How can FCC data be more useful to the public?

Do not change the Net Neutrality Act. 100% No, to tiered access.

Access should remain the same for all users. Me, you, Google, Netflix, Youtube, anyone... everyone.

180 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Not Your BusinessNot Your Business shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    9 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I wounder how many of you idiot's will be in favor of "net neutrality" when your internet speeds drop in half and your rates double this is just a perfect example on how the government getting involved in things just messes them up
        more. I say to the FCC if this is "in the publics best interests" release this document for everyone to read and put it up for vote. If the fact that they insist on hiding what they are doing dosnt raise red flags then you people are dumber than I thought.

      • Steven StaplesSteven Staples commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Yes, we want access to remain the same for all, including the speed at which that access works. I do not know why no one at the FCC is not twisting the arms of telcos and cable companies to push their services out into under and non served areas. Too many people in rural and low income areas have little to no access to broadband of any kind. What is the FCC doing? Are there any plans to verify the high speed access AT&T (I mean SBC) promised when they swallowed up BellSouth? Is an eyebrow even being raised at AT&T turning up faster and faster services in the same areas over and over again while spending exactly $0 in the rural and low income areas that pay as much or more for speeds 1/10 to 1/1000 of other areas? Where is the neutrality? Where is the level playing field?

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree that the internet which was thankfully given to us by Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, should be kept to the public so letting cable companies give access or charge or deny for that matter, freedom we were already given is not right. I am barely starting to figure out who I am and I do not want my access to the world being censored. I want to feed myself good information about what goes on around me and what's actually happening or happened. Enough of letting money and power merge because when money falls into the wrong hands, we will be sorry money ever mixed in with power in the first place. Our society is already brain washed through these media cooperation's, do we really need it happening to our only hope for seeing beyond the ideas of only a small number of people. Please do not change the Net Neutrality Act for the sake of what belongs to the people.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think the biggest problem I have with this piece legislation is that it regulated by affiliates of Comcast . this could appear to have a conflict of interest with the decision . such as similar cases with Bank of America and the financial division being regulated by one of its former members before the crash.

      • BlakeBlake commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        So where exactly do I go to show my support for a free internet that complete douche bags don't control? I personally am getting tired of greedy corporations trying to control our last free bastion and think that hackers need to go in and destroy all of their important files and ruin them.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        As I understand the proposed changes, it would make the 'playing field' un-level, intentionally.
        Many American companies began as "start-ups"--the proposed changes would hinder progress.
        Why would we do this ? Have the current "deciders" been offered lucrative employment by the few companies that would benefit ?

      • Georgia HaleGeorgia Hale commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        After moving to a rural area, I can only say that access is even harder than ever to the internet. We have a long way to go and tiering access will only make us user that are (only 15 min) out of a large metropolitan area harder. LImiting our views, slowing our speeds will place the media in the hands of a few monopolies. ATT is a good example, they no longer want to sell residential and if you are living in one of their areas (I am) you can quickly tell that this statement is true. What will be the insentive to develop in small towns? Nothing if net neutrality is allowed to move forward, the elderly, the disadvantaged, rural, and consumers of all types will suffer.

      • Judith KaiserJudith Kaiser commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Six people own the media in our country. The news is manipulated to give people only a certain type of information. i.e.: Clear Channel owns every radio station that broadcasts in the mid-west. Broadcasters who want to get out from under this domination pay companies on the East Coast to have the right to "free speech". Clear Channel fires anyone who says something they don't like. It is frightening how much control "the wealthy" have over what the populace hears. Now the internet is being taken over in the same way so the wealthy have control over the information that is available. The poor only getting a very filtered version of facts and the wealthy getting fast track information which is completely different. I think the FCC needs to do a better job protecting the truth and make sure all the people get the facts. You can start with Fox News!

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The vast majority won't even find the time to read or comprehend these things. When they are too focused on the means to pay to maintain the services for their standard of living. With so much information out there whatever time slotted for thought is squandered and limited. This dilutes the message, as well the means to address it. We get so caught up feeding the machine that we become it. With no legitimate thought to add to it's improvement.
        Yes the silent majority are going to be busy or entertained with other things. Getting the attention of these people who very well should have something to say, is the step that no one even starts to address.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base