Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Are we about to lose Dinar Vets?

divemaster5734

By divemaster5734,
in Off Topic posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

divemaster5734 Grand Master

divemaster5734

Posted
Posted

The FCC is about to vote on "Net Neutrality".

The name for this is as equally misleading as the "Affordable Patient Care Act.

While there are some nice sounding objectives, the bottom line is eventual additional taxes, and more importantly, eliminating competition by providers, which will in fact establish monopolies.

 

Verizon took the feds to court, and sued them into forcing this "policy" vote.

Obama made Tom Wheeler, former top lobbyist for cable and telecoms, the new FCC Chairman.(talk about the fox guarding the hen house)

The Comcast CEO, Brian Roberts,  and Obama have even been seen golfing.(they were wearing matching pants and shirts, how cute)

Comcast has already spent over $18,000,000, (18 million), lobbying for it's passage.

I'm sure you know the big telecoms would not have sunk a penny into it if they the passage wouldn't give them a major advantage.

 

This is scheduled to be voted on 2/26/15.

Amazingly, the FCC is allowing public comment.

Here is a direct  link:

 

Please send your thoughts to [email protected]<script cf-hash='f9e31' type="text/javascript"> /* */</script>.

 

Here is a site dedicated to the fight:

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

There you will have a chance to not only file a comment to the FCC, but it will also automatically email your representatives for better impact.

 

If you are not familiar with this policy, here is a 14 minute video clip from a comedian that explains it very well in a humorous way.

 

 

 

 

The Federal Communications Commission has become famous — or infamous — for its recent proposal to adopt “net neutrality” rules. Lost in the debate is the lack of a demonstrable need for such rules, as validated by a rigorous and factually sound cost-benefit analysis.

Consumers can already access whatever Internet content, applications, and services they desire. When traffic is treated differently, such as prioritizing a voice call or video stream over an e-mail, it is part of sensible network management. And if you talk to broadband providers, they’ll tell you that this isn’t going to change. The Internet has flourished because of the government’s hands-off approach.

 

All regulations carry costs, which are inevitably passed on to consumers in one form or another. We should therefore be very concerned when an agency plans to enact new rules, especially unnecessary ones. Presidents Clinton and Obama both recognized this problem and issued executive orders requiring agencies to conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to ensure that rules are warranted and narrowly tailored to address the problem at hand. In Executive Order 13563, President Obama reaffirmed that executive agencies should “propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its cost” and must “use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” He also called upon independent agencies like the FCC to follow the same principles.

 

If the Commission fully adheres to this directive, it should refrain from imposing net-neutrality regulations unless there’s evidence of an actual problem it would address, and unless the benefits of the regulations would clearly outweigh the costs. But on the issue of net neutrality, the agency has already conceded that there is no current harm to consumers. It has even bragged that the rules would be “prophylactic.”

The FCC not only insists upon being involved in the terms and conditions offered by Internet providers, which is problematic in and of itself, it also recommends an extensive list of disclosures, reports, and certifications for providers to make. While these proposed disclosures are intended to show whether and how providers are complying with the anticipatory rules, some of them go much further. For example, broadband providers would be expected to report on every aspect of their practices and services, including metrics like jitter and packet corruption, which are unlikely to be meaningful to the average consumer. Expensive and burdensome reports that add no measurable consumer benefit are exactly the type of regulatory overreach that cost-benefit analysis is meant to prevent.

While other agencies seem to take seriously their obligation to evaluate objectively the consequences of their actions, the FCC consistently falls short. Information from the Office of Management and Budget, summarized in a 2013 report by the Administrative Conference of the United States, showed that out of 38 major rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 2007 to 2011, 37 contained some information on benefits and costs. Of these, three included monetized benefits and 19 included monetized costs. On the other hand, during that same period, the FCC issued six major rules. None included information on benefits or costs, much less monetized benefits or costs. The FCC has recently pointed to the SEC as a role model to justify certain broadcast regulations, but cost-benefit disclosure is an area where the FCC should actually follow the SEC’s lead (even as legitimate debate remains over the sufficiency of SEC’s analyses).

