Topic

fcc

5 petitions

Started 4 months ago

Petition to FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Communications Commission(FCC)

Keep Net Neutrality [Title II] we have until August 16, 2017 to speak our minds

    As of May, 18, 2017 they started the vote to retract Title II. As of now, we are in the 90 day period where we can tell the FCC our minds of why we should keep the neutrality or why we should not keep it. I am here to tell you guys why we should keep net neutrality and explain why it benefits everyone.     Title II (Net Neutrality) was passed in 2015 so users can have freedom and not worry about their providers throttling or even block connections to certain websites. As a consumer of any internet provider, we won't agree with this. There are many opinions out there of why they want their freedom and everything. If you want my opinion, I say keep Net Neutrality so providers don't just make us all in debt. A lot of us surf the web a lot and go to numerous sites that could easily tally up to an extra $300. Also, we all should have a freedom of whatever we search anyways. Why should we even pay just to access another website or even make our connections slower just because of it? It's like having Wal-Mart charge you extra for going to another competitor's store.     On the hand of dealing with data throttling, I absolutely despise it. I feel like they are being stingy and lying about their "Unlimited" idea. Sure, they aren't lying, but when you get unlimited you expect unlimited of whatever speed you got. Companies do this tactic a lot at the moment anyways, not naming any, and they get away with it. But, when you even have unlimited data and haven't even reached the cap for it to slow down and it's slow, then you have a problem. It results in the customer having an annoyance with the company by having a slow connection. Even if Title II is reversed customers won't buy from you unless if your company is Title II-like. Annual Reports Comcast Centurylink Verizon AT&T Dish Comcast: As we can see here, 2012 was their worst year in this chart. But, that was 3 years before Title II Centurylink: Title II might of affected them. I personally never had any good with Centurylink they were overall slow no matter how much MBPS they gave me. But, in this report 2012 and 2014 was their best years from 2012-2016. After 2015 they started going downhill. Verizon: In Verizon's 2016 report they show a graph of their stock performance from 2011 all the way to 2016. AT&T: If you update their graph to 10 years showing. You will see 2015 didn't affect them at all, if anything they were going back up.  Dish: As you can see from their report, they too have not been affected by the Title II. You can see they are doing perfectly fine without losing any money from it. Just like AT&T, if anything, they went up ever since 2015.     I didn't add Time-Warner since they didn't put up their 2016 annual report on their website. I could go to NASDAQ, but I want to see what these companies actually have to show. I also only shown one of the biggest internet providers that's out there.     After seeing all of this, there's not enough evidence showing how the companies have done worse ever since Title II. You would have to wait til' the end of 2018 to even determine it. So, why are we bringing it up now? We as consumers should not have to pay just to go to different websites. It's already bad enough paying for channels on cable or even buying unlimited data that has a speed cap on it that doesn't even last that long after 30 minutes of video streaming.      Everyone who signs this petition is saying "We want Title II to stay" if we get enough people to sign this petition, the FCC and the voters will most likely hear us out as a community and vote to keep the Title II. Ever since Title II has came around, I've had so much enjoyment with the internet without worrying about going to a site that might be blocked, or even my data being throttled just because they want to put me behind someone else that's paying more for internet. After, doing research on their earnings and stocks I have come to a conclusion that they just want more money when Title II gets retracted.

Anonymous Message
21 supporters
This petition won 2 years ago

Petition to Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles City Council

Halt the installation and operation of the 70' LA RICS Cell Tower planned for the LAPD Pacific Division located at 12312 Culver Blvd., Los Angeles, Ca 90066.

We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the construction of the LA RICS 70' monopole cell tower at LAPD Pacific Division. Our opposition to the Pacific Division site is based on the following concerns: 1.  HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO WIRELESS EMISSIONS While the FCC claims that wireless facilities are safe, the U.S. Department of the Interior states that “the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”  Other countries now limit public exposure almost 50 times lower than the standards currently set by the FCC. Studies have shown that even at low levels of radiation, there is evidence of biological damage, brain tumors, cancer, weakened immune function, and childhood leukemia. In May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified the type of radiation that cell towers emit as a Class 2B carcinogen, meaning “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, the same category as lead and DDT. The American Association of Pediatrics raises concerns that children may be more vulnerable than adults “because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems; in addition, their brain tissue is more conductive, radiofrequency radiation penetration is greater relative to head size, and they will have a longer lifetime of exposure than adults.” On May 11, 2015, 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations and the World Health Organization "requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk." 2. NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES The unsightliness of these installations will have a negative impact on property values.  Whether or not radiation emissions from these antennas are harmful is irrelevant.  The perceived threat alone would lower property values. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines categorize cell towers with "hazards and nuisances," and HUD requires its certified appraisers to take the presence of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of single-family residential properties.  Studies have shown that proximity to a cell tower can lower property values from 5 to 20%. 3. IF IT'S NOT DEEMED SAFE FOR FIREFIGHTERS, IT IS NOT SAFE FOR OUR CHILDREN In March 2015, the Los Angeles Firefighters Union successfully convinced the Board of Supervisors to stop the planned installation of the LA RICS cell towers at their fire stations, due to concerns for the health and safety of the firefighters.  As a result, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich wrote a motion and ordered system officials to host community meetings to address concerns about safety, costs, aesthetics and property values.  Per LA RICS, this tower is due to begin construction Friday, May 29th and of the 250 residents we've approached to date, not one was aware of the project and no community meetings were offered to address our concerns.   The residents and parents of children attending the seven schools (over 2500 children) in the immediate area, should be offered the same protection as our firefighters.   Schools Affected: Braddock Drive Elementary and Gifted Magnet  Goethe International Charter School Marina del Rey Middle School and Performing Arts Magnet Ocean Charter School St. Gerard Majella Elementary School Westside Children's Center Preschool Marina Children's Center Preschool

Stop LA RICS Towers
318 supporters