On August 21st, 2014, Mayor Jere Wood of Roswell, Georgia, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing emphatic support for Comcast’s controversial effort to merge with Time Warner Cable. Not only did the mayor’s letter express personal excitement for the gargantuan deal — which critics say will create a monopoly that will harm millions of consumers — but it also claimed that the entire town of Roswell adored Comcast. "When Comcast makes a promise to act, it is comforting to know that they will always follow through," Wood's letter explained. "This is the type of attitude that makes Roswell proud to be involved with such a company," the letter asserts, "our residents are happy with the services it has provided and continues to provide each day.”
Yet Wood’s letter made one key omission: Neither Wood nor anyone representing Roswell’s residents wrote his letter to the FCC. Instead, a vice president of external affairs at Comcast authored the missive word for word in Mayor Wood's voice. According to email correspondence obtained through a public records request, the Republican mayor’s office apparently added one sign-off sentence and his signature to the corporate PR document, then sent it to federal regulators on the official letterhead of Roswell, Georgia.
On August 21st, 2014, Mayor Jere Wood of Roswell, Georgia, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing emphatic support for Comcast’s controversial effort to merge with Time Warner Cable. Not only did the mayor’s letter express personal excitement for the gargantuan deal — which critics say will create a monopoly that will harm millions of consumers — but it also claimed that the entire town of Roswell adored Comcast. "When Comcast makes a promise to act, it is comforting to know that they will always follow through," Wood's letter explained. "This is the type of attitude that makes Roswell proud to be involved with such a company," the letter asserts, "our residents are happy with the services it has provided and continues to provide each day.”
Yet Wood’s letter made one key omission: Neither Wood nor anyone representing Roswell’s residents wrote his letter to the FCC. Instead, a vice president of external affairs at Comcast authored the missive word for word in Mayor Wood's voice. According to email correspondence obtained through a public records request, the Republican mayor’s office apparently added one sign-off sentence and his signature to the corporate PR document, then sent it to federal regulators on the official letterhead of Roswell, Georgia.
The caller was a pollster, who asked a dozen or so questions related to the local government's plan to build a broadband network. The questions became increasingly annoying. Then came the kicker: "Should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?" the caller asked.
I'd like to believe that that poll backfired really badly when nearly 100% of respondents replied "boy howdy, do I! Hot damn, I didn't even know that was an option!"
+14
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I'd like to believe that that poll backfired really badly when nearly 100% of respondents replied "boy howdy, do I! Hot damn, I didn't even know that was an option!"
Well with Comcasts new bundle package you can get -all- the options *winks*
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to redefine broadband as "internet which is actually fast enough to use." Now, in order to call its service broadband, companies will need to guarantee download speeds of 25 megabits per second or faster and upload speeds of 3 Mbps or faster. This is really, really good news.
This decision might seem arbitrary at first. After all, the FCC is just changing the definition of broadband—it's not actually forcing internet service providers to speed up connections. That's inevitably what this new policy should accomplish, however. Think about it this way: If a company can't call its service broadband, everybody will know that it's slow. So if they want to stay competitive, they'll have to guarantee faster speeds.
The new policy will benefit those in rural areas and tribal most. About half of Americans in rural areas don't have access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up speeds, meaning that they can't take advantage of a lot of the internet's best goodies
+27
Options
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to redefine broadband as "internet which is actually fast enough to use." Now, in order to call its service broadband, companies will need to guarantee download speeds of 25 megabits per second or faster and upload speeds of 3 Mbps or faster. This is really, really good news.
This decision might seem arbitrary at first. After all, the FCC is just changing the definition of broadband—it's not actually forcing internet service providers to speed up connections. That's inevitably what this new policy should accomplish, however. Think about it this way: If a company can't call its service broadband, everybody will know that it's slow. So if they want to stay competitive, they'll have to guarantee faster speeds.
The new policy will benefit those in rural areas and tribal most. About half of Americans in rural areas don't have access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up speeds, meaning that they can't take advantage of a lot of the internet's best goodies
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to redefine broadband as "internet which is actually fast enough to use." Now, in order to call its service broadband, companies will need to guarantee download speeds of 25 megabits per second or faster and upload speeds of 3 Mbps or faster. This is really, really good news.
This decision might seem arbitrary at first. After all, the FCC is just changing the definition of broadband—it's not actually forcing internet service providers to speed up connections. That's inevitably what this new policy should accomplish, however. Think about it this way: If a company can't call its service broadband, everybody will know that it's slow. So if they want to stay competitive, they'll have to guarantee faster speeds.
The new policy will benefit those in rural areas and tribal most. About half of Americans in rural areas don't have access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up speeds, meaning that they can't take advantage of a lot of the internet's best goodies
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to redefine broadband as "internet which is actually fast enough to use." Now, in order to call its service broadband, companies will need to guarantee download speeds of 25 megabits per second or faster and upload speeds of 3 Mbps or faster. This is really, really good news.
