
| Search Fishin.com |
Why don't we look at the NEWS coverage, instead of just an OP-ED piece?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...trality-rules/
What was "illegal" about what they did? And just how is it a "blindside?" Genachowski had been openly lobbying for it for 16 months, and everybody knew the vote was coming. And after reading the details of what passed, I think it's a good thing. I don't want my ISP to be able to dictate what internet services I can and can't use, just because one of them might compete with their core business. "The plan would prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices." What's wrong with that?
BTW I've been using Firefox and AdBlock for some time now. I must just have something turned off if it's blocking those ads for you. I did notice it's been letting more stuff through than it used to.
Last edited by RoadToad; 12-24-2010 at 10:39 AM. Reason: Take out the html language from the quote
It is telling to me that the linked article does not provide a single detail about what the regulations will do. To me, that speaks volumes about the level of debate.
The regulations say that it is discriminatory for bandwidth providers to practice "paid prioritization." Paid prioritization is the establishment of TWO Internets--an Autobahn for those who can afford it, and a goat path for those of us who can't.
That sounds like a good thing to me.
I'd like the FCC to make those underlined words go away![]()
