Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:I don't get it... (Score 1) 226

Communities and public utilities can already offer service in thief own areas, this change would allow them to offer service in other communities, exchanging their old provider for another, neither owned or controlled by them.

this is not true in these states. Wilson and Chattanooga got grandfathered in because they already built their network before the laws took effect.

If I live in a community that is served electricity by power company A, and power company B in the neighboring community offers internet access that I want, allowing power company B to sell Internet access in the territory served by Power company A isn't 'self-ownership'... If the county next to me offers Internet access and now they can offer Internet service in my county, does my county now control the Internet backbone in our county or does the neighboring community?

You are using a rather limited definition for the work community. I live in NC, near Wilson but outside of any area they will probably service, however I can give you a perfect example of how terribly limited your definition is. I live in an area with the City designation of Garner NC, however I dont live in Garner, because I live across the Wake (Garner's county)/Johnston country line. I can walk to the Wake county side and bike to the city limits, but I am still in that postal area. This is also a fairly large area that straddles the county line. It would be pretty hard to not call my area part of the garner community. We still get a lot of garner names in our businesses and services.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 226

8 pages of rules, 290+ pages of precedent, forbearance, and other non rules. You can see what the rules are on their website, if you actually cared, and did not just want to attack them...

Obama care was also not rushed. If you think the Republicans did not read it you are dead wrong. The we have to pass it to see whats in it comment was talking about the populace, not congress, but again I am sure you dont care about these facts.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 630

by thaylin (#49145473) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

If the court said it would have to be CLASSIFIED as a title 2 you would have a point, but it said they would have to reclassify it. That is an apples an oranges comparison to your analogy. It is like telling congress they would have to change law. It implies they have the authority to do something.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 630

by thaylin (#49145469) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Intention and law to do something are 2 different matters. Congress never envisioned software patents in patent law, but apparently the law covers it. Just because congress did not intend for the internet to be covered does not mean the laws do not allow them to be covered. Intent rarely matters.

Comment: Re: nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 630

by thaylin (#49145461) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

It is not just about netflix, it is actually not about them at all. The ISPs have bee caught throttling competing services, such as VOIP in the past and want to keep doing it. They also want to charge for access to me, their paying customer. This is wrong. The FCC tried to fix this without title 2 but verizon stopped that, well you reap what you sow.

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?