![]() |
|
The Internet Web sites, web development, email, chat, bandwidth, the net and society |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Is this a net neutrality post? I'm (genuinely) confused.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Yeah, but it's not for or against net neutrality, it's just against the FCC. But I have been reminded of the FCC by the millions of demands I've seen for us to ask them to save us wrt net neutrality. The FCC is just five appointed assholes, they aren't in the saving business. Laws need to be made by lawmakers if people want them to stick.
And I believe the FCC has zero jurisdiction over any wired connection in the United States of America, but I may be in the minority on that. (It used to be that the FCC couldn't stop people from saying FUCK on cable TV, because those connections were wired. If that is the case, how can they tell anyone how to move packets across wired network connections?) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
FCC always had jurisdiction over how 'public' wired systems work. Always. Which is completely different from what occurs on private connections. Their restrictions are on public connections. You can say "fuck" all you want on a private phone connection between two private parties. Even the wackos who got into the FCC admit that cannot be restricted. Net neutrality is the next obstruction that Comcast, et al needs charge more people for things that work better under net neutrality. They don't want to innovate - just increase profits. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|