Skip to main content

FCC set to propose strong net neutrality rules this week

A new report says that the Federal Communications Commission could propose a set of regulations Thursday that would support net neutrality for both fixed and mobile broadband service providers. The proposal is likely to be similar to the ones that President Barack Obama announced in November 2014.

The Wall Street Journal reports that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will state that broadband providers should be regulated like telephone and cable companies under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, rather than information services. This change would allow the FCC more control over those broadband companies.

As part of these new regulations, Wheeler will also reportedly do away with so-called "fast lanes" for access to sites and services. That means ISPs would not be able to slow down speeds to certain websites and services like Netflix unless those companies pay those broadband providers extra for fast access.

A US federal court shot down the FCC's latest attempt to regulate broadband companies in January 2014 and we expect that those same companies will file a lawsuit against the commission if it makes the same move this week. It's likely that the debate on net neutrality will continue for years to come.

Source: Wall Street Journal

  • As much as I don't like over regulation of any market,i have come to believe that this is the only viable option we currently for ensuring that the Internet remain open and free as possible. We will just have to keep the fcc on a short leash in this area from now on. The better solution would be to separate the infrastructure from the isp's and allow competition back into the market(which could be done under the new rules along with "net neutrality" principals) but this would involve many hurdles that the companies are not willing to leap and the politicians do not understand enough to accomplish efficiently. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Separating infrastructure worked for the phone companies because there is literally one pair of copper wires from your house to a main office where the switch was. Other providers could tie into your wire at this point. Cable companies can't do this because the service is trunked, your wire only goes to the telephone pole before it hits the main feed. Currently cable can run frequencies up to 1ghz, barely, and they are out of bandwidth. How exactly are you going to get multiple providers on a line whose bandwidth is already maxed out? As of this day, there is no way. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Iptv or a multiplexed encrypted signal over a reserved frequency range i pay for, just to name a couple. How about simply just internet services. Or voip. Granted there is only so much free space available the same is true with copper. Cable has more limited space, because they only thought about their needs. But it is possible for the cable company to lease bandwidth on their lines. Is it cost effective or practical? I'm sure someone out there knows the answer. Posted via Android Central App
  • There is no room under 1ghz, sorry. Every 25ish or so mps takes up about 6mhz of signal, so 100mps takes 24mhz of signal. This does not include the upload, which where it runs, there is even less space, because it runs under 50mhz, which is where the tv side starts. The only way it works on cable is for a 3rd party to run lines back to the node, where most cable companies have fiber to. "Cable has more limited space, because they only thought about their needs." Of course they only thought of themselves comrade, this is America. What business makes a plan that includes the government taking over there property and forcing competition on their own system? That is really what this is about, and why it pisses me off. I mean does the government force Walmart to lease a space in it's store for K-Mart to operate? What about Google next? Are they going to have to let Yahoo run a search bar on half of Google's home page?
  • This is unfortunately the first step in a way for the feds to find a way to tax the Internet. Regulation of anything has ALWAYS caused prices/taxes to rise. Posted via the Android Central App
  • If the government wanted to tax the internet they can. They don't need Network Neutrality to do it. This is just a line the Telecom's are using to scare people. And I disagree with the regulation has ALWAYS caused prices/taxes to rise. Look at the Sherman Anti-Trust law. It increased competition and lowered prices. Some regulation is bad. Some regulation is necessary. Especially if the the industry being regulated is not operating in a free market but instead in a monopoly or oligopoly -- like the Telecoms.
  • Keep the FCC on a short leash? Who in hell is going to do that? Posted via the Android Central App
  • Let the fun begin Posted via the Android Central App
  • Sweet. The time is now to stem the tide of "fast lane" and "gatekeeper" corporate money grabs.
  • Not fast lane, Peering, it's quite different. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I wasn't talking about peering, but nice try.