In its most recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on net neutrality, the FCC shirked its responsibility again. The commission’s woefully inadequate “analysis” started with an unfounded assumption that the rules would be beneficial, then proposed several pages of onerous requirements, and concluded with one meager paragraph seeking comment on how to minimize the unquantified burdens. Seeking comment on burdens is no substitute for performing an actual cost-benefit analysis, and doing so as an afterthought shows a disregard for the president’s directives.

If the FCC had actually followed Executive Order 13563, it would have found that there is no rational justification for the proposed rules, and the inquiry would have ended there. That’s because the compliance costs for ISPs would certainly outweigh the hypothetical benefits for consumers, who are not experiencing any concrete harm today. Instead, the FCC made a groundless, impassioned decision to press forward without doing the necessary work.

Fortunately, there is still time to undertake the requisite analysis. At a recent congressional hearing, commitments were finally made that the commission would comply with Executive Order 13563 in its net-neutrality rulemaking. As we move forward with this limited opportunity to give the agency comments and data on these proposals, we reiterate our call for the FCC to conduct full and proper cost-benefit analysis before adopting any final rules. The Internet is far too important to our economy and our way of life to consider any government intervention based on emotion rather than facts.

--------------

If this procedure is passed it will only be a matter of time before the costs associated with this site increase exponentially.

This in turn could force subscriber rate increases, while destroying new ventures and innovation.

Dinar Vets is easily one of my favorite sites.

I very much appreciate the constant hard work by the administrators and mods to keep this place going.

While is realize Adam would more than likely figure out a work around quickly, the potential for a substantially increased overhead is conceivable.

It isn't just about this site, every single one of you would also face higher internet access cost, as well as having only one company to chose from once the regions have been "allocated".

Every single person reading this post has an opportunity to make a difference.

It is now up to you.....Divemaster

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pattyangel Newbie

pattyangel

Posted
Posted

Mr. Captl 1, just boggles me that they are so caught up in the Party affiliation and yes I'll say it, his color. I'll vote for anyone that is for the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.  Those who are God fearing and have a moral conscious, no matter their race. 

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Newbie

Saint

Posted
Posted

Big brother is trying every way it can to get into and control the American people, then turn them against each other. LDG I agree it's getting a little closer to a Civil War so Marshall law can be enacted.  :angry: :angry:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dog53 Newbie

dog53

Posted
Posted

Get used to it.

Until the American people (True Americans)

Push back and push back hard

The GOVT will continue to trample on our freedoms.

 

Resist and disobey in mass is the order of the day.

But that aint gonna happen.

We have already lost.

Most people think that just voting republican will fix everything.

hahahahahaha

Same bird folks just a different color.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pattyangel Newbie

pattyangel

Posted
Posted (edited)

Great to see you SargeGals!!!! my heartfelt deepest condolences to you on the lost of one the finest gals.  She will be missed here at DV. 

 

Your presence is surely welcome, along with your strong conviction.  You go girls!!!!

 

Oh, and thank you gentlemen for watching my back.  :twothumbs: Negs don't bother me, its this administration that urks me.

Edited by pattyangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cranster Newbie

cranster

Posted
Posted

Get used to it.

Until the American people (True Americans)

Push back and push back hard

The GOVT will continue to trample on our freedoms.

 

Resist and disobey in mass is the order of the day.

But that aint gonna happen.

We have already lost.

Most people think that just voting republican will fix everything.

hahahahahaha

Same bird folks just a different color.

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterman13 Newbie

waterman13

Posted
Posted (edited)

***///

 

...and another +1 from us, PrettyPATTYANGEL ! :twothumbs:

 

 

...'He who steals from me steals trash...

...he who messes with my internet meets his maker!' :cowboy2:

unknown

Missed you girls sorry you are minus 1.

Lost my sister 5 days before Christmas. (only 62)

Wm13

Edited by waterman13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UNEEK Newbie

UNEEK

Posted
Posted

Missed you girls sorry you are minus 1.

Lost my sister 5 days before Christmas. (only 62)

Wm13

 

Waterman13 -- wow sorry for your loss -- I have no sisters - only 2 brothers and a very close Uncle  -  with no husband or father or son now -  I do lean on them at times --  pretty heavy  even occasionally --  Grief is a tough pain to bear -- My heart truly feels for you -  Praying that you heal and find peace & comfort to live on and love those that remain --  Blessings to you :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

    Take This Quiz

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept