1.5 days to save the internet as we know it... free. MUST READ!
- 04-07-2010, 12:31 PM
- 04-07-2010, 12:47 PM
this needs to be in supplement section so more people can see it. i had no idea this was happening. it will i suppose eventually happen but it is up to us to delay this for as long as possible.SIMPLE MAN
04-07-2010, 01:04 PM
I'm going to be pissed if this happens.
Follow me on instagram for:Workout advice and tips, Diet pics, Inspirational pics, And best....pics of me!!!! haha
04-07-2010, 01:06 PM
Comcast is the largest supporter of this. **** Comcast.
04-07-2010, 01:55 PM
04-07-2010, 01:55 PM
Yes Comcast had suit filed against it for cherry picking what content it provided. I don't recall the outcome but believe they lost and then they petitioned the FCC. When you have a federal govt that takes control of all private sector industries, what else would you expect. We are rapidly becoming the United States of China.
04-07-2010, 03:24 PM
Be careful what you sign here. This is a request for the FCC to take over all governance of US internet. This comes on the heals of the FCC wanting to institute a broadband tax.
The FCC isn't known for keeping things open and free.
Something to think about.
The Historic PES Legend
04-07-2010, 04:00 PM
04-07-2010, 04:41 PM
04-07-2010, 04:42 PM
04-07-2010, 04:47 PM
04-07-2010, 04:48 PM
04-07-2010, 05:26 PM
I am all for complete free and open internet airwaves, but to say the FCC is the answer is quite the opposite. Throughput is cheap, and ironically many of the ISPs have been fighting the real fight, whereas brother government wants to tax your bits.
The Historic PES Legend
04-07-2010, 06:00 PM
The FCC must reclassify broadband as a "telecommunications service" so that it can keep the Internet open and free of corporate gatekeepers.
Without vital Net Neutrality protections and the ability to enforce them, the Internet will cease to be a public platform for free speech, equal opportunity, economic growth and innovation. Instead, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, which have a commercial incentive to limit the free-flowing Web, will decide whose voices are heard.
You still have the power to protect the public interest. Please stand with us and keep the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day.
Oh, and feel free to read about Net Neutrality on Wiki.
Everyone's got an opinion, so no problem with you stating yours.
04-07-2010, 08:05 PM
This will be interesting, yet I honestly think for once we shouldnt worry too much. See, while steroids will be banned, supplements ravaged, etc,etc....no way could they take away Lardo's(average american) Internet freedoms and gaming speed.
If you want people to make noise against it, hit up Gamefaqs and touch every board with it, get on Gamespot, get on the net and gamer forums and something like this literally would fail in comparison the the rejection by that kind of public.
THat being said, I dont think this will come about anytime soon, But I do see us having a "big brother" program like China has. Which I would just hack/crack any ways and bybass...Freedoms, you cant have mine...
04-07-2010, 08:17 PM
04-07-2010, 09:20 PM
04-07-2010, 09:35 PM
04-07-2010, 09:39 PM
damn, while you computer smart young guys are hacking and cracking, my dumb old asss will be paying and paying, lol.
04-07-2010, 09:42 PM
U.S. court rules against FCC on Net neutrality
WASHINGTON - A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations and U.S. broadband expansion plans into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.
The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which allows users to swap big files such as movies over the Internet. But public interest groups stressed that the ramifications of Tuesday's ruling are much broader. That's because it undercuts the FCC's ability to prevent broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers for many kinds of online services, potentially including Internet phone programs and software that runs in a Web browser.
"Today's appeals court decision means there are no protections in the law for consumers' broadband services," Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others."
The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies ... on a solid legal foundation."
Comcast welcomed the decision, saying "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."
At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.
But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Genachowski is now trying to formalize those rules.
The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.
The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including net neutrality rules.
Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.
With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.
But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.
The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.
"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."
The battle over the FCC's legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast's cable TV business.
But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to manage their systems to offer premium services and prevent high-bandwidth applications such as BitTorrent from hogging capacity.
For its part, the FCC offered no details on its next step, but stressed that it remains committed to the principle of net neutrality.
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
Not off to a good start...
04-07-2010, 09:53 PM
04-08-2010, 10:16 AM
Everyone is pointing the big bad finger at even these ISPs, but unfortunately it is the court systems that is forcing their hand. ISPs have been found liable in court for providing the avenue for digital piracy. So if anyone wants to lay blame at some feet, you have the RIAA, the MPAA, and the US court system to blame. I LOATH comcast, but the idea that they are the head of the hydra is ominous in nature. In my eyes it is all a big rouse to garner a want for expanding the federal control over yet another free arena.
The Historic PES Legend
04-08-2010, 10:40 AM
I don't have the link, but in one instance, they even tried to sue someone who had passed away previous to the claimed incident, if I remember correctly.
04-08-2010, 10:44 AM
04-08-2010, 10:47 AM
The Historic PES Legend
04-08-2010, 10:54 AM
04-08-2010, 12:49 PM
04-08-2010, 01:48 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By AtomStrange in forum SupplementsReplies: 80Last Post: 06-25-2010, 06:31 PM
- By TheChosen1 in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 11-15-2007, 01:36 AM
- By anabolicrhino in forum PoliticsReplies: 7Last Post: 07-15-2007, 02:17 PM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 02-13-2005, 11:05 PM