view:

topics flat nest

Cheese

Premium Member

join:2003-10-26

Naples, FL Cheese Premium Member They just FAIL period... They have no spine to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with, why bother having an FCC if they can't do the job right? nasadude

join:2001-10-05

Rockville, MD nasadude Member Re: They just FAIL period... the FCC isn't afraid to do anything about the issues, they don't want to do anything (except pay lip service)...it's called regulatory capture.



and I agree - you could abolish the FCC and probably wouldn't notice any difference.



anybody want to take a be that when Genachowski's term is over he goes to work for a telecon company or industry lobby group?

txpatriot

@or.us txpatriot Anon Regulatory capture? said by nasadude: the FCC isn't afraid to do anything about the issues, they don't want to do anything (except pay lip service)...it's called regulatory capture. Regulatory capture indeed. That must explain why the FCC rolled over on the AT&T/T-Mobile deal . . . Terabit

join:2008-12-19 Terabit to Cheese

Member to Cheese

Nothing to do with having no spine. The Republican establishment has severely limited the reach of such organizations. Therefore, their hands a tied.



Under the GOP manifesto, anything that stands in the way of profits is to be eliminated.

PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06

Fitchburg, MA PaulHikeS2 Member Re: They just FAIL period... said by Terabit: Nothing to do with having no spine. The Republican establishment has severely limited the reach of such organizations. Therefore, their hands a tied.



Under the GOP manifesto, anything that stands in the way of profits is to be eliminated.

You are absolutely correct. Under prior administrations the FCC has alwayd been a paragon...no...a beacon of hope for consumers everywhere; enforcing and enacting regulaion with the best interest of consumers everywhere without being beholden to the whims of any corporate influence.

DataDoc

My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.

Premium Member

join:2000-05-14

Martinsburg, WV DataDoc Premium Member Re: They just FAIL period... You'll need to put your satire flags on for some. :P Terabit

join:2008-12-19 Terabit to PaulHikeS2

Member to PaulHikeS2

Who controlled Congress for the majority of the last 30 years? Who do you think has the most say in any of this? Congress.



While the future president may have magic underwear, contrary to popular (ignorant) belief, the president does not have a magic wand.

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 to Terabit

Premium Member to Terabit

said by Terabit: Nothing to do with having no spine. The Republican establishment has severely limited the reach of such organizations. Therefore, their hands a tied.



Under the GOP manifesto, anything that stands in the way of profits is to be eliminated.

What happened when Obama was President and he had a Dem Congress for 2 yrs. Nothing changed then either. Can't blame GOP for an FCC cowed by industry players. Terabit

join:2008-12-19 Terabit Member Re: They just FAIL period... said by FFH5: What happened when Obama was President and he had a Dem Congress for 2 yrs. Nothing changed then either. Can't blame GOP for an FCC cowed by industry players.





Interesting how your ilk never had any of the same expectations from a president in office for 8 years, with Republicans controlling Congress for a full 6 years; well since 1995 actually. It's amazing what he is magically supposed to fix in under 2 years flat. From the worst recession since the depression, balancing the $1.4 Trillion deficit handed to him, ending to two wars, to healthcare, to the FCC etc etc.Interesting how your ilk never had any of the same expectations from a president in office for 8 years, with Republicans controlling Congress for a full 6 years; well since 1995 actually. nasadude

join:2001-10-05

Rockville, MD nasadude to Terabit

Member to Terabit

said by Terabit: Nothing to do with having no spine. The Republican establishment has severely limited the reach of such organizations. Therefore, their hands a tied.



Under the GOP manifesto, anything that stands in the way of profits is to be eliminated.





democrats love having the excuse of "the republicans made me do it", it lets them pretend they are on the side of the people.



lack of regulation is one of the more bipartisan issues that exists. I repeat - the FCC DOES NOT WANT to do anything; they are fully committed to the status quo and are perfectly willing to let said status quo inch more and more to the benefit of the industry they (supposedly) regulate.democrats love having the excuse of "the republicans made me do it", it lets them pretend they are on the side of the people.lack of regulation is one of the more bipartisan issues that exists. Terabit

join:2008-12-19 Terabit Member Re: They just FAIL period... Indeed. Which legislators on a state level are the large Teco's lobbying and having them vote against municipalities or cities rolling out their own FTTH? The actual voting records are there for all to see.



Which party's creed for the last 30 years straight has been no Government, private sector do whatever you please?



Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 edit 1 recommendation battleop Member The FCC lacks authority... I don't see how tis is an FCC issue anyways. It really falls under e FTC or some other Federal Agency.



