Posted on 01/25/2018 8:58:43 PM PST by ransomnote
+1
Well said.
“Q” is a massive waste of time.
(((
Yet here you are reading a thread about him. Why are you wasting your time?
Congress makes the law, and passes details to a regulatory agency.
#######################################
Thanx. That’s what I didn’t know: if it needed legislation.
__________________________________
FCC regulates telecom, because telecom is viewed as a monopoly. Consumers generally have only one company hanging phone lines.
#################
In my area, there are several companies, one huge, a couple tiny. I live in a spot served only by the monster (Frontier), which has horrid bandwidth, is not helpful and over charges. One of the tiny ones has extended service in a pattern that leaves us in a hole. A couple of weeks ago, the upstart asked us to send a letter in support of their extension (we have a small home business) because they are applying for a grant to increase the extension (I’m tech-deficient and not clear on whether this is actual lines or a cell tower). We have our fingers crossed. As it stands, we need to travel 15 miles to a library served also by Frontier, but with moderately better upload/download times. Configuring new computers/software or getting updates is a nightmare.
I believe FCC is paying attention to rural service.
ransomnote has posted this:
Please email me to get on or off the Ping list. I am likely to overlook such requests if they are posted in the forum.
I believe this is referring to (2) issues: (1) AT&T just signed a billion dollar deal with the NSC; (2) Q's reference to an “Internet Bill of Rights.”
I believe Q is suggesting that NSA white hats are pressuring AT&T to sign onto an Internet Bill of Rights, which would do the exact opposite of “Net Neutrality.” NN was a fraud because it allowed ISPs (such as AT&T) to be “neutral” but allowed edge or content providers like FB, Twitter, Youtube, etc to discriminate against conservative, Christian and libertarian content.
The proposed “Internet Bill of Rights” would require both ISP providers (AT&T) as well as content providers to be truly neutral. I think Q is suggesting that a big part of AT&T landing this deal with the NSA was it's presumed agreement to pursue this Bill of Rights.
I don't know if pulling Google and FB and other social media into the sphere of federal regulation requires legislation, or if the regulatory agency can either "rulemake" or "rule interpret" them in.
There is considerable complexity too. The issues include pricing, transparency, and tend to avoid the issue of content. The players include the regulator, the legislator, and the court.
The news monopoly isn't regulated for content, by way of example, other than some fairly weak "equal time" when it comes to political campaigns.
To your fundamental question, there is no way to know if some sort of content regulation requires legislation, or if the legislation would survive court challenge. Typically, those questions are answered by "doing it," and seeing where the chips eventually fall. No matter how the change is implemented (by regulation first, or by legislation first), the rule and the statute will be challenged in court. Meanwhile, some people spend their time analyzing hypothetical futures considering what they know about the legal and procedural frameworks.
Good explanation. Thanks. I do know that AT&T is the hardware and delivery side; I’m not so familiar with their business as a retailer of ISP.
The old timers should recall Quidam
Same crap. Different scandals
Tsunamis and men in suits that never materialized
Investing false hope. Chasing shadows.
Good analysis. Still waiting for my brain to adjust and hoping it can.
Meanwhile, I see your HI Q and raise you one haiQ
Clouds gather gloomy
Crushing joy but hope Trumps fear
The knight slays evil
Good description. Having raised 4 children, I can tell you your description sounds somewhat like being a parent. :)
Don’t become discouraged, FRiend. You are doing important work.
d’etre
Think of Nostradamus. Just one vague quatrain after another, and then if something happens in the future, you can go back and find something that sort of resembles whatever occurred. It's akin to seeing shapes in clouds.
Yes, I agree Jocko. Cause they speak the same language. The language of men (no disrespect, ladies). It must be refreshing for old Vladimir. I bet the Donald both cracks him up and scares him a bit. As he should.
(((
Great description.
And your comment is not disrespectful to women; men and women are not interchangeable in many characteristics.
I’ve also seen it compared to the cold readings John Edward does.
Have you become a believer in the authenticity of Q-Anon stuff?
Congrats on your overcoming, perspective & skills. God’s best to you and those you love.
Thanks more than I can express. We BOTH (maybe particularly Qx) needed your encouragement just now. Greatly appreciated. God’s best to you and those you love, too.
Right. Thanks. Wasn’t paying sufficient attention to what I was typing.
You noticed. Congrats. So many don’t in this era—or pretend not to notice the differences between men and women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.