What reason does the FCC give for its claim of sovereignty over the internets? I understand why they can regulate over-the-air TV and radio, because those are on public airwaves, but none of that applies for the net. I don't have a problem with the ruling, regardless of what it would allow providers to do, because I don't want to see gov't agencies claiming jurisdiction just because they want it.
If congress wants to say that it is an interstate commerce issue and legislate from there, I'd say that would be closer to how it should be handled.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeOkay, this just came down today, so can somebody please explain it to me in laymen terms if this is good or bad? I've not really paid attention to the net neutrality debate.
Originally posted by lotjxIts bad in the sense that the big companies like Comcast can pretty much run wild. I am not sure if it means they can censor stuff or not. Its a win for big business then it is for regular users.
From the wired article
A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.
My fear is something similar. I have Comcast and as people know, they're trying to buy NBC. With this ruling, they are now within their right to block me from going to SouthParkStudios.com to watch a South Park episode I have missed. Or make the video stream come in really slow. Or, like in the wired article, trying to get to SouthParkStudios.com, ABC.com, Fox.com, or CBS.com will result in redirects to NBC.com unless you pay a "fee" like premium broadband service to resolve the issue.
Once death threats start to come into play as well as prison time there is no argument. I am sure what Tiger is going through feels like prison, but its not even close. Tiger loses money, Ali could have lost his life or the life of someone close to him.