You think that will stop him? You should have seen what he did to the mail box last Easter. The neighbors still cross the street to get past it.

Nah, he's just not looking at the right set of rules. Those rules are the ones that allow exclusive access to a larger area in which a portion may be profitable on the condition of them serving the unprofitable areas equally as well. It also includes rules concerning municipal provided broadband competing with those monopolies in particular 2 states, Tennessee and North Carolina.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

in combination with page 4 of this

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

makes it clear that exclusive access is no longer allowed. This means that I can run in and saturate the profitable areas with my offerings making comcast or whoever else either lose money in general or raise their rates to avoid doing so

Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

HEH... I'm laughing with you on this.

I typed that from my phone. It was march of 1998 not 88. This is my fault as I used 98 in the first reference but later lapsed with the incorrect 1988.

  It's a PDF

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

Here are a few highlights

Senators Ashcroft, Ford, John F. Kerry, Abraham and Wyden emphasize that
"[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter
the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional
telephone regulation to new and advanced services."
75
Like
Senator McCain, they state:
"Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was
to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew

And I'm not sure if this is separating the two quotes because preview sucks it all into one.

We
find, however, that in defining
"telecommunications" and "information services," Congress built upon the MFJ and the
Commission's prior deregulatory actions in
Computer II
. After
careful consideration of the
statutory language and its legislative history, we affirm our prior findings that the categories
of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in the 1996 Act are mutually
exclusive.
77
Under
this interpretation, an entity offering a simple, transparent transmission
path, without the capability of providing enhanced functionality, offers
âoetelecommunications.â By
contrast, when an entity offers transmission incorporating the
âoecapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information,â it does not offer telecommunications.
Rather,
it offers an
"information service" even though it uses telecommunications to do so.
We
believe that
this reading of the statute is most consistent with the 1996 Act's text, its legislative history,
and its procompetitive, deregulatory goals

The law needs changed if you think the internet has now grown to the point of needing regulated. FFS, Can the cop make the ticket for the red cars twice as expensive simply because things change? Until the law changes, the law remains the same. The only way to change a law is for congress to act or the courts to strike down as unconstitutional.

No, that is not the FCC's job. The FCC's job is to make regulation and achieve the goals set by congress according to laws constitutionally passed.

Post mail is communication, you posting in this forum is communication. Do you see how silly that premise is? Please think before posting.

But the court did not say they had the mean, standing, or legal authority to reclassify it. There is no difference in reality.

The PROBLEM is that the FCC has already declared the law does not grant them this ability and the law has not changed since then.

The courts will look at that, see that the move is to get around a previous rulling snd bam, its struck down.

Then i guess the law needs changed. If congress never gave the power to do something, it would take an act of congress to grant that power no matter how much it changed.

Their problem is the FCC has already demonstrated that it does not have the authority and congress never intended for it to have the authority to reclassify the internet. It is a self made case already put together by the FCC.

The courts did not say the FCC had the authority to reclassify the internet either. They said in order to regulate the internet in the ways the FCC attempted to do they would have to reclassify it under title 2. Bow that is important because the court saying you need a license to drive a car is not the same as saying you have the right to get a valid license when you are otherwise barred from getting one (under aged, epilectic, blind, already revoked for infraction or whatever).

But don't get me wrong, something needed done. This just isn't it and the FCC acting indepentent from legislation is unconstitutional as well as frightening. This is sloppy and will be undone easily barring action from congress.

Where exactly would he plug this newfangled usb flash thing in at?

The laptop will not have any USB ports.

Do yourself a favor and pay attention. Look the report i mentioned up too.

They go into explicit detail with statements from congress on the passage of the 1996 telecom act as well as previous FCC interptetations and state it is clear congress never intended the internet to be regulated other than an information service. They even mention VoIP in it.

In other words, the lawsuit to reverse this has already been laid out. Congress never intended the internet to be regulated under title 2 and congress has not changed any laws since then. You have a modern FCC who overstepped its abilities and was shot down by the courts, now all the sudden they ignore over 2 decades of interpretation of law and without any legislative action at all, moved around the courts. Of course they will lose the lawsuit.

Probably not.

An AI would either be self aware or jusf a script running (albeit an ellaborate one). I think therefore i am is not far from religion exists therefore god exists. But more importantly, it likely would not limit itself to what I know is all there is to know so the supernatural claims of religion would still seem plausible or possible even if there is no known natural explanation. And knowing itself is a creation designed to act in certain ways it would likely understand that things can be created with the appearance of natural causes and rules can be constructs to further useful knowledge. Or in other words it would dismiss the notion of a god simply because knowlege makes one unneccesary.

I'm currious. I just got off the phone with my mother. Are you going to call me a lier or dismiss the message she told me (be careful drivinng to California) becaue i cannot prove it to you?

The majority of people who claim to talk to God or Jesus or Whoever tend to only let you know whrn they explain their actions. Most of the ones i know of do it in some way to help others but i will note suggest scammrs and greed isn't part of it either.

I also think that some of this is a person's inner voice whhatever that really is. For instance, back in early december of last year, we had a cold snap where it got to about 15 below zero. I was running late for work and live out in the middle of nowhere. I saw a car pulled to the side of the road and something told me to stop and check it. Turns out it was a girl and a young kid stranded because she decided to get a blanket from the trunk for the kid and somehow dropped her key and couldn't find it. I guess they were there about an hour or longer. Between my headlights and a flashlight, i found the key while they warmed up in my car. I was still late but they were safe because something told me to stop and make sure everything was ok. I don't think god talked tl me but i can see how someone elsr might.

Those rules certainly have been in place. Its why we have monopolies and so few choices.

I did not say underserved. I said more expensive.

Currently these places are getting internet piggybacked on utility infrastructure. The costs are spread over the entire service area and traditionally, access to that service area was limited in exchange for servicing areas not profitable to serve. For instance, in some areas it cost more to run phone or cable lines down the street than the 10 or 15 subscribers would ever pay in rates over their lifetime. This is why restricted access was in place in the first place- to force companies to service areas that they would not make a profit from.

  If those costs are not recovered from the high density areas where its less expensive to run the infrastucture, it will come from the costs of providing the service. Sure, all the people along the way to the 100 residence apartment complex might not see a change, but those along the road after it or the side roads will have to bear the costs of their connections when 5 different companies saturate the apartment complex.