TexasCHLforum.com

eureka40 wrote:Speaking on WMAL this morning former US Atty and high powered DC lawyer Joe DiGenova said the FCC Net Neutrality rules will never come to be since they will never survive a court challenge. He added that "standing will never be an issue."

TVegas wrote:

mojo84 wrote:What some don't understand is once government gets their hands into something, even if it is initially beneficial, they normally don't stop there. Another thing done don't understand is that bills and rules are given favorable sounding names but actually do the opposite or much more than what the name implies.

What many understand and is concerned about is that "net neutrality" is just the beginning of much more to come. It's probably hidden in those three hundred pages. Some are easily lulled into thinking those in government are there to look out for us.

By the way, the 1st Amendment is to keep the government from suppressing or limiting free speech. It has nothing to do with private companies throttling internet bandwidth.

You are correct, keeping the government from suppressing or limiting free speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment is for. What you are missing is that it also gives the government the ability to ensure the right to free speech. That is why I see the similarity between the 1st Amendment and the concept of net neutrality. Throttling internet bandwidth would effectively suppress and limit access to certain websites. ISPs could limit our access to this very forum if they desired. While not exactly a 1st Amendment issue, it is extremely similar in concept.

nightmare wrote:It sounds like this ruling will protect corporations from other corporations but does nothing to help the average citizen. Remind me where those commissioners used to work?

jmra wrote:If this were a good thing for the people then there wouldn't be any reason not to release the contents before th vote.

Keith B wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

jmra wrote:Neighbor is a manager of some type with AT&T. He has been very vocal about the negative repercussions this would have on end users. I hope his "better get used to dial up speeds" is just a rant.

I think we should perhaps not rely on AT&Ts nature in regard to doing what is best for it's customers.... Seems like half of the FCC regulations we have are due to some really anti-consumer behavior that they engaged in at one time or another.

The breakup (divestiture) of AT&T and the regional operating companies in 1984 was a result of the FCC and DOJ 'making things better for the consumer' and 'promoting competition' It never really lowered any prices that would not have come down anyway. But it did create a couple of monopolies that ended up cheating tons of people out of their money in investments. Even Judge Green who was in charge of the legal breakup stated shortly before it was completed that they had made a mistake and it shouldn't happen, but it was too far along to stop it. In the long run it did allow competition and possibly moved innovation along a little faster, but it sure didn't help the small end POTS consumer out in the rural areas. And neither will Net Neutrality help the regular Internet subscriber out in the rural areas.

I will just ask, when was the last time the government stuck their nose into the middle of anything and 'made it better'?