  • Except that is what politicians are talking about, without having any idea they are, and apparently you. If they are not talking about peering, what are they then? There is no other fast lane I know about, unless we talk about QOS, and if that gets regulated out of existence, we will have to have insane speeds, guessing here, of 100mps+ to make the Internet seem the same as it is today. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Nothing in Net Neutrality prevents someone who needs super-fast dedicated internet from purchasing super fast dedicated internet. You can pay for the QoS you need. It simply prevents the telecoms from charging both ends of the pipe. They can charge the consumer whatever they want. They can't charge the service being provided a fee to access their network or get faster speeds. This makes sense. Otherwise, the telecom's would get to pick the winners and the losers on the net instead of the consumer. Net Neutrality ensures the greatest free market ever invented remains the greatest free market ever invented.
  • They don't now. This fast lane being talked about is peering, just without calling it that. Posted via the Android Central App
  • The Fast lane being talked about isn't peering. It's what's left after creating artificially slow lanes for content providers not willing to pay to have their content not slowed down. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I just realized you need to read what QoS is, it's not the speed of your service. Posted via the Android Central App
  • It was pretty obvious "QoS" went over his head. Posted via Android Central App
  • Qos measures several related aspects of the network service such as error rates, bandwidth, **throughput**, transmission delay, availability, jitter, etc.
  • This I don't like. Posted via AC app by way of my right thumb.
  • Sorry, not sorry, Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon
  • So I just started working for the phone company as an installer, and we are learning about what exactly title 2 means... I'm not exactly sure it's what people want. Let's not forget, breaking up Ma' Bell did nothing but set back technology a few decades. Also, there is no fast lane, there is peering, which essentially is a bypass of the internet. Google has done this for years, and Netflix use to do it without complaint, but something happened behind the scenes we don't know about. All traffic is equal will make the Internet suck. QOS is a good thing, it gives priority to things like VOIP traffic and less priority to things like email, which are not bandwidth intensive. Your home router does this, the network at work does this, what's the problem with ISP'S doing essentially what any good LAN manager would do? The only way this works is if everybody gets a 25mbps line, and maybe, just maybe everything will be speedy enough for nobody to notice. Posted via the Android Central App
  • +1000, most of the children in these forums have no ides what happened to the Bells,, or how it stopped the tech growth of the telco, this will end badly for end users, again, specially putting a gov agency in charge, remember, government doesn't pass anything until they all have added things that help them, or their friends Posted via my Droid RAZR Maxx HD using the Android Central App
  • I just learned today a fun difference about being a cable company tech and a telephone tech. As a cable tech, anything cool I could do for a customer I could, and only be held responsible by my boss and company. If I go to a customers house as a phone tech and you need a new phone jack, I could replace that in about a minute, but if I don't charge you $100 and the Feds find out, I get fired. Or let's say your house only qualifies for 12mps dsl, but I see some stuff on your line I know removing it will get you 20mps, I legally can't remove it and sell you 20mps service. This is the shit regulation gives you. Posted via the Android Central App
  • You sir are blaming the wrong side and have drank the kool aid. Do real research, not what your job tells you and you'll see it very differently. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • So teach me. I actually work in the field, with customers, and now have worked for a regulated company and a non regulated company. I have done my research and I, unlike most of you, have to actually work in the framework of archaic regulations. The cable companies had the vision years ago to build up a network with enough bandwidth to meet the needs of customers. There was a 1-2 year time frame when Netflix streaming usage caught the entire Internet off guard, but now that is all fine. So we owe huge companies that, and we are just going to tell them to get bent? That is a f-d up way of being. Posted via the Android Central App
  • +1 Posted via the Android Central App
  • He's reading from a playbook handed to him by those that want government regulation/interference, and don't realize what that means, or brings with it Posted via my Droid RAZR Maxx HD using the Android Central App
  • Government regulation is to Democrats what war use to be to Republicans. They have to want it because, like Lemmings, they followed whatever they learned in College, or The Verge, or Wired. They complain about Fox, but they are just as bad. Posted via the Android Central App
  • The bandwidth that they can't even keep up with? Compress the crap out of their own digital signals only to try and shove phone and security down your throat bundled with crap you don't need. Please, they've been getting tax breaks to update to fiber since 1996. Legislation passed by our government not because the cable companies had foresight.