Edit: Spelling

skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: The FCC lacks authority... Can't enforce it but the FCC gets what they want by coercion. Do what we want or we'll feet drag and run interception on everything you want to do.

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 to battleop

Premium Member to battleop

said by battleop: I don't see how tis is an FCC issue anyways. It really falls under e FTC or some other Federaal Agency.

+1

pende_tim

Premium Member

join:2004-01-04

Andover, NJ pende_tim Premium Member It An Election Year Folks don't loose sight of the fact the FCC is a politically appointed group. Also it is an election year and the candidates need contributions/financing from the likes of ATT, Verizon, TWC etc. So in the spirit of don't bite the hand that feed you, the FCC will look the other way to protect the benefactor who appointed them.

cdru

Go Colts

MVM

join:2003-05-14

Fort Wayne, IN cdru MVM Re: It An Election Year So do you think FCC-related issues will be heavily debated this evening? Yeah it's an election year. But no one cares what the FCC does as it relates to the election. It's not even a blip on the political radar.

pende_tim

Premium Member

join:2004-01-04

Andover, NJ 1 recommendation pende_tim Premium Member Re: It An Election Year Not looking fpor a debate topic, This is just a statement that ATT/Verizon/Comcast/etc are major political contributors and FCC does not want to upset the apple cart.

POB

Res Firma Mitescere Nescit

Premium Member

join:2003-02-13

Stepford, CA POB to pende_tim

Premium Member to pende_tim

said by pende_tim: Folks don't loose sight of the fact the FCC is a politically appointed group. Also it is an election year and the candidates need contributions/financing from the likes of ATT, Verizon, TWC etc. So in the spirit of don't bite the hand that feed you, the FCC will look the other way to protect the benefactor who appointed them.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah. Both sides of the political aisle accept payoffs from the telcoes. The U.S. has the best government that money can buy.

cork1958

Cork

Premium Member

join:2000-02-26 cork1958 Premium Member Re: It An Election Year said by POB: said by pende_tim: Folks don't loose sight of the fact the FCC is a politically appointed group. Also it is an election year and the candidates need contributions/financing from the likes of ATT, Verizon, TWC etc. So in the spirit of don't bite the hand that feed you, the FCC will look the other way to protect the benefactor who appointed them.



Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah. Both sides of the political aisle accept payoffs from the telcoes. The U.S. has the best government that money can buy.



Ding! Ding! Ding!!



That's EXACTLY what our government is all about! I sure wish every single member of any political party, whether local, state or federal, was investigated. I bet we could clean house that way, seeing as how people are to blind (stupid) to do it by the power of their vote!



While we're at it, let's just flat out get rid of this chicken s**t outfit called the FCC! Yepper!!Ding! Ding! Ding!!That's EXACTLY what our government is all about! I sure wish every single member of any political party, whether local, state or federal, was investigated. I bet we could clean house that way, seeing as how people are to blind (stupid) to do it by the power of their vote!While we're at it, let's just flat out get rid of this chicken s**t outfit called the FCC!

POB

Res Firma Mitescere Nescit

Premium Member

join:2003-02-13

Stepford, CA POB Premium Member Re: It An Election Year

23-Oct-2012 8p.m.Central Standard Time on » Watch the REAL presidential debates among third party candidates23-Oct-2012 8p.m.Central Standard Time on » freeandequal.org/live

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net Twaddle Anon FCC toothless hags The FCC hasn't done squat and won't do squat to ensure anything except protect the interests of those who own them and keep the political whores happy enough to keep them in their cozy jobs. They are a bunch of gutless "yes boys". The US public is delusional if they think the various Washington departments are there to protect the citizens, they've demonstrated their failures all too often. Washington is for sale to the highest bidder nothing more nothing less. brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL brianiscool Member Bandwidth Most of the people at the FCC do not even know what bandwidth is.

nobodyhome

@verizon.net nobodyhome Anon promote and police govt agencies have conflict of interest where they essentially have to both police and promote the industries they regulate. so the promote wins over police. plus congress regularly pushes the agencies to promote and has gutted their enforcement departments hurting their ability to police.

skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: promote and police It's not the government's job to promote anything. skeechan skeechan Premium Member Solution is simple 1000x damages for overcharging customers. The problem would be fixed tomorrow. Good luck though, consumers don't have lobbyists to get them extraordinary penalties like the MafIAA does.

txpatriot

@or.us txpatriot Anon No basis for a complaint I guess nobody bothered to read the GigaOM article. Higginbotham relies on the FCC's Net Neutrality Rules as the basis for filing a complaint about ISP caps and metering practices.



