Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government The Courts Verizon Your Rights Online Politics

Verizon Challenges FCC's Net Neutrality Rules 179

Posted by timothy
from the lock-both-in-the-same-room dept.
GovTechGuy writes "Verizon filed an appeal on Friday asking a federal court to strike down the FCC's net neutrality rules, which are scheduled to take effect on November 20. A federal judge tossed the FCC's previous attempt at enforcing net neutrality against Comcast last May, and more legal challenges are expected in the coming days."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Challenges FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:
  • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday October 03, 2011 @08:30AM (#37588574) Homepage Journal

    They ALL assert that they are committed to net neutrality. The problem is, they want to define what neutrality is. When you've cut away all the verbiage, to get to the heart of the matter, the telcos only want their monopoly to remain unchallenged, so that they can continue to rape the consumers. To them, "neutrality" means "anything goes, as long as WE approve of it, and it increases profits".

  • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday October 03, 2011 @09:21AM (#37588850) Homepage Journal

    Nope. Capitalism was never meant to give industry ownership of everything. Fact is, a lot of that infrastructure, over which the telcos have been given a monopoly, has been paid for by the taxpayers. We paid for a lot of it with taxes, and we're forced to pay again through all the various fees.

    Don't get me wrong - yes, I agree that the corporations have an obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders. That's fine. But - politicians, judges, and regulators like the FCC have an even greater obligation to represent taxpayers, voters, consumers, and/or citizens. And, those politicians have basically sold out to the corporations under discussion.

    Balance is what I'm looking for here. Yeah, we owe the corporations a profit, if they are going to be responsible for running things. But, they owe it to US, to give us what we want, in exchange for those profits. Ever heard, "The customer is always right"? Hey - there's not one sleazy sumbitch on Wall Street that believes that anymore. They look at us as a farmer looks at cattle. We're an asset to be exploited, nothing more, and nothing less. They owe us nothing - not even the service they promise, and most certainly not good service!

    What is your internet speed? First, the advertised speed, then your real speed? The telcos are infamous for over subscribing, then throttling. Hey - if I'm paying for 56k, I WANT my 56k. If I'm paying for 56MB, then I WANT my 56MB. And, if I happen to be filthy rich, and I'm paying for 56GB, then, by god, I WANT MY 56GB download speed! And, it's none of the telco's business how I might be using all of that bandwidth - I paid for it, it is mine.

    The telco is most certainly NOT the enforcement arm of RIAA, MPAA, or any other alphabet agency.

    Let's just say that I'm very unhappy with the way things are going in this country, and that I support those protestors who are "occupying Wall Street" this morning. I just wish they would get their act together, and tell both Wall Street and Washington what is wrong, and that it's time to fix it.

    Communism? Nope. Under communist rule, corporations lose, but so do the citizens. Take another look at what I'm bitching about - as well as those protesters.

  • by webheaded (997188) on Monday October 03, 2011 @10:32AM (#37589472) Homepage
    Stop using this argument. Now. This argument is fucking stupid (excuse my cursing but this irritates me). You apparently live in a different reality than the rest of us. Let's not even address the fact that most people have a choice between dial up or one provider (hell I'm not even sure I can get DSL and I live near one of the biggest cities in the country...Phoenix) and just look at the plain and simple fact that a choice between DSL or Cable internet is not a choice. This has been discussed so many times here it is ridiculous and I see this same dumb ass line parroted over and over again and it infuriates me. They have GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES. By DEFINITION you do not have a choice. It's a FUCKING MONOPOLY.

    The free market works well in MOST situations but not every single one. For starters, this type of industry is nearly impossible to enter into unless you have billions of dollars to invest or you have government help. Guess what all the telcos had? Both (hah) but they got government help. You know what that means? That means WE own those lines. The telcos don't get to decide what we get to do with the lines that we paid for. This isn't the free market...sometimes you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    Seriously though, why do people keep saying this? Is it this libertarian movement thing where people think that every single thing can be decided by the market? I really feel as if people that say this are honestly not even thinking about what they're saying and just repeating something they saw someone else say. I have to be honest...I'm definitely starting to see this a lot here. I feel strange not being a zealot to some cause sometimes...like is it that hard for some of you people to stand back and think harder on these situations? Are you so completely bound to your idealism that it like...warps reality? Some of the shit I see people say on here is honestly just brain dead. Really. They don't think about what they're saying or consider actual situations so much as they have a knee jerk reaction that suits whatever mantra they hold. It's irritating and quite frankly makes for shitty discussion. I mean there is a difference between my having a different opinion on a matter and someone just like...I don't know...not even paying attention to facts? It's like watching politicians debate. We get mad at them for this kind of retarded shit and then do it ourselves. Do you really think this or were you trying to score some free karma?
  • by radaghast (1672864) on Monday October 03, 2011 @10:59AM (#37589776)

    Imagine if your power provider wanted to charge different prices for your power based on whether you used it for toasting bread or watching TV; even further, what if it charged more for your toaster power if you used a brand of toaster that has not paid the power company for 'better' rates. The courts would never allow such a business practice.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday October 03, 2011 @12:42PM (#37590768)

    Imagine if your power provider wanted to charge different prices for your power based on whether you used it for toasting bread or watching TV; even further, what if it charged more for your toaster power if you used a brand of toaster that has not paid the power company for 'better' rates. The courts would never allow such a business practice.

    That doesn't mean that the FCC has the authority to "fix" this.

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.

Working...