8 pages of rules, 290+ pages of precedent, forbearance, and other non rules. You can see what the rules are on their website, if you actually cared, and did not just want to attack them...
Obama care was also not rushed. If you think the Republicans did not read it you are dead wrong. The we have to pass it to see whats in it comment was talking about the populace, not congress, but again I am sure you dont care about these facts.
You dont have to join the union just because the unions organizes there, however typically there is a vote that needs a majority of the members to vote yes before the union can setup shop, read about the VW plant in Tennessee.
If the court said it would have to be CLASSIFIED as a title 2 you would have a point, but it said they would have to reclassify it. That is an apples an oranges comparison to your analogy. It is like telling congress they would have to change law. It implies they have the authority to do something.
Intention and law to do something are 2 different matters. Congress never envisioned software patents in patent law, but apparently the law covers it. Just because congress did not intend for the internet to be covered does not mean the laws do not allow them to be covered. Intent rarely matters.
It is not just about netflix, it is actually not about them at all. The ISPs have bee caught throttling competing services, such as VOIP in the past and want to keep doing it. They also want to charge for access to me, their paying customer. This is wrong. The FCC tried to fix this without title 2 but verizon stopped that, well you reap what you sow.
You are talking about different things... I am mostly talking about net capacity, not throughput. There is no limitation to the net capacity of bandwidth.
A) are you in a true competitive marketplace? If so, then...you still raise the price if its costs you more customers, and therefore more profit then just eating the cost you still raise it?
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
Only if the market will bear it. If it will not and they still make a profit then the prices will not go up, since prices going up decreases demand, and decrease in demand will cause a larger lose in profits.
The law of capitalism means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a regulation to raise the price of anything - all it can do is reduce the profit a corporation takes.
Bull. Shit.
Regulation means compliance. Compliance means paperwork. Paperwork means overhead. Overhead means expenses. Expenses mean increased costs passed on to customers.
You owe the Oracle a copy of a transcript showing that you have passed ECON101.
No it does not, costs are not always passed along. There is no rule that says if costs rise slightly you raise your prices. In fact with a free market system you should not see that until costs grow so much everyone has to do it, thereby showing the OPs point.
no they dont.. They have a max capacity per second, however we are talking about something running out.. as in you get no more. You do not run out of the bandwidth. Once it is used it is not gone. And you can upgrade equipment to get me per second speed.
It is limited only my the amount of equipment. You can add more equipment and add more capacity. There is also no end to it, it is not something that once used is gone.
First of all I stated electrons, as how the data is transmitted, not bandwidth. In addition you contradicted yourself. You stated that in order to get more bandwidth the providers can upgrade their equipment, makes it not quite a finite resource, but theoretically finite,
The reason I dont have gigabit service now is because they do not want to run fiber here, but even still fiber has a so called unlimited capacity, limited only by the equipment on the ends.
Slashdot Mirror
8 pages of rules, 290+ pages of precedent, forbearance, and other non rules. You can see what the rules are on their website, if you actually cared, and did not just want to attack them...
Obama care was also not rushed. If you think the Republicans did not read it you are dead wrong. The we have to pass it to see whats in it comment was talking about the populace, not congress, but again I am sure you dont care about these facts.
And they are not preempting the ban. They can still ban it, but if they dont they cannot restrict it to imaginary boundaries.
What is the difference between creating a fast lane and creating a slow lane? there isnt really one...
not having been released yet is not the same thing as being kept secret...
You dont have to join the union just because the unions organizes there, however typically there is a vote that needs a majority of the members to vote yes before the union can setup shop, read about the VW plant in Tennessee.
If the court said it would have to be CLASSIFIED as a title 2 you would have a point, but it said they would have to reclassify it. That is an apples an oranges comparison to your analogy. It is like telling congress they would have to change law. It implies they have the authority to do something.
Intention and law to do something are 2 different matters. Congress never envisioned software patents in patent law, but apparently the law covers it. Just because congress did not intend for the internet to be covered does not mean the laws do not allow them to be covered. Intent rarely matters.
It is not just about netflix, it is actually not about them at all. The ISPs have bee caught throttling competing services, such as VOIP in the past and want to keep doing it. They also want to charge for access to me, their paying customer. This is wrong. The FCC tried to fix this without title 2 but verizon stopped that, well you reap what you sow.
Your ISP is not a free market with competition.
You are talking about different things... I am mostly talking about net capacity, not throughput. There is no limitation to the net capacity of bandwidth.
A) are you in a true competitive marketplace? If so, then ...you still raise the price if its costs you more customers, and therefore more profit then just eating the cost you still raise it?
Did you read your own quote?
The rules are eight pages.
Then there is 79 pages detailing rules that will not be actionable. More rules that the companies will not have to comply with and so on...
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
So the comcast and TWC trials of limited broadband was all in my head?
Only if the market will bear it. If it will not and they still make a profit then the prices will not go up, since prices going up decreases demand, and decrease in demand will cause a larger lose in profits.
you mean the key rules, or the actual regulation? We could see the rules, they were on the website.
You are talking about the equipment on the endpoints. The fiber itself does not have that limit.
The law of capitalism means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a regulation to raise the price of anything - all it can do is reduce the profit a corporation takes.
Bull. Shit.
Regulation means compliance. Compliance means paperwork. Paperwork means overhead. Overhead means expenses. Expenses mean increased costs passed on to customers.
You owe the Oracle a copy of a transcript showing that you have passed ECON101.
No it does not, costs are not always passed along. There is no rule that says if costs rise slightly you raise your prices. In fact with a free market system you should not see that until costs grow so much everyone has to do it, thereby showing the OPs point.
no they dont.. They have a max capacity per second, however we are talking about something running out.. as in you get no more. You do not run out of the bandwidth. Once it is used it is not gone. And you can upgrade equipment to get me per second speed.
It is limited only my the amount of equipment. You can add more equipment and add more capacity. There is also no end to it, it is not something that once used is gone.
They already were... They classify what communications fall into what category.
It was not an objection to the rule, it was worry and wanting clarification. those are not the same thing.
Probably because most of the rights half truth seems to branch out from their to all the other conspiracy sites...
First of all I stated electrons, as how the data is transmitted, not bandwidth. In addition you contradicted yourself. You stated that in order to get more bandwidth the providers can upgrade their equipment, makes it not quite a finite resource, but theoretically finite,
The reason I dont have gigabit service now is because they do not want to run fiber here, but even still fiber has a so called unlimited capacity, limited only by the equipment on the ends.
And you know this how? Are you a lawyer? Do you know how hard it is to make rules such as this?