But of course those rules have been appealed to a federal district court so their status is up in the air. I don't think the rules have been suspended pending the outcome of the litigation, but I think the FCC is taking a wait-and-see attitude before going all-out to enforce rules that may later be overturned. I think that is a prudent approach.



I can understand why others might not feel that way. But before you vent, at least read the article and educate yourselves. Venting for the sake of venting accomplishes nothing. hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: No basis for a complaint Those rules will never see the light of day. The problem with that is the FCC lakes control over the Internet. the Internet was defined by them by Information Services NOT communication services.



The FCC's job also was NEVER to police the Internet nor TV, nor Telephone. They're job was to police the airwaves for radio stations. Instead it's expanded and now they just do what they want when they want. 95% of their "rules" can be over turned in court if people really wanted to push them. And Companies do that know that the FCC is over steping its boundries.

txpatriot

@or.us txpatriot Anon Re: No basis for a complaint I agree that there is no statutory authority for the NN rules, but that's just my opinion.



We'll have to see what the Court says. But I disagree that the FCC has no statutory authority over telephone service. That's exactly what Title II of the Communications Act gives them.



Telcos may not be happy about that, but that's the fact.

Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Caps are not a solution Its purely profit is all it is. Comcasts 250gb Cap was reasonable by 2007 standards and they have suspended it in my area.



However, caps can be totally unreasonable. Like on my smartphone. $15 a month with AT&T for data gets me...200MB.



Thats right...200 MB a month. I cant afford texting, so thats not there either. (Unlimted for $30? Nope, no thanks. Not paying for a service built into the network that costs nothing to run and is funded by voice revenues.)



I dont know anywhere in the world outside of North America (first-world mind you) that charges that much for so little. Its pathetic.



The next step up? 2gb for $30something.



Meh.



There really should not be caps on DSL or Cable, and there is zero excuse for a cap on a Fiber connection.



Caps dont solve congestion. 88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 1 recommendation 88615298 (banned) Member Re: Caps are not a solution said by Zenit: Its purely profit is all it is. Comcasts 250gb Cap was reasonable by 2007 standards and they have suspended it in my area. However, caps can be totally unreasonable. Like on my smartphone. $15 a month with AT&T for data gets me...200MB.



Also for $15 more you can get 3 GB. Yeah that sucks too but stating that you get 200 MB for $15 is a bit exaggeration because it infers $75 per GB. I cant afford texting, so thats not there either. (Unlimted for $30? I dont know anywhere in the world outside of North America (first-world mind you) that charges that much for so little. Its pathetic. The next step up? 2gb for $30something.

3 GB actually with at&t. There really should not be caps on DSL or Cable, and there is zero excuse for a cap on a Fiber connection. Caps dont solve congestion.



Caps with a FAP free period from 12 Am - 6 Am to encourage people that download/upload large files to do it at night when the network isn't as heavily used WOULD solve any congestion issues if they actually existed. The 2007 part is hyperbole as most people still don't use near 100 GB. And the new cap is going to be between 300 and 600 GB depending what tier you have. I'm not saying I agree with their caps I'm merely pointing they are not 250 GB anymore so to use that as a point is moot.That's mobile and that's different. Though their caps are crappy and are lower than they could be. People who think mobile should be able to offer unlimited data for $30 are obtuse though.Also for $15 more you can get 3 GB. Yeah that sucks too but stating that you get 200 MB for $15 is a bit exaggeration because it infers $75 per GB.It's $30 for unlimited family texting. Unless at&t does it differently.A) You could move. B) you could speak with your wallet and not pay those prices. No one is forcing you to stay with at&t.3 GB actually with at&t.Unless it's FiOS no major ISP is 100% fiber. And even with fiber I doubt an ISP could have even 20% of their customers using 10 TB a month or more.Just flat monthly caps, no of course not. Doesn't stop any possible congestion at the beginning of the month since no one has hit the cap yet.Caps with a FAP free period from 12 Am - 6 Am to encourage people that download/upload large files to do it at night when the network isn't as heavily used WOULD solve any congestion issues if they actually existed.

YesToBWcaps

@charter.com YesToBWcaps to Zenit

Anon to Zenit

Yes they Dat Caps are the soluition. You have to pay for the amount of power you use, the amount of water you use, why not bandwidth? It is not fair to charge grand maw the same as some young person that use 100Gb+ a month.