  • Here read this. This is a good article on why. Telecoms don't want small government Democracy and competition to get in the way if thier profits. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Look. It's a corporate apologist circle jerk.
  • So what are you? You've bought the pitch that the internet is the backbone of the planet. Sounds like you are a corporate apologist as well, just you love Google, Netflix instead of Comcast and Verizon. And let's be real here. If Google goes crazy, they know almost everything about our lives, that is way worse than your Netflix getting throttled. Posted via the Android Central App
  • That's definitely a worry.  I need to do some more reading into this latest announcement, but the original plan discussed a few months ago involved the FCC using the "forbearance" clause of the TCA to regulate *only* the peering side of the connections, not the "last mile".  This had the advantage of making the companies play nice together, without getting into the minutia of the private market side of the equation (at least, that was the hope). What we *really* need is for the FCC (or some government entity) to do away with the laws that actually make it illegal for anyone to build a competing service with the existing telco's.  Many municipalities around the country have actually strong-armed (or sweet talked) the rule-makers into giving them exclusivity deals to that area. I did like it when Google pointed out that, if the FCC went with Title II, at least it would mean that AT&T would be required to share pole access, and Google Fiber could start rolling out to many more cities.  Maybe they meant it, and at least one good thing can come out of this.
  • Pole access has to do with space more than anything. Power on top needs at least 40" of clearance, then 18" between providers. Already that puts feeder at 15' or less on the pole, another 18" puts it at 13 1/2'. Run a 75' line to a house and the droop is under 10', probably 8. I have been in towns Google had access to poles, but it was the 3rd provider, not the 4th. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Your getting technical,, over their heads,, and don't even try to explain pole contact costs,, let alone all the crap a provider has to go through in underground areas, I work for a cable provider as well Posted via my Droid RAZR Maxx HD using the Android Central App
  • But they are so smart. They took needle work in college so they know everything. Stoopid. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Also, burying any wire is in the ball park of $10 a foot, plus the cost of the wire. That is lay it in a trench type of burying and the cheapest. I dont know what boring under roads and sidewalks cost, but its quite a bit more. It is insanely expensive to build out a network to cover a city, even if the local government didn't take its cut. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Not sure if you're agreeing with me or calling me stupid. Lol. Certainly, I don't know more about the politics of pole access than what I've read recently. Google has complained about having to bury cable, and an interview I heard with another small ISP owner was saying that AT&T offered to allow them pole access, but at ridiculous rates. Maybe there's more to the story there that I don't understand. I don't like the government getting involved in everything, because they tend to make rules that they don't understand the consequences of, but I'm hoping for a bright side to this of making it easier for competition to appear in the market. Posted via Android Central App
  • I'm a bicsi certified technician and nowhere is pricing mandated by the government. I can charge $20 to install a phone jack. Just because the phone company wants to rape its customers by overcharging doenst mean they have to. Last time i checked at&t doesnt even charge for jack installation on an install. I dont know what telco you work for, but they are lying through their teeth if they tell you the govt requires you to charge $100 for a modular jack install. Thats a corporate policy not a government reg here in the states. Sure there might be a theft of services law you might be breaking that the company can have you charged for. FYI a telcos responsibility stops at the demarc point. In most houses its the NIC outside the house. Which is why you can charge a customer $100 to install a modular jack or to fix his modular jack. Now if you are in a union as most telco workers are, your classification might prohibit you from conditioning the line. So yeah "fixing" the dsl circuit might get you fired or even charges brought against you for working outside your classification. But thats the nature of contracts. I know the cwa is really picky on its classifications. But dont confuse the scope of work you are allowed to do due to contract or company policy as some sort of government regulation. Posted via Android Central App
