|
This is a pretty dramatic reading of a ruling that was in effect "You used x authority to issue this rule. You cannot use x authority to issue that rule. If you were hypothetically to use authority y or z or to reclassify ISPs then those rules could be issued."
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Stereotype posted:Reading the article, it seems to state that ISPs are controlled as "information services" and not "common carriers." This semantic is controlled by the FCC and is thus unlikely to be changed since they have been completely overrun by regulatory capture. They'll likely state simply that they can't change the classification of ISPs because of tradition. It is actually probably a more important ruling that your dismissal warrants. You missed the part where that is one of several options they have to issue the same rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:By "several options" you mean that they have two options: To reclassify ISPs as common carriers, or to argue that an "information service" company still falls under their regulatory oversight for common carriers since the two aren't mutually exclusive. The supreme court thread has a lot of discussion on the subject starting here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&pagenumber=8#post424435226
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
We'll have to we what the new rules actually are. Netflix and all can already negotiate directly, and could even under any proposed net neutrality.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Where in Japan do you get 100mbit internet service for 2000 JPY or whatever a month? My company paid more than that for 20/10 or so in Kawasaki and it was similar in Yokohama. I somehow doubt its significantly different between the 23 wards and Kanagawa or Yokohama? edit: Also, all links off Honshu seemed extraordinarily slow. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
karthun posted:If only J:Com had a website in English where you can check the prices. Thats more what I was remembering being described. They charge more for businesses of course. So for what I pay in the US for 20mbit cable plus a DVR gets you 160mbit down internet, a DVR and about half the channels we get in the states.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I do hope you realize that that top tier is nowhere near available everywhere in Japan! Nobody cares about anything outside of Kanto. 
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually after reading that 400 page e-book I noticed after the 1996 Act passed the telco's claim became "we will offer a 45 Mbit option", not "we will get 45 Mbit to everyone". And the cable companies have a 50mbit option available for much of the country. Hell if you're a business normal cable stuff goes up to 100mbit down (but only 5 Mbit up - want a service you can actually serve on you pay $$$).
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The internet has had fast lanes for nearly 20 years - it's direct transit arrangements that cut out transit networks and means large companies get the best speeds and latency. Also, paying ISPs to mirror your content on their edge servers. Net neutrality is about not putting artificial restriction between a subscriber and a website. It says nothing about a website paying more to be hosted everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If they handled cases in which that firm was involved, then yes. Yes but as that involves the courts its easy to see and prevent. Patent attorneys/agents do similar things.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Dehry posted:So far the first republican is saying "States Rights!!!!11" Rhode Island and Delaware should put up giant towers to transmit and dump all the power they have into them then charge the surrounding states to turn it off. Its tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:This is actually what Delaware does. Except corporations instead of towers. That doesn't impede other state's though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Except that you can't just decide to change your classification, you have to adequately justify the change. So the FCC is going to have to explain why they fought the Title II classification a decade ago but want it now. Well with the way appeals from the agency work the FCC's response to the inevitable lawsuit is "We just did exactly what this court told us to do  "
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This would also probably make ESPN go the way of the WWE's subscription service because ESPN cable fees are enough that people who don't watch the channel frequently would drop it in a heartbeat if they could save that money. It would only occur as part of something that was as expensive as cable and got you every Disney owned channel for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 00:00
|
|