions simpily do not work, for me anyway. I can't help but to feel like they are corrupt in every way. They look out for themselves while the public just gets the shaft.

What is worse? I voted for the Judge I filed a complaint against! So I only have myself to blame! Then again in exchange for getting my wife to vote straight republican I allowed her to influence my vote with regards to that Judge.

So there you go guys.... Enjoy it! I got the shaft right in the can! TWICE IN ONE DAY! Now it's back to the drawing board... More all nighters filling out paperwork taking one issue to District court for a leave to appeal and having to beg my attorney friend to goto court to get me awarded the Dodge. God help me if that request goes in front of the Judge I filed a complaint on.

I'll say it again... Regulations and Commissions are NO GOOD!

Now if you will excuse me I am going to take myself outside and beat myself up for awhile. Ill be back later!



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Divided FCC adopts rules to protect Web traffic

AP
  • Julius GenachowskiAP  FILE - In this file photo made March 12, 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is interviewed at his 

WASHINGTON A divided Federal Communications Commission has approved new rules meant to prohibit broadband companies from interfering with Internet traffic flowing to their customers.

The 3-2 vote Tuesday marks a major victory for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who has spent more than a year trying to craft a compromise.

The FCC's three Democrats voted to pass the rules, while the two Republicans opposed them, calling them unnecessary regulation. The new rules are likely to face intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill once Republicans take over the House. Meanwhile, public interest groups decried the regulations as too weak, particularly for wireless systems.

Known as "net neutrality," the rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, such as those from rivals.

The rules require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses. But the rules give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic including spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.

The regulations prohibit unreasonable network discrimination a category that FCC officials say would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority. The rules do, however, leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.

In addition, the regulations prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices, and require them to disclose their network management practices, too. But the rules give wireless companies would get more leeway to manage data traffic because wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.

Genachowski said the regulations will prohibit broadband providers from abusing their control over the on-ramps that consumers use to get onto the Internet. He said the companies won't be able to determine where their customers can go and what they can do online.

"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," Genachowski said. "For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness."

Still, the final rules came as a disappointment to public interest groups. Even Genachowski's two Democratic colleagues on the five-member FCC were disappointed, though they still voted to adopt the rules after concluding some safeguards are better than none.

They warn that the new regulations may not be strong enough to prevent broadband companies from picking winners and losers on the Internet, particularly on wireless systems, which will have more limited protections. They also worry that the rules don't do enough to ensure that broadband providers cannot favor their own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority resulting in a two-tiered Internet.

"Today's action could and should have gone further," said Michael Copps, one of the other two Democrats on the commission. But, he added, the regulations do represent some progress "to put consumers not Big Phone or Big Cable in control of their online experiences."

At the same time, the two Republicans on the FCC worried that the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from continuing to upgrade their networks by making it difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments. They also insist that the regulations are intended to fix a problem that does not exist, as all the major broadband providers have already pledged not to discriminate against Internet traffic on their networks.

"The Internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today," said Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican.

Republicans on Capitol Hill vowed to try to block the new regulations. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, plans to introduce a "resolution of disapproval" to try to overturn what she called "troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC."

Robert McDowell, the FCC's other Republican, predicted that the FCC will face court challenges to its regulatory authority, too. In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency had exceeded its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC in 2005.

Those principles serve as a foundation for the formal regulations adopted Tuesday



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

 

They warn that the new regulations may not be strong enough to prevent broadband companies from picking winners and losers on the Internet, particularly on wireless systems, which will have more limited protections. They also worry that the rules don't do enough to ensure that broadband providers cannot favor their own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority resulting in a two-tiered Internet.

So tell me PowerStroker... WHAT ELSE WAS SLIPPED INTO THIS NEW REGULATION THAT YOU ARE NOT TELLING US? Seems this story omit's all of the juicy details. Reminds me of the Medicare Physicians act, where as the Democrats slipped in a more aggressive version of the "Patriot Act". The two track system everyone was apposed to is now something we will all have to live with.

"The Internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today," said Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican.

So now all we have is regulation with no real "Change". Regulation that will be manipulated to charge us MORE for Internet.

