.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers
.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers (Read Only) => Discussion => Topic started by: blαh2355 on February 26, 2015, 11:02:07 AM
-
It finally happened guys. Thoughts?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board)
-
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/53188863ee73348862c6b9ff10101e16/tumblr_nke4drhAQb1qz8q0ho2_r1_540.gif)
-
Though I am in favor of preventing throttling, I am very cautious and suspicious about this regulation as
1. It did not go through Congress and therefore is not an actual law.
2. The regulation has not been made available to the public.
3. 332 pages.
4. It's being enforced by the agency that created it.
-
It's interesting, the opposition to the new rules of authority seems to have some pretty weak arguments against it.
Most relate to how the internet is currently not broken or stagnated, current broadband rates compared to Europe are better, etc. already, asking why change it.
However, they know that this entire reclassification came about because the ISP telecoms had JUST ruled the FCC's broadband authority invalid, and to me they seem to hope people forget about it.
Which means, the way the internet was already developing in the US was under the previous FCC carrier authority rules, not without them, and now new classification rules take their place.
While I agree the rules aren't perfect, as government is probably not something to be trusted with unchecked control, neither would corporations and it was clear how quickly those telecom corporations were moving to prevent recognizing the FCC's authority.
I think in this case, at the very least, having something similar to what we had before in the most generic sense, with some improvements, seems to be the better choice, than let corporations decide behind closed doors.
-
It's interesting, the opposition to the new rules of authority seems to have some pretty weak arguments against it.
Most relate to how the internet is currently not broken or stagnated, current broadband rates compared to Europe are better, etc. already, asking why change it.
However, they know that this entire reclassification came about because the ISP telecoms had JUST ruled the FCC's broadband authority invalid, and to me they seem to hope people forget about it.
Which means, the way the internet was already developing in the US was under the previous FCC carrier authority rules, not without them, and now new classification rules take their place.
While I agree the rules aren't perfect, as government is probably not something to be trusted with unchecked control, neither would corporations and it was clear how quickly those telecom corporations were moving to prevent recognizing the FCC's authority.
I think in this case, at the very least, having something similar to what we had before in the most generic sense, with some improvements, seems to be the better choice, than let corporations decide behind closed doors.
I just wish that this had gone through Congress so that the enforcers are not the same as the creators, that's the basis for separation of powers. It was also voted on by only FIVE people. None of them were elected. Also, complaining about the length may seem silly, but as context, the law that approved the Interstate highways (the largest public works project in history) was only 50 pages long. I feel like there maybe something hidden in those 332 pages, but it's not like I can find out, because I'm not allowed to read it apparently.
-
Lol.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/ (http://www.newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/)
I really wonder what's in those 332 pages if someone like George Soros donates over 80 million dollars to the so called pro-net neutrality groups.