I know that you're thinking I'm out of my mind here, just let me explain.
If the user thinks the ISP is doing bad things, they can take their business to another ISP that isn't. It's called competition. It's the unwritten regulation that controls all business-minded companies.
And that burger thing: Really? Who cares? If they want to discuss and critique and joke about Obama's choice in condiments (I prefer banana peppers myselfjk), why is it worth his time to discuss it? Personally, I find mustard kind of disgusting (sort of like pineapple on pizza). But even so, Obama asking for Dijon mustard is rather absurd, I must say.
BeeAre wrote:the content tiers would be likened to the tiers of cable television, who do not get sued regularly by the people who run the content of the individual channels on the various tiers of cable.
RuffDraft wrote: There is no reason to think that ISPs would ever try to make the internet more like TV.
Q.U. wrote:Here's the new proposed bill of "Neutral Network Neutrality" (sic) as written by them whacko Republicans.
http://stearnsforms.house.gov/UploadedF ... y_Bill.pdf
Although I don't see anything that would indicate either what Ruff's vid was saying, or government control Ruff had been warning over, not even the wikileaks example I gave would be affected. Even though it's an unnecessary bill. Guess Val should read it and relay it in simple terms.
Well, it is titled "To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from regulating information services or Internet access services absent a market failure, and for other purposes." The bill seems intended to prevent the FCC from doing things like stopping Comcast from blocking BitTorrent, thereby preventing it from enforcing Net Neutrality.RuffDraft wrote:Well after skimming it, it seems very well-intentioned attempt at preventing additional regulation.
Valhallen wrote:So something like a trillion tapes per day? Floppies are more efficient.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest