|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 21, 2010 21:06:42 GMT
While most people feel there is no problem with this - www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/ - because they don't see how it will impact them personally, and it's been presented as a "good thing"; what it really does is set a precedent for future FCC regulation of the net. The relatively innocuous rules that have been approved are only the camels nose in the tent. If the FCC is not forbidden from implementing these rules in the next Congress, then I have no doubt that future regulation of content on the net will be forthcoming. That's what regulatory agencies get paid to do, so that's what they do. "We're the government, and we're here to help." |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 22, 2010 2:29:06 GMT
While most people feel there is no problem with this - www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/ - because they don't see how it will impact them personally, and it's been presented as a "good thing"; what it really does is set a precedent for future FCC regulation of the net. The relatively innocuous rules that have been approved are only the camels nose in the tent. If the FCC is not forbidden from implementing these rules in the next Congress, then I have no doubt that future regulation of content on the net will be forthcoming. That's what regulatory agencies get paid to do, so that's what they do. "We're the government, and we're here to help." Wasn't the FCC set up to regulate radio waves? They are just creating a reason for the existence. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 22, 2010 3:32:56 GMT
While most people feel there is no problem with this - www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/ - because they don't see how it will impact them personally, and it's been presented as a "good thing"; what it really does is set a precedent for future FCC regulation of the net. The relatively innocuous rules that have been approved are only the camels nose in the tent. If the FCC is not forbidden from implementing these rules in the next Congress, then I have no doubt that future regulation of content on the net will be forthcoming. That's what regulatory agencies get paid to do, so that's what they do. "We're the government, and we're here to help." Wasn't the FCC set up to regulate radio waves? They are just creating a reason for the existence. FCC came into being in 1934 to consolidate communication regulations under one agency, which had previously been under the jurisdiction of other agencies, including Commerce. There have been several changes/amendments, etc. since then, including the Homeland Security Act of 2002. See Wiki for the Readers Digest version. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission . |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 22, 2010 5:20:18 GMT
that's ok. I don't need to read up on them to know I think they should be done away with.
|
|
