Not all political appointments are hacks, and not all are party hacks
either side.
This is why I would sometimes put my trust in them versus a guy I
elect and lies to me.
By the way how can you tell if a politician is lying to you? His
mouth is open. (shameless old joke I know)
Stewart
It is not a perfect world, in any sense of the way.
There's an opinion piece in today's Post br Robert McDowell,
who is an FCC commissioner. It is noteworthy that he was
reappointed in June of last year, and was the first Republican
to be so appointed to an independent agency by BHO.
Unanimous
That part is true, but commissions many times have to interpret
poorly or very vaguely written law (because politicians like to have
it both ways. And I mean that in the worst sense.)
It is not a perfect world, in any sense of the way.
The FCC is trying to make decisions in the public interes
Of course Congress makes its decisions for political reasons! That's
their job. Politicians are the ones who should be making law, not
commissions. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions at
election time.
Stewart Marshall wrote:
And Congress does not do this either?
Stewart
And Congress does not do this either?
Stewart
At 10:57 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:
Yes, we are communicating, but we are not Telecommunicating. When
the laws governing regulation of it were established,
Telecommunication was the telephone. My point is that voice is but a
small element of the wor
Yes, we are communicating, but we are not Telecommunicating. When the
laws governing regulation of it were established, Telecommunication was
the telephone. My point is that voice is but a small element of the
world of broadband and Congress should be the body to set its
regulation, if it is to
I'll take that as no you don't have a link.
Sent from my iPod
On Apr 8, 2010, at 17:53, John Duncan Yoyo
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:46 PM, mike wrote:
Got an url for that one? Why would the 'Bushies' try and stop
Comcast from
packet shaping and then do this?
It is the Temerit
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:46 PM, mike wrote:
> Got an url for that one? Why would the 'Bushies' try and stop Comcast from
> packet shaping and then do this?
>
It is the Temerity of Nope. Whats left of the republican party is afraid
to allow anything good for the country or not to pass during t
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote:
> I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to
> regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate
> Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications
> company, bu
The Bushies reclassified them so they could more easily escape justice.
Actually Clinton signed the 1996 Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Read the paragraph under the Title VII bullet that begins:
"The Act makes a significant distinction ..."
That should clari
Net neutrality involves very different things for different people.
Congress could write a bill that does all kind of things that mean the
complete opposite to what you think NN means...and call it the NN bill.
As far as paying more if we 'use' more by downloading more...right now tv is
almost all
b_s-wilk wrote:
This is screaming for an update of the definition of
telecommunications. With more people using VOIP and cellular services,
of course telecommunications include cable services. It needs to be
revised in the FCC's code.
That was my point exactly, except that I would say it th
Got an url for that one? Why would the 'Bushies' try and stop Comcast from
packet shaping and then do this?
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:18 PM, tjpa wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote:
>
>> I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to
>> regulat
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote:
I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC
to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC
to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a
Telecommunications company, but a Br
I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under the juristicion of the F
I thought the court's ruling stated that Congress authorized the FCC to
regulate only Telecommunications. If Congress wishes for the FCC to
regulate Broadband, then it should do so. Hence Comcast, not a
Telecommunications company, but a Broadband company does not fall under
the juristicion of
You mean like where the FCC under Bush tried to make throttling illegal?
Now the courts decided the FCC can't do that, so back to the big providers
deciding what content they want to give you at what speed.
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:19 AM, b_s-wilk wrote:
>A federal appeals court has rule
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission lacks the authority to require
broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
traffic flowing over their networks.
I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afte
On Apr 6, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
Now, I don't know where this case is going to go. Likely to the
Supreme Court. But the fact of the matter is that the cable and
telephone companies built these networks and shouldn't be penalized
for charging what the traffic will bear.
Except
I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon.
Then they said that Comcast's stock went *down*. What's up with
that?
It comes down to is an information service, as broadband is currently
classified, regulable as a telecommunications service, which is the
FCC's mandate.
If
Quoting Mike Sloane :
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission lacks the authority to require
broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet
traffic flowing over their networks.
I heard the tail end of this story on Market Place this afternoon.
NYTimes.com News Alert wrote:
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tue, April 06, 2010 -- 11:23 AM ET
-
Court Rules Against F.C.C. in 'Net Neutrality' Case
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission lacks the authority to require
broadband providers to gi
22 matches
Mail list logo
