Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » DOJ Opposes Network Neutrality
Search Topic:
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Comments on news posted 2007-09-06 15:04:26: With the hopes for passage of any meaningful network neutrality laws largely dashed for now, the often murky debate seemed to have quieted down of late. That meant we got a break from misleading cartoons and painfully lame videos for a while. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
AuthorAll Replies


MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform

join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
Consumers

Who else do they think is going to pay? Wake up and smell reality.


jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:


1 edit
so this would hamper the small company s from competing against the large business effectively thwarting competition resulting in more of a monopoly style competition.

also seen here

»www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techp···ge_N.htm

--
www.LakeSemaJ.com
Help me get free trades.3 free if you sign up, $7 after. PM Me

CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI

DOJ?

Who cares what the DOJ thinks? I've hardly seen them dish out any "justice", so perhaps they should shut up about broadband and do what they're supposed to.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD


TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

 Best points made by Justice

The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing.
It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators?
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page


roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable


1 edit
reply to jgkolt
Re: Consumers

said by jgkolt See Profile :

so this would hamper the small company s from competing against the large business effectively thwarting competition resulting in more of a monopoly style competition.
WTF do you expect from this administration? Do you think they would actually stand up for WE THE PEOPLE, or the corporations?

Something tells me that the DOJ of Bushco, Inc. is going to favor big business EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME!

--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword."


digitalfreak

join:2005-12-09
49533


2 edits
What BS

The DOJ has no business chiming in on this. It has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's blatantly obvious they're doing it as more payback for AT&T, etc. allowing them to spy on voice and data traffic so easily. Pathetic.

Anybody recall the ending of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor? I'm thinking it's not such a bad idea. This country needs a mulligan.


roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable

reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Best points made by Justice

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators?
And the Internet is JUST LIKE the rest of the business world!

NOT!
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword."


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

reply to TKJunkMail
The more relevant question is, "What does this have to do with the department of justice?" And why do you feel like the DOJ should be spending our tax dollars writing these ridiculous press releases that have nothing to do with their core mission of law enforcement.


sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
reply to MrMoody
Re: Consumers

I wonder how many "consulting" gigs that piece of propaganda is costing the incumbents.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20

reply to CMoore2004
Re: DOJ?

THANK - YOU ! I was reading this tread BEFORE posting your very sentiments... I'm sorry, but we have a body of law makers who we elected and represent us. (well, supposed to at least) and if ANYONE is going to spout up on these issues, it should be the people's representation.. not the DOJ. The DOJ just needs to shut up and dole out the "justice" (sic) in the boundaries of the laws HANDED TO THEM...

I'm sorry, on a side note, it just seems that everyone in government believes they are lawmakers.. last time I checked, our congress made laws... not every other department.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
Hey, great, the DOJ

Maybe the FDA would like to chime in, too?

The DOJ should stick to its mandate and stop trying to get in bed with AT&T.

mobbo

join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
Remember when?

Remember when the government used to work for The People? Good times.


woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME

reply to roc5955
Re: Consumers

It's not just "this" administration, there are a lot of Dems backing this also, and for full disclosure, I am a Dem. Remember, it's all about the money, everything else is secondary. Peace
--
BlooMe


roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable


1 edit
I agree it's about the money, but the current morons administration, is surely in favor of it, as some sort of payback, no doubt. Don't forget, Gonzo isn't out the door quite yet. I think he leaves on the 17th.

I am sure that there are some Dems who are all about the money as well. Just as I am sure that there are more than a majority of legislators who haven't a clue as to WTF these "internets" are.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword."


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

reply to mobbo
Re: Remember when?

said by mobbo See Profile :

Remember when the government used to work for The People?
Nope, and I bet neither do you, that free ride ended long before any of our times - if it ever existed to begin with. Everything looks better in history books.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast

reply to CMoore2004
Re: DOJ?

this is simply in keeping with the politicization of the entire govt by this administration. since big business is against network neutrality, that means the entire govt is against network neutrality.

wouldn't surprise me if DOD is next to put out a press release speaking against network neutrality.

and if they're still worried, expect one from the State Dept. too.


TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast

reply to vpoko
Re: Best points made by Justice

said by vpoko See Profile :

The more relevant question is, "What does this have to do with the department of justice?" And why do you feel like the DOJ should be spending our tax dollars writing these ridiculous press releases that have nothing to do with their core mission of law enforcement.
Because Justice decides issues of anti-trust, which comes in to the whole area of whether internet access is a monopoly or not. The Justice Dept says it isn't and therefore regulation isn't needed.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
DoJ?

Why is this an issue the DoJ is taking up?


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Best points made by Justice

"Regulation" is defined as administrative law, meaning the Justice Department takes whatever laws Congress passes and implements them through regulations. Net neutrality (which I actually oppose, but that's beside the point) would come into force only if a new law were passed, and it's not the job of the justice department to lobby Congress.

Just Bob
Premium
join:2000-08-13
Spring Hill, FL

reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

"Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention," the agency said in its filing.
It works elsewhere in the business world. So why should the internet get a pass on letting the marketplace decide the rules instead of slow moving ass-backwards regulators?
Using the Postal Service as an example? As in first class rate increases to support cheap delivery of junk mail courtesy of the Direct Marketing Association?
Forums » DOJ Opposes Network Neutralitypage: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4


Thursday, 26-Nov 07:28:56 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF