| Copps was appointed to the FCC by Bush, so funny that he's OK and not
| tainted. Typical loon lib reasoning at work, I guess. And why is it
| that you never bitch about all the same "lies" about Iraq that were told
| by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, etc?

You seem to be an energetic partisan. I'm not.
I don't regard national politics as an us-vs-them
sporting event where the point is to yell insults at
the other side, as a titillating substitute for actual
thought and discussion. If you want to be
disrespectful and trade insults you'll have to find
another partner for that.

I like Copps simply because he's taken positions in
favor of the FCC being in service to the public. He seems
to be an honest man trying to do the right thing. I don't
even know whether he's Democrat or Republican.

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:19:12 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Copps was appointed to the FCC by Bush, so funny that he's OK and not

| tainted. Typical loon lib reasoning at work, I guess. And why is it

| that you never bitch about all the same "lies" about Iraq that were told

| by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, etc?



You seem to be an energetic partisan. I'm not.

You just managed to drag Bush bashing and the Iraq war into
a discussion about net neutrality. But I'm the "energetic
partisan". Go figure. Sounds like BDS to me.





I don't regard national politics as an us-vs-them

sporting event where the point is to yell insults at

the other side, as a titillating substitute for actual

thought and discussion.

Of course, YOU dragging Bush and the Iraq war into a discussion
about net neutrality, that's perfectly OK. It's when someone
responds, that's when the problems start. Go figure.



If you want to be

disrespectful and trade insults you'll have to find

another partner for that.



I like Copps simply because he's taken positions in

favor of the FCC being in service to the public. He seems

to be an honest man trying to do the right thing. I don't

even know whether he's Democrat or Republican.

So did Michael Powell, when he chaired the FCC, yet you slammed him
and his lineage with relish. You threw Bush in for good measure.
Who's the partisan now, partisan?

| I like Copps simply because he's taken positions in
| favor of the FCC being in service to the public. He seems
| to be an honest man trying to do the right thing. I don't
| even know whether he's Democrat or Republican.
|
| So did Michael Powell, when he chaired the FCC,

Did what? Favor the public? When he left the FCC he
became president of the National Cable and Telecommunications
Association. It's my understanding that's the main lobbying group
against Net neutrality now. *In other words, he's leading the
charge to give the Internet over to the people who own the wires.*
I can't say that I really know what Powell did when he was with
the FCC, but his actions seem to speak. When the top henhouse
manager leaves to become the top fox lobbyist, I don't figure his
position on hens should be trusted.

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:17:10 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| I like Copps simply because he's taken positions in

| favor of the FCC being in service to the public. He seems

| to be an honest man trying to do the right thing. I don't

| even know whether he's Democrat or Republican.

|

| So did Michael Powell, when he chaired the FCC,



Did what? Favor the public?

Yes. Read and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell_(politician)

"As the chairman of the FCC, Powell led the charge to open up markets in VoIP, Wi-Fi, and Broadband over Powerline (BPL). His approach believed that these new communications technologies would allow small companies to take on established corporations, and that regulations often stood in the way of progress.

His deregulatory policy coincided with a period of significant consolidation in the communications market. He advocated an updating of media ownership rules to reflect new communications technologies such as the Internet, a move that critics derided as increasing rampant media consolidation. He opposed applying telephone-era regulations to new Internet technologies, a move critics charged would deny open access to communications facilities. He articulated a policy of network neutrality, and in March 2005 fined Madison River Communications for blocking voice over IP applications, the first-ever government action of its kind.[2] Powell worked so consumers could keep phone numbers when switching wireless carriers and championed the National Do Not Call Registry.[3]





When he left the FCC he

became president of the National Cable and Telecommunications

Association. It's my understanding that's the main lobbying group

against Net neutrality now. *In other words, he's leading the

charge to give the Internet over to the people who own the wires.*

I can't say that I really know what Powell did when he was with

the FCC, but his actions seem to speak.


Typical lib. His name is Powell, so let's drag Bush, Iraq, into a
discussion on net neutrality. No time to find out what Powell actually
did while on the FCC. Just bash away.





When the top henhouse

manager leaves to become the top fox lobbyist, I don't figure his

position on hens should be trusted.

And too lazy to find out what he actually did. Typical, so very typical.
For the record, he took the position you're referring to a full 6 years
after he left the FCC. If someone has expertise in a particular industry,
should that person be banned from that industry for life because they
held a govt position related to that industry? And if that is the new
policy, where do you think you're going to find qualifed people to serve?

And note that Michael Copps is an advisor to Common Cause, a lib
loon left wing organization, that does just as much to discredit his
credibility, IMO.

"Mayayana" wrote in message news:lq3cv0

Did what? Favor the public? When he left the FCC he
became president of the National Cable and Telecommunications
Association. It's my understanding that's the main lobbying group
against Net neutrality now. *In other words, he's leading the
charge to give the Internet over to the people who own the wires.*
I can't say that I really know what Powell did when he was with
the FCC, but his actions seem to speak. When the top henhouse
manager leaves to become the top fox lobbyist, I don't figure his
position on hens should be trusted.

