We have ONE DAY to tell the FCC that the Internet belongs to us too, not just to corporations that want to get faster speed than just us regular users.
BTW, the new Chairman of the FCC Tom Wheeler, comes from a trade background, so guess whose interests HE will be pushing. Why would even a clueless President like Obama make such an overtly biased appointment??
Please, for the sake of all us ordinary users. contact the FCC and demand Net Neutrality!
Also contact your Congress-critter(s) and tell them in no uncertain terms that you will NOT put up with being treated like a second-class citizen on the Internet.
Gotta do it TODAY!
| BTW, the new Chairman of the FCC Tom Wheeler, comes from a trade
background, so guess whose interests HE will be pushing. Why would even a
clueless President like Obama make such an overtly biased appointment??
And before him it was Colin Powell's son. A patronage appointment
for the family of the guy who lied to Congress about the infamous
aluminum tubes so that Bush could have his war. When I want to
know what's going on with the FCC I check to see what former
member Michael Copps is saying. He seems to be the only one who
can be trusted.
On Monday, July 14, 2014 6:57:25 PM UTC-7, Mayayana wrote:
That really hurt. Then when he told the UN the lies about yellow cake that
Bush's handlers had fed him, I waited to see him blow his stack when he fo
und out he had been used. Instead, he saluted like a good soldier and went
along with the lie. I respected Powell until then; now he's no better tha
n the rest of those criminals who killed our boys (and girls) in that illeg
Which is why he's "former" ?
I hope at least a few here will get off the apathy stick and contact the FC
C *promptly* and pass it on. Nobody's going to help us if we don't help ou
rselves. $$$ rules.
On Monday, July 14, 2014 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Copps was appointed to the FCC by Bush, so funny that he's OK and not
tainted. Typical loon lib reasoning at work, I guess. And why is it
that you never bitch about all the same "lies" about Iraq that were told
by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, etc?
| Copps was appointed to the FCC by Bush, so funny that he's OK and not
| tainted. Typical loon lib reasoning at work, I guess. And why is it
| that you never bitch about all the same "lies" about Iraq that were told
| by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, etc?
You seem to be an energetic partisan. I'm not.
I don't regard national politics as an us-vs-them
sporting event where the point is to yell insults at
the other side, as a titillating substitute for actual
thought and discussion. If you want to be
disrespectful and trade insults you'll have to find
another partner for that.
I like Copps simply because he's taken positions in
favor of the FCC being in service to the public. He seems
to be an honest man trying to do the right thing. I don't
even know whether he's Democrat or Republican.
| > I like Copps simply because he's taken positions in
| > favor of the FCC being in service to the public. He seems
| > to be an honest man trying to do the right thing. I don't
| > even know whether he's Democrat or Republican.
| So did Michael Powell, when he chaired the FCC,
Did what? Favor the public? When he left the FCC he
became president of the National Cable and Telecommunications
Association. It's my understanding that's the main lobbying group
against Net neutrality now. *In other words, he's leading the
charge to give the Internet over to the people who own the wires.*
I can't say that I really know what Powell did when he was with
the FCC, but his actions seem to speak. When the top henhouse
manager leaves to become the top fox lobbyist, I don't figure his
position on hens should be trusted.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:17:10 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
Yes. Read and learn:
"As the chairman of the FCC, Powell led the charge to open up markets in Vo
IP, Wi-Fi, and Broadband over Powerline (BPL). His approach believed that t
hese new communications technologies would allow small companies to take on
established corporations, and that regulations often stood in the way of p
His deregulatory policy coincided with a period of significant consolidatio
n in the communications market. He advocated an updating of media ownership
rules to reflect new communications technologies such as the Internet, a m
ove that critics derided as increasing rampant media consolidation. He oppo
sed applying telephone-era regulations to new Internet technologies, a move
critics charged would deny open access to communications facilities. He ar
ticulated a policy of network neutrality, and in March 2005 fined Madison R
iver Communications for blocking voice over IP applications, the first-ever
government action of its kind. Powell worked so consumers could keep ph
one numbers when switching wireless carriers and championed the National Do
Not Call Registry.
When he left the FCC he
Typical lib. His name is Powell, so let's drag Bush, Iraq, into a
discussion on net neutrality. No time to find out what Powell actually
did while on the FCC. Just bash away.
When the top henhouse
And too lazy to find out what he actually did. Typical, so very typical.
For the record, he took the position you're referring to a full 6 years
after he left the FCC. If someone has expertise in a particular industry,
should that person be banned from that industry for life because they
held a govt position related to that industry? And if that is the new
policy, where do you think you're going to find qualifed people to serve?