Republicans on Capitol Hill vowed to try to block the new regulations. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, plans to introduce a "resolution of disapproval" to try to overturn what she called "troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC."

Looks like the republicans will be spending the next few years reversing all the bullshit the Democrats did.

Robert McDowell, the FCC's other Republican, predicted that the FCC will face court challenges to its regulatory authority, too.
In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency had exceeded its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC in 2005.

Did you bother to read that PowerStroker? ComCast is in my eyes one of the WORST Internet and media companies out there. Their customer service SUCKS, their service is for SHIT, and on top of all that they have limits on the amount of data you can transfer each month. When I had ComCast I had to reset my Modem countless times in a month, where as my current Internet provider has NEVER needed to be re-set and often times is left running for MONTHS at a time without even needing a re-start. You need to wake up PowerStroker, WE LOST!

Democrats are too fucking ignorant to realize that "If it ain't broken, don't fix it". You guys are so gone come 2012 it's not even funny. All these desperate attempts to over-reach are pathetic. When is the last time you got a job from a poor man PowerStroker? I'd wager to say NEVER!



 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

I still think you just don't get it PowerStroker!

There is more than ONE way to skin a cat, and you my friend will learn this the hard way, especially since you love ComCast so much.

Any internet company that limited or "Censored" Internet traffic was subject to prosecution under the LAW. ComCast has already been fined for this kind of activity. You and your idiot party made a big deal out of something that was a NON-ISSUE to get you to look one way, while they went another.

The REAL issue now is this, with the two tier system companies like ComCast and everyone else for that matter have a choice of a FAST track and a SLOW track. So really if ComCast or anyone else wants to block traffic all they have to do is put them on the "SLOW" track, and they can do this without breaking any laws, because your idiot Democrat party made it LEGAL. Now these Internet companies have a legal way to control what you view, after all who is going to wait 2 minutes for a web site or video to load?

Net Neutrality was and always has been EVERYONE using the same pipes to send and recive information. Now we have these redundant regulations protecting content access that were already protected/guaranteed in exchange for a two tier system that WILL legally allow internet providers to slow down information they do not like. Your such an idiot PowerStroker!

Gawd you people are so stupid! It was NEVER an issue of CONTENT freedom, and EVERYTHING to do with the SPEED of said content being delivered! JUST LIKE I SAID SO MANY TIMES IN MY POST ABOVE.

For a college guy, you aren't too bright PowerStroker!

-- Edited by SELLC on Tuesday 21st of December 2010 10:09:43 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

SELLC wrote:

 

In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency had exceeded its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC in 2005.

Did you bother to read that PowerStroker? ComCast is in my eyes one of the WORST Internet and media companies out there.  

I agree, that's why the FCC has been trying to keep them in check by SANCTIONING them.  Did you even bother to read it?  Or do you just not know what sanction means?

Their customer service SUCKS, their service is for SHIT, and on top of all that they have limits on the amount of data you can transfer each month. When I had ComCast I had to reset my Modem countless times in a month

Democrats are too fucking ignorant to realize that "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".

If the rant you just gave ^^^ doesn't constitute the very definition of "broken," then I don't know what does.


 



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

It was NEVER an issue of CONTENT freedom, and EVERYTHING to do with the SPEED of said content being delivered!

Trying to dumb it down for you PowerStroker. Unfortunately it ain't working. I am starting to think your problem is not that you are ignorant, rather you just want everyone to be as miserable as you.

It's like this PowerStroker, I try not to argue with idiots... They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

SELLC wrote:

It was NEVER an issue of CONTENT freedom, and EVERYTHING to do with the SPEED of said content being delivered!


That's what I've been saying all along.  Do you think it's a good idea to have your internet service provider to be able to slow down your connection to any content they don't like?

 



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

Me too PowerStroker, however what we now have is a two tier system also known as a "Fast Lane" and a "Slow Lane". In exchange for some redundant regulation!

So tell me how this new regulation has done ANYTHING to protect us, keeping in mind that before all of this it was still illegal for ISP's to block or discriminate content?

What have we gained PowerStroker? A redundant regulation? In exchange for what? A two tier system where as only the big boys can deliver quickly?