The FCC could have done a lot more to insure that monopolistic practices
were controlled. In fact when the Telecommunications Act was under
discussion in 1994, Senator Trent Lott, Republican* of Mississippi, was one
of its most enthusiastic supporters. Thanks to him and others, the act,
passed in 1996, prohibits states from putting up unreasonable obstacles to
any entity that wants to provide telecommunications services. So a number
of cities began building their own municipal networks which folks like
Comcast and Verizon realized would provide unwanted competition.
Since then industry lobbyists like Powell have helped pushed through laws in
20 states that, despite the 1996 act, make it difficult or impossible for
municipalities to clear the way for the sorts of networks that the 1996 act
envisioned.

In other words, he's clearly *deeply* in the pocket of the industry he chose
to "lightly regulate" and not the poor suckers like us that government
employees are supposed to serve.

You can almost *always* expect someone who came from lobbying for the
industry (and not someone from one of the many state public service
commissions who also "know this stuff" quite well) to come down on the side
of industry. Powell's naked support of killing off competition from
government run "Muni Nets" makes him an industry tool in my book. Among his
many other non-achievments on the public's behalf.

Fortunately there's some possible relief for consumers on the horizon:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...lic-broadband/

The official said that the case, Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League,
involved a situation in which the FCC declined** to support municipalities
resisting state laws limiting public broadband. If the commission were to
support municipalities against state restrictions in a future case, courts
could interpret the laws differently, the official said. In the Supreme
Court case, a group of local governments in Missouri asked the FCC to
nullify a state law preventing municipal broadband service.

Now that someone else is in charge at the FCC, maybe *they'll* be able to
make sure these big near-monopolies get some very much needed competition
from somewhere.

--

Bobby G.

*Back before the Tea Party takeover when Republicans actually worked for the
people, not Big Business.

** "Declined to support?" Translation: FCC hard at work making sure the big
boys (where many of them end up working) keep getting to charge
stratospheric fees without competition. Powell's now helping to try to
squash Google Fiber . . . Yeah, he's pro-consumer. In a pig's eye.



FWIW, here's a Q&A segment from a USA Today interview that tells you all you
need to know:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Q: Should consumers be concerned about the "fast-lane" deals that are being
allowed by the FCC chairman's new net neutrality proposals?

American consumers are going to continue to get what they've gotten, if not
dramatically more, however these rules come out. The Internet service
providers are in the business of providing the fastest consumer experience
they can. Slowing it down, degrading and blocking it doesn't fit very well
with the service you're offering.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Yet that's *exactly* what they do in many markets, causing the neutrality
flap to BEGIN with. "Doesn't fit very well." What weasel wording!

--

Bobby G.

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:06:00 PM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:52:23 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

"Mayayana" wrote in message news:lq3cv0
Yet that's *exactly* what they do in many markets, causing the neutrality




(gran snippage}

hat you libs know how to fix....

At the expense of snipping time, would like to note that I automatically disregard any post using the phrase "you libs". 100% indicator that the mind is shut tight while the electrons gush out of... ??

HB

On 7/17/2014 6:33 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:06:00 PM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
that you libs know how to fix....

At the expense of snipping time, would like to note
that I automatically disregard any post using the phrase
"you libs". 100% indicator that the mind is shut tight
while the electrons gush out of... ??

HB


You libs insist we clamor for this or that (in the
present case, net neutrality) without giving us the
respect to inform us and let us make our own decisions.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/17/2014 7:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:

Note that those with their shorts in a knot over "you libs"
told us that net neutrality was about:


HB: "We have ONE DAY to tell the FCC that the Internet belongs to us too, not just to corporations that want to get faster speed than just us regular users."

That isn't what net neutrality is about. Corporations, depending on the type,
and application have had more bandwith from day one. Obviously Ebay's bandwith needs are very different than grandmas. Aslo, certain traffic, eg VOIP needs to be treated differently to ensure quality of service, unless you want your
calls breaking up.


M: If they do it the way you describe I
think that would be ideal. We can't honestly expect ISPs to
foot the bill for streaming movies.

Bingo! And that is why ISP want to charge companies like Netflix, that
put a very heavy load on the internet, additional fees. Yet M is here
bitching about them doing it because allegedly it violates "net neutrality".


M: Netflix can't just keep creating 20% of Internet traffic without
someone paying for it.

Bingo, same comment as above.


M: For instance, someone who doesn't watch sports nevertheless has to indirectly pay the fees for sports networks. In the same way, without
Net neutrality we could all pay for things like Netflix, whether
we stream movies or not.

And then she's totally backwards again. Right now we *are* all paying for the
infrastructure to support the huge bandwith sucked up by Netflix. It's
exactly like paying for cable channels, bandwith, etc that you don't use.
So, ISPs want to start doing *exactly* what you say you want, ie to
start making Netflix pay more, yet here you are bitching about it. Do
you always argue against yourself?


So, yeah, "you libs" sure are a confused bunch. And the part that
really annoys me, is that you find problems that basically are non-existent,
that you obviously don;t understand, and then proceed to tell us how
bad it all is, how free markets don't work, how it all needs more govt
regulation, etc.

My internet works fine. It's gone from 56Kbits to 100Mbits in 15 years.
I'm happy with the job the FCC is doing. I
freely admit I don't understand all the issues involved. But I clearly
understand enough to know that the three libs here have proven they
don't understand even the basics, but want to impose there nonsense on the
rest of us. And somehow, as usual, they even managed to drag Bush and the
Iraq war into it. Go figure.