  • I work for in a Bell region, things are different. Yes, they can charge less for jacks, but that's the rate the competitors charge here. The Union has nothing to do with any of this. We do give a free jack on install, but fixing things is what's regulated. If our data base of qualified speeds is incorrect, I can't fix it right there and give the customer a higher speed, there is a process involved that takes quite a while. Pretty much the government thinks if we do things free for customers, it's anti-competitive. I don't doubt things are different where your at, but the former bell territories have it quite a bit different. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Once again all that is company rules not federal regulation. Your companies procedure for making database changes is not regulated. Anticompetitive only applies to monopolies. Its just bs your supervisors have told you to scare you from doing free work on the companies time. Im in baby bell territory also. What you can do is do it all on your time and your dime. Some companies have better customer service than others. Some companies like yours greatly discourages free repairs of lines/equipment they arent responsible for. I can't blame them. Hell thats why many telcos have inside wire maintainance plans. Next time you see your supervisor ask him to cite the regulation. He wont be able to. Because hes just telling you what hes been told to. Posted via Android Central App
  • Sorry I accidentally hit the report button with my thumb. Mods please ignore that report. And add a confirm pop-up for us with fat fingers. Peering is one thing, what comcast and Verizon are doing is different. QOS is not about email and backend noise. They are actively slowing down network traffic to extract a payment, all the while claiming QOS concerns. If Netflix is sending a 5 mb stream to a home (like Mine) that has 50mbps Internet in an area that is sparsely populated and freezes, that's not QOS. That is purposeful service degradation. They do that to me in the middle of the day too. At around 9am my 50mbps slows to 3mbps. I call, magically it's 50mbps again. Comcast knows what they are doing and so does the FCC.
  • You are correct.
  • I know. Thank you.
  • Except one thing, they themselves only put out tops 3mps, at least per the last provider scorecard I saw that had Google Fiber at 3.1mps. This is just theory, but ISP'S want peering for bandwidth intensive sites, because it makes thier service look better. Now Netflix was fine with that until Verizon and Comcast came into the picture, then all the sudden they are not. Both Comcast and Verizon probably just put Netflix traffic where it belonged per thier contracts. Yes it looks like throttling, but it's really just the reality of the Internet, it's hard to send 60% of your traffic to one place. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Bingo. Stuart Shepard even said so, which is why the people who normally blame everything on Obama or Democrats are against this eludes me. What Verizon and Comcast did to Netflix is a textbook example of a "protection" shakedown. Not understanding this is all a cause of deregulation is baffling. Every news outlet, regardless of political bent, knows if we don't reclassify ISPs as Title II Utilities, they ability to access anything is going to depend on how deep the pockets of their parent companies are.
  • You sir are blaming the wrong side and have drank the kool aid. Do real research, not what your job tells you and you'll see it very differently. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • So, do whatever the hell I want at work, make people happy, get fired, PROFIT. How about this, when somebody gives an actual example of why this sort of thing has sucked, you at least take it seriously. Guess how guys usually get canned anyway from this kind of stuff? Letters and emails to upper management thanking us for doing a good job. See, the government thinks the phone companies actually serving the customers is anti-competitive, so we can't do it. I can make your service work to the outside of your house, after that, you have to pay up sucka. Also, just look up what Bell Labs did for us, then what happened to it, what we lost, and why it went away. Posted via the Android Central App
  • So does becoming an installer come with a requirement to be an apologist or do you get paid extra for that?
  • How is it an apologist? It's real world. Your just falling for the latest power grab by the government. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Sounds like you're falling for the latest money grab from the corporations. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • You guys have 2 cases from 2 companies that you base your entire argument on. Other than that you have provided 0 in the way of reasons why, other than because. Also, in both cases, the press did their job by telling was was going on, and the promptly stopped/reached an agreement.
