Of course they are. Anyone that thought that the recent ruling meant that the FCC can't regulate providers of broadband was fooling themselves. The only real question is why the FCC didn't just do this in the first place, and save themselves the hassle of losing in the Comcast case.
[citation][nom]Clintonio[/nom]*Queue idiots claiming this is 'unconstitutional'*[/citation]
It's not that it's unconstitutional it's rather that it's the FCC doing it and frankly the FCC is one of the least liked federal regulation bodies.
On Thursday the FCC is expected to reveal its roadmap for regulating broadband in attempt to maintain net neutrality. The plan is expected to change the way the FCC defines broadband without adding additional regulations
The point is the FCC CANNOT tell Comcast not to throtle, so now their trying to tell Comcast that it falls under a differing set of regulations, then the FCC will tell Comcast not to throtle again, then we'll go back to court...
Why should we be subject to throttling and limited information access when the freedom of information act has already passed? Moreover, why should certain sites be blocked simply because they share data? I was under the impression we had these "unalienable rights"? That really means something you know, when not even profits and "morals" get in the way of our right to say, see, hear and feel what we want. This country has descended so far.
[citation][nom]babybeluga[/nom]Christ, you're an idiot. I could say the same sarcastic crap about the last 43 Presidents.[/citation]
Christ?? He is the Savior of the world.. what the does he have to do with High Speed internet?? And correct me If wrong, but Obama and Bush are just the opposite side of the COIN... Last time we had a Real President he was killed in the 60s.
This is not unconstitutional. The regulation before was unconstitutional. This one merely requires things labeled as "broadband" to adhere to standards. Cable companies can call it something completely different if they want to get around this. Like "High Speed Internet".
The thing about Net Nuetrality is that it does the opposite of what its name sake is. The reason why people fight this tooth and nail is because tech is the most unregulated major industry in the US, and its the most profitable for a reason. Adding regulation, any regulation will have negative effects on such a free-market ecosystem. I don't think anyone wants to pay for new regulations that promote fair use.
I think the question is if its positive change. We have gotten to the point where every major industry has thousands to hundreds of thousands of regulations that no business can plausibly adhere to. I think the most positive change that a new bill can bring along is burning the books on regulation and starting with a clean sheet.