And note that Michael Copps is an advisor to Common Cause, a lib
loon left wing organization, that does just as much to discredit his
The FCC could have done a lot more to insure that monopolistic practices
were controlled. In fact when the Telecommunications Act was under
discussion in 1994, Senator Trent Lott, Republican* of Mississippi, was one
of its most enthusiastic supporters. Thanks to him and others, the act,
passed in 1996, prohibits states from putting up unreasonable obstacles to
any entity that wants to provide telecommunications services. So a number
of cities began building their own municipal networks which folks like
Comcast and Verizon realized would provide unwanted competition.
Since then industry lobbyists like Powell have helped pushed through laws in
20 states that, despite the 1996 act, make it difficult or impossible for
municipalities to clear the way for the sorts of networks that the 1996 act
In other words, he's clearly *deeply* in the pocket of the industry he chose
to "lightly regulate" and not the poor suckers like us that government
employees are supposed to serve.
You can almost *always* expect someone who came from lobbying for the
industry (and not someone from one of the many state public service
commissions who also "know this stuff" quite well) to come down on the side
of industry. Powell's naked support of killing off competition from
government run "Muni Nets" makes him an industry tool in my book. Among his
many other non-achievments on the public's behalf.
Fortunately there's some possible relief for consumers on the horizon:
<<The official said that the case, Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League,
involved a situation in which the FCC declined** to support municipalities
resisting state laws limiting public broadband. If the commission were to
support municipalities against state restrictions in a future case, courts
could interpret the laws differently, the official said. In the Supreme
Court case, a group of local governments in Missouri asked the FCC to
nullify a state law preventing municipal broadband service.>>
Now that someone else is in charge at the FCC, maybe *they'll* be able to
make sure these big near-monopolies get some very much needed competition
*Back before the Tea Party takeover when Republicans actually worked for the
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:52:23 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Monopolies are primarily the concern of the DOJ via the antitrust laws.
Obama and Holder are 100% in charge. Are they blocking the Comcast-Time
Warner merger? Gee, funny I don't see you bitching about that. No, instead
you're in a time warp, going back a decade ago, to try to lay the blame
for what's going on today on a Republican named Powell. Not that IMO he
even did anything wrong, but it's amazing at how you libs think and operate.
In fact when the Telecommunications Act was under
Powell AFAIK isn't a dictator and he doesn't make the rules and determinations
alone. The FCC decided not to get involved in what they rightly perceived as
a states rights issue.
OK, now you're lying. Powell didn't work as a lobbyist for the telecom
industry prior to his tenure at the FCC. AFAIK, he had no involvement with
the industry at all. His background was as an anti-trust lawyer in DOJ, working for a federal judge and private law practice. It was a full 6 years
and several jobs later, that he joined the telecom industry.
Powell's naked support of killing off competition from
Again, it wasn't Powell's call alone, it was an FCC decision to not interfere
in the right of states to do what they want. And it was a *state* that was
doing the doing, not a private company. Missouri passed a law and defended
it. Missouri is a govt and you like govts, don't you? Or is it only a big
centralized govt that you like?
Which of course says nothing about Powell or the FCC having anything to
do with this. Do you believe in states rights? If a state wants to
prevent municipalities from being internet providers, apparently it's
within their rights to do so. Complain to the states that passed the laws.
Actually, I think it's not a bad idea. Govt has proven itself incompetent
of providing much of anything cost effectively and successfully. I don't
see any reason to believe that if my local govt, that doesn't know a bit
from a fiber cable, got in the business of providing internet service it
would be successful. I have enough experiences with what govt delivers at
everything from the DMV, to Obamacare, to the VA. Plow the streets, pick
up the trash, and keep the commies and Al Qaeda out, that's all I want.
You left out the part about the Supreme Court deciding 8 to 1 that states were
within their rights to prevent municipalities from running internet
companies. Even 3 of the 4 libs concurred. But, heh, it's all Michael
Powell's fault, even though he can't act alone as head of the FCC, he's
just one member and the FCC chose not to get involved. BTW, I though not
getting involved was in vogue, no? That's Obama's modus operandi on
everything from Syria to Putin and Iraq. I'm analyzing, thinking about
what to do. Stay tuned while I golf.
Someone else has been head of the FCC for almost a decade. Powell left
in 2005. Why is it that with everything from the Bush and the Iraq war
to the FCC, you libs constantly live in the past?
Says who exactly? Many markets? Examples please. My service here is
working mighty fine. How's Obamacare working? The VA? Anyone find those
missing emails at the IRS? ISIS is taking over Iraq. Anyone stop the flood
of illegals pouring across the border that you libs told us was secure?