  • Breaking up the Ma Bells slowed tech a few decades? When the Ma Bells were broken up we were required to rent our rotary dial phone. After they were broken up multiple companies started making phones and the tech behind them soared. We got touch-tone. We got speakerphones. We got wireless. These things existed before the break up but the lack of competition made them unaffordable. Yes, regulation makes things really difficult for telecoms today. However, they could likely get rid of all that regulation if they would just operate in a competitive market. But they have chosen not to compete against each other but instead operate in various regional monopolies and oligopolies. Monopolies and Oligopolies should definitely be regulated. The best answer is to separate the owner of the pipe and the ISP. Much like Texas has done with Energy Providers. However, they has no chance of passing Congress so the 2nd best option is Net Neutrality.
  • So figure out how Cable companies are going to do that on a trunked line with limited bandwidth. Again, I'm repeating myself here, that worked for Telcom companies before because you have one pair of wires from your house, to the switch at the central office. Also, other companies can provide DSL over copper phone lines, but reality being what it is, they can't provide speeds any faster than the Telco that owns the lines. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Also, here is a Verge article with just a little bit of what Bell Labs did for us. Basically everything awesome. Posted via the Android Central App
  • What technology has been stifled. Cant be talkink about dsl. Because the lines used for dsl have existed far before it was used for digital services. The technology existed for years before the telcos decided to take on the expense. The only true stifler is corporate greed. They didnt want to spend the money. Demand ultimately made dsl profitable. Fiber? Once again expense was the excuse. Guess what all of a sudden its popping up everywhere. Why cuz copper is pretty much at its limit. They keep having to increase the size of the cable to squeeze out more bandwidth. Cat7 case and point. Now that they dont have much choice to provide greater bandwidth they are quickly moving to fiber. QoS in the pipeline?!?
    If im running a call center using voip, i certainly would have voip at high priority. Thats like when the phone company wanted to charge you more if you had a line with a fax machine on it. I'm paying for throughput and bandwidth, what i use it for is my business. Its not the pipeline providers concern as to what im using it for. They just need to make sure that everyone is getting their equal share. Throttling is what they need to concermed about. if all im using is 1Mbps and i suddenly need a little more they take from the top guy to give me more. QoS is not available with all routers. Most people don't ever even turn it on when it is. There is nothing in net neutrality that prevents a person for paying for more bandwidth. So if netflix wants to pay for a dedicated line to a subscribers network provider thats okay. Net neutrality doesnt force a provider to improve the throughput. If you got 2 people pulling 15Mbs each on a 30Mbs line and a 3rd person hops on an needs 15Mbps. Well too bad net neutrality requires the provider to give 10Mbs to all the users, regardless of the activity they are doing assuming the are all paying for the same connection. It shouldn't stop netflix from having a dedicated line to a providers network. which should speed up delivery, due to fewer hops. Of course a provider would probably have to charge the same to hulu, or notsopopularmedia inc. As they do netflix for the same service. Yes the enduser is going to have to pay for a faster connection if they want better quality. Which is the way it should be. Its up to them to set up their QoS, if they even have it, to prefer netfix over email or voip. Posted via Android Central App
  • You're now an apologist? Astroturfing for them eh. Posted via the ACA on NEXUS 6
  • the picture depicts the three our of five FCC committee-people who are going to make this happen. the other two will hopefully be relegated to the dustbin of history.
  • What are you talking about?
  • In before someone quotes a Faux News article claiming this is "Obamacare for the internet" and that we're giving control over to the UN... News flash: These rules have basically been the law for years before greedy corporate ISPs sued to be able to strongarm customers into paying more money for lesser service. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • You are correct. Most people don't understand that this is the way the Internet had a mostly always been and the the regulating they're trying to do is to keep it that way. Posted via the Android Central App
  • The most intelligent thing I've heard all day. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Why follow laws now. There Seams to be plenty of laws on the books this administration and Congress refuse to follow. Immigration and Affordable Health Care Act to name a couple. Posted via the Android Central App
  • How in the past decade have we paid more for less? Speeds have gone from 7mps top speed to usually over 100mps (cable) to a Gig for fiber. In the mean time, prices are up, what $10-$15? Posted via the Android Central App
  • This is what the cool kids do nowadays, they just throw out phrases with out facts to back them up and bash capitalism and all companies are evil making obscene profits off the little guy. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Yes. And why would we believe that govt would restrain itself with "forbearance". Posted via the Android Central App
  • Exactly... You silly people keep beggin for more government and you're gonna keep feeling the sting. Even when you think it's going to help, government intervention is not what is needed.
