 |  | 
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| Re: Copps sitting on the fence He voted FOR Network Neutrality before he voted AGAINST it.
This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason...
(walks away scratching head...)
--
A is A | |
| | | 
Mercurybird
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Hooks, TX
 ·Allegiance Communi..
·CableOne
| Re: Copps sitting on the fence said by John Galt  :He voted FOR Network Neutrality before he voted AGAINST it. This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason... (walks away scratching head...) Very subtle humor. Nice touch. 
Familiar indeed! | |
| | | | | | | | |
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| Re: Copps sitting on the fence said by morbo :hopefully, it won't cost American tax payers $1 trillion dollars like after the other time i heard that phrase... Oh, it really doesn't matter. It is all just "fiat money" anyway.
»www.kwaves.com/fiat.htm
--
A is A | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by John Galt :He voted FOR Network Neutrality before he voted AGAINST it. This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason... (walks away scratching head...) familiar? Oh.. you've heard a/any politician speak before?
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Yawn They voted to investigate an activity that isn't yet being practiced, only considered. Regulation based on a prediction of future technology-based activities is bound to be deeply flawed.
Until and unless US ISPs take widespread action to discriminate based on content provider, there's no need to rush into passing laws to prevent a non-existant problem. No harm in looking into it though. | |
| | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Yawn The fact of the matter makes it a priority. That's because the executives of the megacorps are coming out and saying they WILL charge more for some sites. That is the worrying issue. If the executives were total tools, they wouldn't open their mouths and get everyone excited. The fact of the matter is that we are paying for TCP/IP access. And that access is determined by TECHNOLOGY, not by PAYOLA. The fear is that the megacorps want to turn a utility service into a cash trough, so they can rape the consumers double.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
edit:
March 22nd, @11:54PM
| Fine and dandy Waiting until there was a problem would be fine and dandy, if our government would actually put a stop to it. We all know what money does in Washington.
Once it starts, it will be unstoppable. The Internet as we know it will be gone. The price to speak and reach people will be only for the very rich or politically connected.I am surprised the same folks who say government is to big and interferes will trust it to "step in" if there is a problem. PLEASE!
We all have a equal voice on the Internet and Neutrality has got us there.... why not make it Law. Are you really willing to risk what we have now? Do you trust the FCC etc to "step in"?????
Still....not a single person has hypothesized how a non- neutral Internet would benefit anyone but shareholders.
It will look just like cable.... a few new crappy channels each year and a price increase to go along. If the "two tiers" they talk about were real, they would offer purchase on both ends. Do we need to ask why? I think we know.
FCC...another dog and pony show....with lots of dogs and no ponies
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC Will Dig Further Into Network Neutrality
Copps sitting on the fence