I also find it very strange that in most all of your post above you chose to increase the font size and then make bolt the word CONTENT. Never once did I see you do that with the word SPEED.

-- Edited by SELLC on Wednesday 22nd of December 2010 12:41:56 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

It's because attempted censorship for corporate profit is at the root of the issue. I think freedom of information is more important than speed in general. I can always choose another provider if unhappy with the speed of my current one. If however I'm unhappy with my current provider, and while trying to search for another one, my connection mysteriously slows way down, now that would really piss me off.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I think freedom of information is more important than speed in general.


Yeah freedom of information has been covered since back in the days of ink printed news papers, so naturally it has always extended to the internet as well.

Hope you like getting your Sunday Morning news @ 9pm, the sports section should trail @ 11pm



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

So now that YOUR people ended net neutrality, do you have any thoughts?

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

So now that YOUR people ended net neutrality, do you have any thoughts?


 

You know I would really like a citation for that statement PowerStroker!

Net Neutrality is like a dead horse that has been beaten too many times! It is completely FUBAR! When it first came up, ie: this thread, you could almost get your head around it... but since then it has not been very easy to follow.

All I know is Obama let ComCast buy NBC, which is basically a content provider buying a network! How could ComCast not give NBC priority? The system resides on the same trunk! Of course NBC is going to get better service to ComCast subscribers! Engineering 101 - Everything under one roof!



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Yeah, but when Obama was in control it was Illegal for Comcast to favor NBC. Trumps hand selected new FCC director Ajit Pai (a former Verizon executive) personally ended net neutrality like he had always said he wanted to do, which is exactly why Trump picked him for the job.


__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

Isn't that sort of like asking a fox to look over the hen house?



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Yeah actually, and it's what your boy Trump has been doing with all his cabinet pics.

Scott Pruit was picked because he had tried suing the EPA, so why not let him run it?

Betsy Devos wants every child in a for profit private school that the taxpayers fund, so why not let her run the Dept of Education?

Matthew Whitaker was openly hostile to the Mueller investigation, so why not make him acting Attorney General?

Tom Price was a physician who enjoyed gouging people, so why not make him Secretary of Health and Human Services? (until he was fired for grifting)

Rex Tillerson was an oil man with close ties to Putin, so why not make him Secretary of State? (until he was fired for correctly identifying a "fucking moron."

Andrew Puzder is a restaurant mogul who is an absolute asshole to his employees and beats his wife, so why not nominate him for Labor secretary? (unsuccessfully).

Rick Perry was former governor of Texas and sold his soul to the fossil fuel industry, so why not make him Energy Secretary?

Ajit Pai was Verizon's legal counsel who did everything he could to deregulate the industry, so why not make him FCC chairman?

Do you see a pattern?

If not let me enlighten you. Trump doesn't believe in the very notion of government, and has purposefully put people hostile of government in positions where they can destroy it. Next he will nominate El Chapo to run the FDA. And then, once every institution lies in ruin he will say see, government can't do anything - we should reduce funding to these departments and cut taxes on big business. A vicious cycle that seemingly never ends, and YOU enable this shit.



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 13th of January 2019 11:41:11 PM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

El Chapo for the FDA, huh?

You don't feel that suggestion is perhaps a bit of a stretch? Maybe even a little ludicrous? 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

You're right, in Trumps mind El Chapo would be better suited running the DEA.



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Monday 14th of January 2019 09:42:39 AM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16303
Date:

You know what they say, "hire a criminal if you want to catch a criminal".... At least in Hollywood anyway! LOL



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Online
Posts: 5814
Date:

SELLC wrote:

You know what they say, "hire a criminal if you want to catch a criminal"....


 

I thought Mr.Trump only hired criminals ?...



__________________

"Only an alert & knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial & military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods & goals, so that security & liberty may prosper together".    Dwight D.Eisenhower.



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

SELLC wrote:

You know what they say, "hire a criminal if you want to catch a criminal".... At least in Hollywood anyway! LOL



With as many criminals in Trumps cabinet, it's a wonder there are any left for the streets. 



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard