Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 149

Thread: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

  1. #91
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by CMPancake View Post
    Yes, the FCC ruled paid prioritization and throttling internet based purely on the data alone. The internet is safe and sound.
    it allows for "commercially reasonable" traffic management ..

  2. #92
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    You folks need to make up your minds.
    I never used the phrase "all packets being equal."
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #93
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    It's that or its the difference between a system engineer level of understanding vs partisan luddite true believer cheerleading based on ignorance. *shrug*
    Oddly enough you still haven't specified any particular result. I'm gonna continue to lean towards my original conclusion.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #94
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Oddly enough you still haven't specified any particular result. I'm gonna continue to lean towards my original conclusion.



    This is perfect obama true believers, its so ambiguous you can claim whatever you want.

    Do you think h.232, sip traffic should be treated equal to p2p traffic?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #95
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    This is perfect obama true believers, its so ambiguous you can claim whatever you want.

    Do you think h.232, sip traffic should be treated equal to p2p traffic?
    Sure whatever you feel like deciding I've said. Just make it up.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #96
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Sure whatever you feel like deciding I've said. Just make it up.



    That didn't happen.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #97
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    guys, even if it does happen, the current federal tax on wireless is 5.82%. The average internet bill is around $40 I think. We are discussing $28/year.

    This is really a big concern even if it did happen?
    You are confusing federal taxes with assessed fees that are generally called taxes.
    And the federal taxes are already on the bills that are being paid now, whereas the fees that come with a classification as a Title II Utility are not.

    That rate changes every quarter.
    Last quarter it was 16.8%.
    This quarter it is 17.1%
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #98
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I said opened a door, but we have not walked through that door. Nor do we have to.

    Yes we have too. The fee is required.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #99
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I have no idea what you argued specifically.
    Well I know what you argued, and what you present now is not accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It was argued to me that the FCC must levy this tax, and clearly they are not required to. They can, but wont necessarily do it. That was my argument all along.
    And you as wrong now as you were then. They are "required".


    Did you even bother to read what they passed?

    They themselves acknowledge the "requirement" and are forbearing until other matters are settled.
    Do you really not understand that?
    They even indicated that they knew the forbearance was limited.

    Para 488 - page 235
    or if you prefer, Scribe.

    488. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for now we do forbear in part from the first sentence of section 254(d) and our associated rules insofar as they would immediately require new universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access service. The first sentence of section 254(d) authorizes the Commission to impose universal service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to require “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services” to contribute.1469 Under that provision and our implementing rules, providers are required to make federal universal service support contributions for interstate telecommunications services, which now would include broadband Internet access service by virtue of the classification decision in this order. 1470

    489. Consistent with our analysis of TRS contributions above, we note that on one hand, newly applying universal service contribution requirements on broadband Internet access service potentially could spread the base of contributions to the universal service fund, providing at least some benefit to customers of other services that contribute, and potentially also to the stability of the universal service fund through the broadening of the contribution base. We note, however, that the Commission has sought comment on a wide range of issues regarding how contributions should be assessed, including whether to continue to assess contributions based on revenues or to adopt alternative methodologies for determining contribution obligations.1471 We therefore conclude that limited forbearance is warranted at the present time in order to allow the Commission to consider the issues presented based on a full record in that docket.1472


    It is a requirement and is only on a temporary hold. It is still going to be charged, as required, just as you were told.



    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You are the one misstating things.

    No, that would be you.
    After you were shown it was "required", you then started arguing that you were okay with it being charged.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #100
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,845

    Re: F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Well I know what you argued, and what you present now is not accurate.


    And you as wrong now as you were then. They are "required".


    Did you even bother to read what they passed?

    They themselves acknowledge the "requirement" and are forbearing until other matters are settled.
    Do you really not understand that?
    They even indicated that they knew the forbearance was limited.

    Para 488 - page 235
    or if you prefer, Scribe.

    488. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for now we do forbear in part from the first sentence of section 254(d) and our associated rules insofar as they would immediately require new universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access service. The first sentence of section 254(d) authorizes the Commission to impose universal service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to require “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services” to contribute.1469 Under that provision and our implementing rules, providers are required to make federal universal service support contributions for interstate telecommunications services, which now would include broadband Internet access service by virtue of the classification decision in this order. 1470

    489. Consistent with our analysis of TRS contributions above, we note that on one hand, newly applying universal service contribution requirements on broadband Internet access service potentially could spread the base of contributions to the universal service fund, providing at least some benefit to customers of other services that contribute, and potentially also to the stability of the universal service fund through the broadening of the contribution base. We note, however, that the Commission has sought comment on a wide range of issues regarding how contributions should be assessed, including whether to continue to assess contributions based on revenues or to adopt alternative methodologies for determining contribution obligations.1471 We therefore conclude that limited forbearance is warranted at the present time in order to allow the Commission to consider the issues presented based on a full record in that docket.1472


    It is a requirement and is only on a temporary hold. It is still going to be charged, as required, just as you were told.




    No, that would be you.
    After you were shown it was "required", you then started arguing that you were okay with it being charged.
    I am ok with it being charged. But I also stated that I believed that exemptions were possible.

    The FCC is using such an exemption. So, they are "required" but "not required" is your argument? Ok then. You claim they will eventually charge it, but I see no evidence of that.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •