And they couldn't define network management and lawful content? Because legal documents never have definition sections... If they write using broad, nonspecific terms, it's likely because they want some broad, nonspecific powers.
I think all of us are pro stop spammers and maintain your network. It's when it steps from that realm when we get concerned and I would prefer to define out powers now, as opposed to waiting for a suit in 3 years that will be decided over 4 years that may find they acted irresponsibly and owe a relatively small fine.
It's a feature. Say you get amnesia and all you remember is your email address. Now, thanks to Facebook, you have a means of finding out your name, and what you look like!
Study accidentally finds substance can trump appearance, Economy experiences downturn!
Multiple Hollywood Studios, and "Directors" Micheal Bay and M Night Shyamalan vow to prove flashy effects can beat out plot, character development, storytelling, or anyone even liking their work.
One thing that seems good (mostly for content providers, but also consumers) and a few things that could be good for consumers, but still favor ISPs. Sounds like Verizon agreed, "We will let the FCC regulate on a case by case basis, as long as we get broad powers manipulate our other services, and block content we fear is unlawful." The standard setting body is iffy, since as the article points out, these groups tend not to be on the consumers side.
It will be interesting to see where this goes, but personally I am against the idea that they will throttle torrents, or downloads cause "they are consuming too much for it to be legal".
How about the one where if the two ISPs in my area (and I'm doing good to have 2) are governed by one body who, if I don't like the policy I can vote to change it. Since Verizon/Xfinity/ATT will not be any easier to get to change, especially when they have government granted monopolies in many areas.
The real option for most is: FCC is in charge where you have an outside chance of influencing some change you like, or the ISPs running it where they have monopolies on access and can tell you to accept it or go without internet.
It's like Verizon makes a car, and then gives that car to a politician in exchange for their vote to create a second separate internet that isn't neutral, while still discriminating against "unlawful" activity on "regular" internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Fact: Yes we sold out, but we didn't sell that much...
And they couldn't define network management and lawful content? Because legal documents never have definition sections... If they write using broad, nonspecific terms, it's likely because they want some broad, nonspecific powers.
I think all of us are pro stop spammers and maintain your network. It's when it steps from that realm when we get concerned and I would prefer to define out powers now, as opposed to waiting for a suit in 3 years that will be decided over 4 years that may find they acted irresponsibly and owe a relatively small fine.
It's a feature. Say you get amnesia and all you remember is your email address. Now, thanks to Facebook, you have a means of finding out your name, and what you look like!
Study accidentally finds substance can trump appearance, Economy experiences downturn!
Multiple Hollywood Studios, and "Directors" Micheal Bay and M Night Shyamalan vow to prove flashy effects can beat out plot, character development, storytelling, or anyone even liking their work.
Limited FCC Jurisdiction — Good
Standard-Setting Bodies — Interesting
Reasonable Network management, Additional Online Services — Troubling
“Lawful” Content and Wireless Exclusions — Fail
One thing that seems good (mostly for content providers, but also consumers) and a few things that could be good for consumers, but still favor ISPs. Sounds like Verizon agreed, "We will let the FCC regulate on a case by case basis, as long as we get broad powers manipulate our other services, and block content we fear is unlawful." The standard setting body is iffy, since as the article points out, these groups tend not to be on the consumers side.
It will be interesting to see where this goes, but personally I am against the idea that they will throttle torrents, or downloads cause "they are consuming too much for it to be legal".
How about the one where if the two ISPs in my area (and I'm doing good to have 2) are governed by one body who, if I don't like the policy I can vote to change it. Since Verizon/Xfinity/ATT will not be any easier to get to change, especially when they have government granted monopolies in many areas. The real option for most is: FCC is in charge where you have an outside chance of influencing some change you like, or the ISPs running it where they have monopolies on access and can tell you to accept it or go without internet.
It's like Verizon makes a car, and then gives that car to a politician in exchange for their vote to create a second separate internet that isn't neutral, while still discriminating against "unlawful" activity on "regular" internet.