Until you run your own network and understand the cost involved and the issues with high end uses don't act like you know wht you are talking about. It takes larger backhaul, microwave connections, bigger routers and much more to handle the higher Bndwidth and all the cost money. It's not free to me why should it be free to you?



john

Mr Anon

@k12.il.us Mr Anon Anon If my bandwith is measured I'm not saying I'm for caps at all. My question is, if I pay for this product and it is billed by measurement, why is the meter not inspected by my state's office of weights and measurements? 88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: If my bandwith is measured Because ISPs want to charge like a utility but don't want to be regulated like one. 88615298 88615298 (banned) Member Irony is ironic Man of the same people demand the FCC regulate ISPs are the same ones that will vote for Romney and his anti-regulation beliefs. It seems many people hate regulation until they have some need for it.

ARGONAUT

Have a nice day.

Premium Member

join:2006-01-24

New Albany, IN ARGONAUT Premium Member Looking for work at the FCC Julius Genachowski is not wanting to offend one of his future bosses. rdmiller

join:2005-09-23

Richmond, VA rdmiller Member Romney has a plan Romney will remove the "oppressive regulatory burden" from the internet and everything will be okay. Zach

Premium Member

join:2006-11-26

Thief River Falls, MN 1 edit Zach Premium Member Re: Romney has a plan R or D in control...doesn't much matter since they and their corporate bed-fellows are all crooks and we are all screwed. It's always been that way and always will be. Things may change if the day comes where "lobbying" by those at the top carries the same penalties that "bribery" carries with us peons.

txpatriot

@or.us txpatriot to rdmiller

Anon to rdmiller

said by rdmiller: Romney will remove the "oppressive regulatory burden" from the internet and everything will be okay.

It's funny that nobody wants regulation of the Internet . . . except when they do. cybercrimes

join:2003-12-24

Honey Brook, PA cybercrimes Member ISP give you high speed they gived they you high speeds and they cap you in order to make more money off you ltes say you have 300 down and 75 up from comcast. and they cap u at 250 gigs. and you stream 2 movies a night from netflix a night at around 3gigs or little more in hd even more if you have kids.and plus all the computers tvs ipods.books.nooks.phones.gaming systems and more you can hit that cap in no time.cable companys are trying to save their markets.from what im hearing verizon may be thinking on caps.ISP's put out all this speed and they hammer you with caps tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member shift of priorities.. in many of the reforms started under a democrat congress, there was an overriding public interest and emphasis on competition...



under a republican congress.. the shifted priorities to deregulation and anti-consumerism led to a dysfunctional market and one successful and one unsuccessful greedy attempt at merger by aT&T..



this is further complicated by rising prices and collusion-- a perversion of the ideas proffered by democrats about getting into each other's markets becomes telco getting into bed with cableco and price collusion..



people have been so desensitized to the way things used to be before the war president & big spedning republican war profiteering congress mucked everything up.. that profiteering led to signficant damage to the world economy.. big business in the USA are just playing the roles given to them.. on a taxpayer platter Bob61571

join:2008-08-08

Washington, IL Bob61571 Member Re: shift of priorities.. TMC808....The truth is exactly the opposite.



In Illinois, the Democrats have control of both Legislative chambers, and the Governor, and the AG.

They are in the pocket of AT*T.



Verizon sold their ILEC landlines to Frontier, because they would not pay the tab to "lobby" Springfield to change Illinois' laws to help Verizon install FTTH FiOS. I know this from insiders in Springfield. The Springfield establishment was so used to AT*T throwing big $$ around, that they thought that Verizon should pay the same big tabs.



However, Verizon had many Square Miles of ILEC territory in Illinois, but most were rural/suburban in Downstate IL. Nothing in the Chicago city/suburbs for actual ILEC service. (Of course, much actual hardware in Chicago, because of business services there.) Largest Verizon Illinois Metros were Bloomington-Normal, Carbondale, DeKalb. If you have never heard of them, it's because you're not from Illinois.



Verizon had previously bought out GTE's ILEC landlines about a decade before that. GTE was well known thru the Midwest for mediocre service(at best). However, GTE had kept their Midwest HQ's in Bloomington, IL for decades. Once Verizon bought GTE, they shut down Bloomington's Midwest regional HQ down. tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member Re: shift of priorities.. Maybe state-level pay-to-play was on the table precisely because the federal policies were that telco could finally sell cable-tv(video) services and would have access to BILLIONS in revenue.. however if you look at the timeline on who was running congress and setting policy in the 90s vs the 2000s my main point stands..



verizon's choice to shift priorities were in a sense directly related to a few main goals... not spend/overspend on pay to play, and at the same time picking winners and losers... the easiest places to pick the winners were the northeast, texas, and the west coast... almost everyone else was a loser..



Verizon will have to make a decision on what it has not already sold down the river to Frontier & Fairpoint. It is doubtful states will let these incumbents in at least part of the remaining geographies keep their current franchise free of competition-- forever.. your comment..