Putin's buddies just shot down a Malaysian 777 with 300 people on board.
Obama just left for another couple of fund raisers. He'll probably be playing golf again this weekend, like he has for 10 weekends in a row. See anything
not working there? No, it's just the private company that has 100 Mbit
internet to my house that's not working right and that you libs know how
to fix.... Good grief!
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:06:00 PM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
Yet that's *exactly* what they do in many markets, causing the neutrality
hat you libs know how >to fix....
At the expense of snipping time, would like to note that I automatically disregard any post using the phrase "you libs". 100% indicator that the mind is shut tight while the electrons gush out of... ??
| I automatically disregard any post using the phrase "you libs".
That seems like a good rule of thumb. Also
probably worthy of skipping:
"hippies" (1970, anyone?)
"you're an idiot"
"Obama is a transexual, non-American spy sent by Saudi
Arabia to raise the price of my favorite breakfast cereal." :)
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Note that those with their shorts in a knot over "you libs"
told us that net neutrality was about:
HB: "We have ONE DAY to tell the FCC that the Internet belongs to us too, not just to corporations that want to get faster speed than just us regular users."
That isn't what net neutrality is about. Corporations, depending on the type,
and application have had more bandwith from day one. Obviously Ebay's bandwith needs are very different than grandmas. Aslo, certain traffic, eg VOIP needs to be treated differently to ensure quality of service, unless you want your
calls breaking up.
M: If they do it the way you describe I
think that would be ideal. We can't honestly expect ISPs to
foot the bill for streaming movies.
Bingo! And that is why ISP want to charge companies like Netflix, that
put a very heavy load on the internet, additional fees. Yet M is here
bitching about them doing it because allegedly it violates "net neutrality".
M: Netflix can't just keep creating 20% of Internet traffic without
someone paying for it.
Bingo, same comment as above.
M: For instance, someone who doesn't watch sports nevertheless has to indirectly pay the fees for sports networks. In the same way, without
Net neutrality we could all pay for things like Netflix, whether
we stream movies or not.
And then she's totally backwards again. Right now we *are* all paying for the
infrastructure to support the huge bandwith sucked up by Netflix. It's
exactly like paying for cable channels, bandwith, etc that you don't use.
So, ISPs want to start doing *exactly* what you say you want, ie to
start making Netflix pay more, yet here you are bitching about it. Do
you always argue against yourself?
So, yeah, "you libs" sure are a confused bunch. And the part that
really annoys me, is that you find problems that basically are non-existent,
that you obviously don;t understand, and then proceed to tell us how
bad it all is, how free markets don't work, how it all needs more govt
My internet works fine. It's gone from 56Kbits to 100Mbits in 15 years.
I'm happy with the job the FCC is doing. I
freely admit I don't understand all the issues involved. But I clearly
understand enough to know that the three libs here have proven they
don't understand even the basics, but want to impose there nonsense on the
rest of us. And somehow, as usual, they even managed to drag Bush and the
Iraq war into it. Go figure.
as much as I hate to admit it, HB is right on this one. If I'm paying for a
30 Mbps, I should be able to use it anyway i want. Stream video, Netflix,
redbox, Hulu or anyother service I choose to. Providers should not be able
to throttle my connection because they don't like it. The sad thing is that
is that they are already doing it.
I've got a buddy that works for ATT and he's been putting in servers lately
that do just that. He said that there is 4 tiers and streaming video is at
the bottom at tier 4. He's installing for more than just ATT and the plan is
to make the streamers to pay more for the bandwidth which in turn will be
passed on to us. So, Verizon, ATT, Comcast, Time Warner et al will be
getting paid at both ends. The cable/broadband providers are pushing hard to
get this passed. That in it self should tell you who is going to benefit
from it. Just like the HD change, the only ones that benefited from it is
the providers by charging you more for a HD cable box. Watching 480p on a
1080p big screen looks like shit. But that's all they are required to
provide. They need to just leave it the way it is and treat all traffic
equally and allow me to use my bandwidth that *I* pay for the way i want and
not make me pay for it twice.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:52:51 AM UTC-7, Marc wrote:
ms that you will NOT put up with being treated like a second-class citizen
on the Internet.
ce congress. It's all about the benjamins.
Actually, hard-core cynic that I have become, I still respectfully disagree
with you on the usefulness of protest. If thousands or hundreds of thousa
nds of constituents flood a Congress-critter's office with demand/protest/w
hatever, he/she IS wet their pants worrying about re-election (except in "s
afe" districts. Believe it or not, there still IS strength in unity.
Besides, what do you lose by making the effort?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.