This decision might seem arbitrary at first. After all, the FCC is just changing the definition of broadband—it's not actually forcing internet service providers to speed up connections. That's inevitably what this new policy should accomplish, however. Think about it this way: If a company can't call its service broadband, everybody will know that it's slow. So if they want to stay competitive, they'll have to guarantee faster speeds.
The new policy will benefit those in rural areas and tribal most. About half of Americans in rural areas don't have access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up speeds, meaning that they can't take advantage of a lot of the internet's best goodies
That actually makes U-verse not broadband around here, because they only offer 1.5 Mbps up (despite having well over 25 down).
In other news, looks like Thursday is the big day.
On Thursday, Wheeler is expected to present to the commission a set of rules that would treat broadband providers like utilities, effectively denying them the right to charge companies a premium for faster access to consumers and holding them accountable for any attempt to secretly impede the flow of data. When the commission finally approves them — a vote is scheduled for late February — it will mark the most significant rewrite of the rules of the road for the Internet in more than a dozen years and affect the competitive playing field for generations to come.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to redefine broadband as "internet which is actually fast enough to use." Now, in order to call its service broadband, companies will need to guarantee download speeds of 25 megabits per second or faster and upload speeds of 3 Mbps or faster. This is really, really good news.
This decision might seem arbitrary at first. After all, the FCC is just changing the definition of broadband—it's not actually forcing internet service providers to speed up connections. That's inevitably what this new policy should accomplish, however. Think about it this way: If a company can't call its service broadband, everybody will know that it's slow. So if they want to stay competitive, they'll have to guarantee faster speeds.
The new policy will benefit those in rural areas and tribal most. About half of Americans in rural areas don't have access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up speeds, meaning that they can't take advantage of a lot of the internet's best goodies
That actually makes U-verse not broadband around here, because they only offer 1.5 Mbps up (despite having well over 25 down).
In other news, looks like Thursday is the big day.
On Thursday, Wheeler is expected to present to the commission a set of rules that would treat broadband providers like utilities, effectively denying them the right to charge companies a premium for faster access to consumers and holding them accountable for any attempt to secretly impede the flow of data. When the commission finally approves them — a vote is scheduled for late February — it will mark the most significant rewrite of the rules of the road for the Internet in more than a dozen years and affect the competitive playing field for generations to come.
At least until a company sues them and the Supreme Court overturns all this.
If you read the article, this is a case-by-case-basis which requires a specific petition, and in the two cases the ISPs were already in operation when the limiting laws were put into place. The powers are explicitly granted to the FCC by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. So doesn't seem like there's much basis for challenge. The important thing for this one is established precedent.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just voted to redefine broadband as "internet which is actually fast enough to use." Now, in order to call its service broadband, companies will need to guarantee download speeds of 25 megabits per second or faster and upload speeds of 3 Mbps or faster. This is really, really good news.
This decision might seem arbitrary at first. After all, the FCC is just changing the definition of broadband—it's not actually forcing internet service providers to speed up connections. That's inevitably what this new policy should accomplish, however. Think about it this way: If a company can't call its service broadband, everybody will know that it's slow. So if they want to stay competitive, they'll have to guarantee faster speeds.
The new policy will benefit those in rural areas and tribal most. About half of Americans in rural areas don't have access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up speeds, meaning that they can't take advantage of a lot of the internet's best goodies
Call me a cynic, but expect all branding to switch from "broadband" to "high-speed" or some other term that doesn't run afoul of the FCC definition.
At least until a company sues them and the Supreme Court overturns all this.
If you read the article, this is a case-by-case-basis which requires a specific petition, and in the two cases the ISPs were already in operation when the limiting laws were put into place. The powers are explicitly granted to the FCC by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. So doesn't seem like there's much basis for challenge. The important thing for this one is established precedent.
The big losers for the broadband re-definition are the big DSL providers like AT&T and Verizon. The cable companies have no problem offering 25/3 service on their current networks, especially if they're on DOCSIS 3 for the last-mile services.
The real fun for cable operators begins in 4-5 years when the definition gets bumped again to 100/10 or something. 100mbps is possible on current technology, but it will require a significant back-end investment to deliver that to everyone.
Also, these definitions are apparently tied to a number of tax credits and federal subsidies, hence why AT&T and Verizon are upset about it.
The big losers for the broadband re-definition are the big DSL providers like AT&T and Verizon. The cable companies have no problem offering 25/3 service on their current networks, especially if they're on DOCSIS 3 for the last-mile services.
The real fun for cable operators begins in 4-5 years when the definition gets bumped again to 100/10 or something. 100mbps is possible on current technology, but it will require a significant back-end investment to deliver that to everyone.
