FCC to Embrace "Internet Neutrality"

Mirlyn said:
Let's just say it does get ratified by the other countries. Doesn't Congress have the ability to back out of treaties, while a President cannot?* Think a (R) House would do that in the near future? Not a chance in hell.
Click to expand...

The President makes treaties. However, Congress (specifically the Senate) must ratify them before they are law.

Breaking them, I'm not so sure. The President can, most likely, announce an end of our participation in a treaty. Same goes for the Senate....either way, it looks bad.
 
Back in the NN world...
COMCAST, the second-largest US cable television and Internet communications service provider, has a new broadband traffic throttling scheme installed and operating in all of its markets.

The ISP's new regime for restricting its customers' bandwidth utilisation replaces its former stealthy practice of arbitrarily blocking subscribers' peer-to-peer (P2P) upload traffic, which was criticised by the FCC last year after it was exposed by the Associated Press and others.

Comcast's filing with FCC (PDF) says it has put in new hardware and software technology at its Regional Network Routers locations to effect this cunning traffic management plan.

Its network throttling implements a two-tier packet queueing system at the routers, driven by two trigger conditions.

Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.

Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to – along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers – gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible.

Tripping either of Comcast's high bandwidth usage rate triggers results in throttling for at least 15 minutes, or until your average bandwidth utilisation rate drops below 50 per cent for 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050238/comcast-internet-throttling-running



As for the treaty...
Gonz said:
Breaking them, I'm not so sure. The President can, most likely, announce an end of our participation in a treaty. Same goes for the Senate....either way, it looks bad.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.


So then guys and gals, the question remains....in 2012 when your (R) Savior gets in, will they nullify this "Hope and Change" treaty?
 
Party affiliated or not--I pose the question to all denominations. R, D, C, L, I, whoever. It was specifically directed to everyone and anyone who's claiming the next guy/gal to be elected will clean up the mess left by the current administration.



...all of whom are strangely silent all of a sudden. Huh. Neat how that works, in'nit?
 
MrBishop said:
So someone jumped the gun AND the shark at the same time.
Click to expand...

The galactic overlord Xenu said "let there be dox", and there was



Some follow up for those who so are inclined.


1254742208778.jpg
 
Weird that the links you've posted have nothing to do with net neutrality.

Did you want to change the subject?
 
Senate confirmation?

We're trying to make sure those in Washington are gone by 2012.



spike said:
Weird that the links you've posted have nothing to do with net neutrality.
Click to expand...
Don't feel bad Spike, a lot of people were trolled into believing NN was a good thing for the internet. YHBT.
 
Mirlyn said:
Not gonna happen. If they manage to ratify this on our behalf, nobody in Washington would ever challenge it. This administration, nor the next.
Click to expand...

Much like the socialism placed upon us by FDR & LBJ. Once the people are given something, there's hardly a pol alive that'll have the balls to change it. All the more reason to not allow passage of any of the current legislation.
 
Gonz said:
Much like the socialism placed upon us by FDR & LBJ. Once the people are given something, there's hardly a pol alive that'll have the balls to change it. All the more reason to not allow passage of any of the current legislation.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, the RIAA has Obie and B in their back pocket, meanwhile they're playing nice with the GOP. Smart bastards on both sides of the isle.

My point was that it is not just this admin pushing for this crap. It's going beyond party lines.
 
Both major parties are corrupt. There's no question about it. Again, all the more reason to not allow them to pass legislation that is not needed, not wanted or not Constitutional.

Question is, do we take the parties back, or do we begin changing the landscape for more parties which will, in time, present more corruption?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Don't feel bad Spike, a lot of people were trolled into believing NN was a good thing for the internet.
Click to expand...

A lot of people were trolled into thinking NN was a bad thing. Those lobbyists seems to fool the same people consistently.

The idea was that you posted things unrelated to NN as if it furthered your argument. It doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top