  • Meanwhile, we have slipped from #1 in internet speeds to 25th. And most of the 24 countries ahead of us pay less. And although I pay for 10mps I rarely get more than 3mps. We are definitely paying more for less.
  • If your not lying, there is something wrong with your internet, or, most likely, your router. Even phone companies say they will give you at least 80% of your paid speed. The rest of the world is tiny compared to us. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Yes, that 100Mbps for $120 is a great deal.. America lags behind many others in both speed and cost. South Korea you can get 1Gbps for about half the cost of 100Mbps, and there's many many more locations with similar circumstances. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • 100mps Comcast Internet at my apartment. $35 a month right now, $65 or $55 a month in May after I had it a year. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I have a 50Mbps Comcast blast package... That is $77.00 a month with taxes... I guarantee you that yours will be more than $50.00 a month. If you have the triple play it might appear to be $50.00 while they reach around and pick your pocket with their other hand. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I too have internet from Comcast, 105 Mbps w/ basic TV package for about $120. The bill reads lower individually then a single package to fool people, but the total is just as high. Reading all his post on just this article, it looks like the guy makes stuff up/parrots the corporate memo to misinform people. He sadly doesn't know a thing on this subject, and refuses to have a open mind ready to learn. But hey as he repeats, "his job at these companies told him", it must be true and the informed that did research on the subject examing both sides are the arrogant bunch. He can continue to be an apologist and to support policies that are against his own interests, but most people have seen the light of truth on this subject and are fed up with the ISPs. Hence high polling numbers for net neutrality, and the record number of people contacting the FCC and/or their representatives on any issue in American history. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • Blast 105 right now on the website is $75 an month full price. Posted via the Android Central App
  • With temp lower pricing on first sign up, yes. Still very expensive and slow. The price will increase after the introductory period. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • $75, full price, $50 intro, damn man, just go look. It took me 2 minutes. Posted via the Android Central App
  • So now we'll pay higher taxes on Internet service and wireless data service. 3 Democrats vs 2 Republicans on the FCC board. Posted via the Android Central App
  • For those with memory issues this is RE-regulating ISPs to prevent what we just saw with Netflix in November and December from continuing to happen and will actually help the next Internet startup have the same chance to succeed as Facebook did when it beat MySpace and for Google to become the search giant they are. This is putting things back to the way they used to be when the Internet took off. If you still don't understand that I'm really sorry you're either willing to disregard history or you choose to let your ideology alter your ability to look at facts.
  • The old Internet would break just from Netflix traffic alone. Your pretty much saying we should build cars like we used to in the 60's because they had more metal in them. Sounds reasonable except cars are better engineered and just need less metal. Posted via the Android Central App
  • No, I'm saying all packets are created equal. None are more equal than others.
  • They never have been, or at least they have not been for a long ass time. Quality of Service has been a thing for a while. It pretty much is a way of maximizing bandwidth on a network by prioritizing VOIP, streaming and download packets over email and torrent packets. Why? Because email is easy to send, torrents are more than likely illegal downloads, and video streaming is hard, so it gets priority. This does not just happen on providers networks, but probably your own router does this as well as your LAN manager at work. Posted via the Android Central App
  • So long as all email is treated equally to other email, and all streaming is equal to other streaming then net neutrality isn't violated. Fast lanes and prioritization are not the same thing. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Come and knock on our door... (Come and knock on our door)
    We've been waiting for you.... (We've been waiting for you)
    Where the kisses are hers and hers and his...