Also, these definitions are apparently tied to a number of tax credits and federal subsidies, hence why AT&T and Verizon are upset about it.
I just want to say regarding the bold: Good.
destroyah87 on
+19
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Someone must've body snatched Tom Wheeler because he was -not- this consumer friendly about a year ago.
The Comcast/Timewarner merger seems to be falling apart too.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Someone must've body snatched Tom Wheeler because he was -not- this consumer friendly about a year ago.
The Comcast/Timewarner merger seems to be falling apart too.
I want to say it's because he educated himself on the consequences and ramifications of ridding the US of Net Neutrality, and the effect it would have on consumers, local governments, and anyone else who doesn't have billions of dollars in their coffers.
More than likely someone made some vague connection to China and national security or someone higher than him told him his constituency would be soo pissed if he did it.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Someone must've body snatched Tom Wheeler because he was -not- this consumer friendly about a year ago.
He's just really really desperate to prove that he's not a dingo.
Quite frankly, it's the end results that matter, so I don't care whether it's some trumped up stupid reason or if he's seen the light. If they keep making decisions like these, it's all fine by me.
Someone must've body snatched Tom Wheeler because he was -not- this consumer friendly about a year ago.
He's just really really desperate to prove that he's not a dingo.
Didn't Obama say he was going to take a more active hand in the FCC's work a few months ago? And we were all like, pishaw, yeah right?
"Tom, in case you didn't know, as President I get six secret assassinations--no questions asked--from the CIA. Per term. So the question is this: Do you feel lucky, punk?"
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+7
Options
FaranguI am a beardy manWith a beardy planRegistered Userregular
Wheeler immediately calls his bluff because Boehner, McConnell and Cruz are still breathing
Wheeler takes newfound confidence, starts with the broadband redefinition
Obama sits back, says "when you've done something right, people can't tell if you've done anything at all", lights Cuban stogie
Posts
Writing letters to other telcos asking nicely for a job once he's done at the FCC.
I initially read that as George III and was all, damn, that's some timely satire.
I'm half thinking this is Biden and his cozy relationship to copyright bullshit too.
If this goes in favor of the ISPs, it will never EVER change back.
You think that's deceptive?
http://www.androidauthority.com/political-lobbying-broadband-390472/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/gigafight
Well with Comcasts new bundle package you can get -all- the options *winks*
All of my dicks
"...only mights and maybes."
Now in HD because of better download speeds.
That actually makes U-verse not broadband around here, because they only offer 1.5 Mbps up (despite having well over 25 down).
In other news, looks like Thursday is the big day.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-114785.html?hp=t2_r
God yes.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fcc-says-your-city-can-build-a-public-internet-even-if-your-state-says-no
FCC is doin good stuff.
At least until a company sues them and the Supreme Court overturns all this.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
If you read the article, this is a case-by-case-basis which requires a specific petition, and in the two cases the ISPs were already in operation when the limiting laws were put into place. The powers are explicitly granted to the FCC by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. So doesn't seem like there's much basis for challenge. The important thing for this one is established precedent.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Call me a cynic, but expect all branding to switch from "broadband" to "high-speed" or some other term that doesn't run afoul of the FCC definition.
Like precedent a thing to the current SC.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Unless you live in the 98% of the country that only has 1 ISP.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The real fun for cable operators begins in 4-5 years when the definition gets bumped again to 100/10 or something. 100mbps is possible on current technology, but it will require a significant back-end investment to deliver that to everyone.
Also, these definitions are apparently tied to a number of tax credits and federal subsidies, hence why AT&T and Verizon are upset about it.
I just want to say regarding the bold: Good.
The Comcast/Timewarner merger seems to be falling apart too.
I want to say it's because he educated himself on the consequences and ramifications of ridding the US of Net Neutrality, and the effect it would have on consumers, local governments, and anyone else who doesn't have billions of dollars in their coffers.
More than likely someone made some vague connection to China and national security or someone higher than him told him his constituency would be soo pissed if he did it.
He's just really really desperate to prove that he's not a dingo.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Quite frankly, it's the end results that matter, so I don't care whether it's some trumped up stupid reason or if he's seen the light. If they keep making decisions like these, it's all fine by me.
Didn't Obama say he was going to take a more active hand in the FCC's work a few months ago? And we were all like, pishaw, yeah right?
"Tom, in case you didn't know, as President I get six secret assassinations--no questions asked--from the CIA. Per term. So the question is this: Do you feel lucky, punk?"
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Wheeler takes newfound confidence, starts with the broadband redefinition
Obama sits back, says "when you've done something right, people can't tell if you've done anything at all", lights Cuban stogie
Chicago Megagame group
Watch me struggle to learn streaming! Point and laugh!
I feel like this would make a good plot for a multimillion view Youtube video.
Add in Hitler screaming at the end and you're golden.
"Video is not Available in your Country"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126