4 ms·

Because it smacks of second class citizens all over it.

by Ardit20 16y ago

moultano 16y ago
How so?
- inc 16y ago
  As wireless becomes faster and cheaper, more people will use it instead of wireline. Only those who can afford wireline will have full access.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority. Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars. The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course Verizon is a party to the "law proposal". Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule fine. Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer would know just how difficult that is.
  - moultano 16y ago
    >Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority. I don't know enough law to understand the granularity of this. Is it 2M per infringement? Could the potentially be shelling out 2M per customer? It seems like this is what would determine whether it's a high cap or a low cap.
nhnifong 16y ago
"this is like fricking socialist crap y does everything have to be regulated how much will this cost us in taxes " Are you this guy?
- Ardit20 16y ago
  Lol I was hardly thinking of taxes and I am not American so I do not care much about that aspect, but it would cost more in taxes as the FCC would need to become a much larger entity. I simply think that all of it kind of sounds like a compromise but when you look it from the perspective of a lawyer it has no teeth. It is a bit like saying the judiciary is independent but the president can set the salary of any individual judge. I do not quite understand to be honest why would we need the FCC to be a middle man and why would the Non Discriminatory paragraph not grant rights to individuals. Any other entity than the court is very different. A court has the protection of contempt of court, it has the luxury of developing the law through applying it to specific cases, and its independence is enshrined in law and in the culture of the judiciary. The whole statement is engaged in double speak and you would really need to be a lawyer to understand they are fooling people. The FCC might take test cases to court, but being a test case the court would be much more confined than if it was a specific case. So it would have to interpret the provisions strictly, including what does meaningful harm mean, which was downvoted in another comment but when you are dealing with the law such a thing as meaningful has quite a significance. You aren't talking to your friend and yeah we get the idea. You are trying to apply the law to facts and the facts can be very diverse and to find that meaningful threshold where it differs with insignificance takes many years and many highest level court judgements. That is only one point. Each sentence if scrutinised carefully shows you how the statement has more holes than cheese and just how fundamentally different and much the worse the internet would be. Finally, it is a matter of principle that no differences whatever should there be on the internet. I do not understand why anyone would support any traffic prioritization at all. Performing surgery one might say, I say let us get to that point first. To make a phone call to your granma, what is that more important than me getting the research when the paper is in due tomorrow and otherwise I would fail? To invest in the infrastructure and make it better! Why I'd much rather it develops as it has been. My internet is quite fast and it is just average package. I do not understand why would anyone support any deal whatever between two giant and self interested companies which clearly have in mind screwing the public. If you think that is merely speculation, I repeat again the FCC has stepped in and stopped the talks because they, and as it seemed rightly thought, were conspiring against the public.

Because it smacks of second class citizens all over it.

by Ardit20 16y ago

Because it smacks of second class citizens all over it.

moultano 16y ago

How so?

inc 16y ago
As wireless becomes faster and cheaper, more people will use it instead of wireline. Only those who can afford wireline will have full access.
Ardit20 16y ago
Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority. Why such a low figure, we are dealing with massive corporations who would notice 2 millions as much as I would notice 2 dollars. The general public, that is people like me and you, would need to depend on the FCC, and have no rights, which is not quite understandable. Why should I not be able to sue them for discriminating against me? Because of course Verizon is a party to the "law proposal". Besides, there are exceptions clearly. The FCC would need to enlarge very much if they are to deal with all the complains and have the time to analyse them and follow them through and in the end only be able to impose a miniscule fine. Not to mention that the providers would have the authority to outright prioritise internet traffic provided they go through some hoops and any lawyer would know just how difficult that is.
- moultano 16y ago
  >Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business deal. If you can get in more money then out, then you are good. The FCC, or anyone else, has no other authority. I don't know enough law to understand the granularity of this. Is it 2M per infringement? Could the potentially be shelling out 2M per customer? It seems like this is what would determine whether it's a high cap or a low cap.

nhnifong 16y ago

"this is like fricking socialist crap y does everything have to be regulated how much will this cost us in taxes " Are you this guy?

Ardit20 16y ago
Lol I was hardly thinking of taxes and I am not American so I do not care much about that aspect, but it would cost more in taxes as the FCC would need to become a much larger entity. I simply think that all of it kind of sounds like a compromise but when you look it from the perspective of a lawyer it has no teeth. It is a bit like saying the judiciary is independent but the president can set the salary of any individual judge. I do not quite understand to be honest why would we need the FCC to be a middle man and why would the Non Discriminatory paragraph not grant rights to individuals. Any other entity than the court is very different. A court has the protection of contempt of court, it has the luxury of developing the law through applying it to specific cases, and its independence is enshrined in law and in the culture of the judiciary. The whole statement is engaged in double speak and you would really need to be a lawyer to understand they are fooling people. The FCC might take test cases to court, but being a test case the court would be much more confined than if it was a specific case. So it would have to interpret the provisions strictly, including what does meaningful harm mean, which was downvoted in another comment but when you are dealing with the law such a thing as meaningful has quite a significance. You aren't talking to your friend and yeah we get the idea. You are trying to apply the law to facts and the facts can be very diverse and to find that meaningful threshold where it differs with insignificance takes many years and many highest level court judgements. That is only one point. Each sentence if scrutinised carefully shows you how the statement has more holes than cheese and just how fundamentally different and much the worse the internet would be. Finally, it is a matter of principle that no differences whatever should there be on the internet. I do not understand why anyone would support any traffic prioritization at all. Performing surgery one might say, I say let us get to that point first. To make a phone call to your granma, what is that more important than me getting the research when the paper is in due tomorrow and otherwise I would fail? To invest in the infrastructure and make it better! Why I'd much rather it develops as it has been. My internet is quite fast and it is just average package. I do not understand why would anyone support any deal whatever between two giant and self interested companies which clearly have in mind screwing the public. If you think that is merely speculation, I repeat again the FCC has stepped in and stopped the talks because they, and as it seemed rightly thought, were conspiring against the public.