  • I don't like a lot of regulation. However, ISPs have gotten too powerful. They can pretty much do whatever they want right now and get away with it. That needs to change. --- This message brought to you via the sarcasm keyboard available for download at the Google Play Store.
  • Let us all know the evil they have brought on the world please. 1-possibly throttling Netflix
    2-....... Posted via the Android Central App
  • Without government regulation and laws there is no free market, there is anarchy where the big become bigger by preying on the small. Corporatism is a symptom of such a lack of laws and has led to the following. Agree to stay out of each others territories creating cable cartels. Hold back on years of network upgrades to buy out competition creating monopolies, letting America fall further behind the world. Raising prices and forcing bundles and contracts on users with worse service. Instructing customer service reps to purposley mistreat and ignore customers wishes. Consolidating media leading to less free speech. Strongarming the little guy only to pad their own pockets. Blocking unions and cutting worker pay/benefits while lobbying and CEO expensives increase dramatically. Sueing to overturn consumer protection laws that'll allow them to get away with highway robbery.(Net Neutrality) Should I go on? Interested to see how a corporate apologist could sugar coat all this. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • Even better news. Posted via the Android Central App
  • FCC will kill laws that prevent municipal broadband! Fantastic Posted via the Android Central App
  • That would be fantastic. My city wants to roll out a citywide wifi for $15.00 a month, but can't until the Comcast contract runs out, and even then, Comcast is already saying they'll fight it to protect me. Posted via the Android Central App
  • A must read! Posted via the Android Central App
  • Obama administration at its finest. Centralize control of as much stuff as possible Posted via the Android Central App
  • Lol what? Wow. I don't think you understand. Municipalities will now have the option to create thier own fiber networks like they have on many places around the country. The reason it has become illegal is because the telecoms lobby against this. If you are able for small government then you should be all for this. That means that a city or a county can "vote" so invest in thier own community. I'm sure a freedom loving patriot like yourself should support this ruling. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I misunderstood on that point. Thanks for the clarification. I just see red when the feds continue to take control. Some cities have their own WiFi networks coexisting with Comcast or twc. Chaska MN for example. Posted via the Android Central App
  • No problem. Trust me. this is actually good law for all of us that love the Internet. I don't care Who's in office.thudbis good Posted via the Android Central App
  • These laws are meant to expand on that along with building public Gigabit internet. There are a few that have successfully built community gigabit internet for half the price of ISPs far slower internet, a few of which have kicked these corporations out permenatly. However many more have tried doing the same only to be sued for "unfairly cutting their profits", or they bribed politicians to make building such networks costly and time consuming with untold regulations. Some for example giving a company exclusive rights/contracts to any new lines being built. It is these last things that these laws will overturn, returning the power to the people and their communities. Win-win for everyone except CEOs and stockholders. ;) Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • Correct. I have a fantastic article that explains all of this on depth with real world examples. The best part is that most municipalities that created or attempted to create thier own fiber networks are in red States, but walls after walls of obstacles have been artificially created by lobbyist and the "small government" legislators to prevent such successful, self sufficient programs from expanding. Give me a moment while I find it. It is really a good read. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Here you go. Everyone should read this. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Companies shouldn't have sway over pieces of the Government like that. "The government is going to stop us from gouging people and other companies for money, so lets sue them." What a world.
  • Most of you will disagree, well because this is what you are passionate about. I still consider the Internet (fast speed) not to be a necessity. It's like most of you think we have a right to it. We do not have a right to cable TV, satellite TV, cell phone service or what we consider reasonable pricing. At the end of the day we could get by without any of it. The Federal government should not classify as a utility. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Whenever you see a law, assume that the name it's using is exactly the opposite of what it will do. PATRIOT Act indeed... This is the first step in the US government taking back the internet. This will result will be bad. Really bad. But the trains will run on time.
  • Netflix thanks you all for your support.
  • This is all AL Gores fault Posted via the Android Central App