So Boehner says the new net neutrality regs, which haven't made anyone happy apparently, are really bad:
"They call it net neutrality. It's a series of regulations that empower the federal bureaucracy to regulate Internet content and viewpoint discrimination," he imagined, pledging to use the full powers at his disposal "to fight [this] government takeover of the Internet."
Uh, WTF? That's certainly not how PCMag defines net neutrality! Of course, there was no mention of relaxing the FCC's iron-fisted control over what you and I see and hear on broadcast television. I guess he's OK with that.... no lobbying dollars in his pocket from the TV and radio networks lately, I s'pose.
Verizon just appealed the rule. They won't say why, but this article says it's likely because they don't want to be prohibited from blocking open wireless access. They want wireless left out of the 'net rules entirely, apparently. It would appear that the whole idea of signs in windows advertising FREE WIFI really pisses them off. All individuals who access the internet need some way of being charged for the privilege, they seem to think...
Boehner's whole argument is goofy, because as someone said "They're not regulating the internet. They're imposing regulations on the people who SELL the internet in order that they not discriminate based on web service or site."
Isn't that what we want? A non-regulated internet? I think Boehner is muddying the facts.
What say ye?
"They call it net neutrality. It's a series of regulations that empower the federal bureaucracy to regulate Internet content and viewpoint discrimination," he imagined, pledging to use the full powers at his disposal "to fight [this] government takeover of the Internet."
Uh, WTF? That's certainly not how PCMag defines net neutrality! Of course, there was no mention of relaxing the FCC's iron-fisted control over what you and I see and hear on broadcast television. I guess he's OK with that.... no lobbying dollars in his pocket from the TV and radio networks lately, I s'pose.
Verizon just appealed the rule. They won't say why, but this article says it's likely because they don't want to be prohibited from blocking open wireless access. They want wireless left out of the 'net rules entirely, apparently. It would appear that the whole idea of signs in windows advertising FREE WIFI really pisses them off. All individuals who access the internet need some way of being charged for the privilege, they seem to think...
Boehner's whole argument is goofy, because as someone said "They're not regulating the internet. They're imposing regulations on the people who SELL the internet in order that they not discriminate based on web service or site."
Isn't that what we want? A non-regulated internet? I think Boehner is muddying the facts.
What say ye?
Comment