Author Topic: Net Neutrality  (Read 5662 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Net Neutrality
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:07:17 PM »
I'm agin it.  Cuz Rush tole me so.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2014, 12:39:49 PM »
The internet should be free and even for everyone. No matter if you are a start up or fortune 500 it should be a even planning field. With Net Neutrality it will destroy the internet and let large companies rule with a iron fist!!1   

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2014, 12:06:08 PM »
Giving the track record  for what Mr.BHO wants and his past achievements I have to assume that 'Net Neutrality' is another brown paper bag with a dog turd inside. Soon to be lit on fire on the front porch of America.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2014, 12:23:23 PM »
Obama now claims he is for net neutrality.  All well and good.

So why did he appoint an industry hack, lobbyist, and former Venture Capitalist -Tom Wheeler - to be FCC Chairman last November?  Tom Wheeler supports the industry 100%, and is diametrically opposed to net neutrality.  Obama knew that, that's the reason he appointed this person in the first place.

Worse, once appointments are made, it's out of the Presidents hands.  The FCC is an independent agency.  Being FCC Chairman is not like being a Cabinet Secretary.  Policy is not directed by the Administration.

It appears that basically Obama can now claim to be for net neutrality, while having ensured the opposite. 

Another day, another deception.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2014, 12:37:46 PM »
A given, any title to a proposed act is usually executed as a 180 degree opposite of what that title is. Neutrality being the operative term  to neutralize opposing viewpoints. It will also be another you have to pass it to be able to know what is in it kind of DemocRATchik turdfest is being leveled on liberty.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2014, 12:53:59 PM »
A given, any title to a proposed act is usually executed as a 180 degree opposite of what that title is. Neutrality being the operative term  to neutralize opposing viewpoints. It will also be another you have to pass it to be able to know what is in it kind of DemocRATchik turdfest is being leveled on liberty.

Please tell me that's satire.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2014, 03:16:43 PM »
'Net Neutrality' is a tough one for me. It seems to come down to whether I want AT&T and Comcast, or the federal government,  to control what I do on the Web. No choice at all, I'm thinking, but with the former, at least the market has some chance, however slim, of working.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2014, 05:17:45 PM »
Exactly.  We're fucked both ways.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2014, 12:10:41 AM »
Exactly.  We're fucked both ways.
Actually, we are already fucked, but very few people have received the memo.  Earlier this year, the DC court of appeals ruled that the FCC does not have the power to tell cable companies that they cannot throttle content.  The problem stems from the fact that cable companies were never put under telecom rules.


"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination andanti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order." Judge David Tatel wrote for the court.

Basically, the Republicans did not want them regulated under the last FCC chairman and they were not.  Now Obama appointed a new chairman who (as noted) does not want to see them regulated.  I hold very little hope that the new law writing overlords in Washington will want to interfere in the "free enterprise" of the cable companies that Washington has supported though hand outs and tax breaks since 1901.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

Sorry to break the news to you- but until laws are passed you are at the mercy of the cable companies.  Most have promised that they will be benevolent and it will be "business as usual" (until they can find a way to turn this into the maximum amount of profit possible...)

***Oh, and by the way- you may notice that I once again place the blame squarely on the ruling party... the demopublicans as there really is only one party.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2014, 12:57:52 AM »
Giving the track record  for what Mr.BHO wants and his past achievements I have to assume that 'Net Neutrality' is another brown paper bag with a dog turd inside. Soon to be lit on fire on the front porch of America.


 ;D ;D ;D

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2015, 07:01:33 AM »
ALCON

THIS MEASSAGE BROADCAST IN CLEAR STOP

BOHICA* STOP

MESSAGE FOLLOWS STOP

And the beat goes on:

http://www.eweek.com/cloud/congress-weighs-legislation-that-would-trump-fcc-internet-proposal.html

Quote
...Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler...

Quote
Part of the problem has been that Wheeler chose not to release the actual proposal publicly and instead just sent it as an internal FCC document. Because of this, the first knowledge of what the proposal contained came from Wheeler's own statements, which given the proposal's 300-plus page length were necessarily limited.

Quote
Congress, meanwhile, is investigating the FCC chairman's actions, suspecting undue influence by the White House into the operations of a supposedly independent agency. This is because Wheeler's net neutrality plan is a lot like what President Barack Obama suggested in a speech in November.

Quote
Notably, the proposed legislation is a bipartisan bill. Both House of Representatives and Senate committees have been working on this legislation for years, and it's only now seeing the light of day following the proposed Title II action by Wheeler.

WARNING FOLLOWING LINK EMPLOYS POP-UP BS, YOU WERE WARNED STOP

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-failure-to-stop-net-neutrality-could-damage-the-gop/article/2560213

Quote
Too little, too late. That’s the feeling one gets in studying the flurry of Republican responses to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposed net neutrality rules. With the rules up for vote Feb. 26, Republicans have little time left to mount an offensive...

I just want to applaud the current administration's historic transparency, let me be clear, I cannot recall any prior administration clearly using the word clear as many times as the clearly transparent current administration.  I find myself wondering why all the fuss about transparency what is more transparent than the word "clear?"  I clearly don't understand the definition of transparent, that is crystal clear.

Now, I just wonder what sort of goodies are in the "300-plus page" document?  I suppose I need to wait for the FCC to pass it in a few days to find out...  I'm sure it's full of the unicorns, rainbows and fairy dust that we all were clearly informed of back in November.  Were the words "If you like your free speech, you can keep your free speech" included in that historic November presidential address/press breifing? 

I can't say, since like some mustachioed overnight talk show hosts, I don't listen to the current administration's clear speeches, they clearly go over my head.  I find many similarites between the current CinC and C2C, the last few years have been miserable performances, IMHO.  Let me be clear that I am saying I don't understand transparency, and this frightens me a bit.

Are we clear on this or do we need a Scientologist to explain the inner workings of this impending doomcument/regulation about to be foisted upon us? 

BE AFRAID BREAK BE VERY AFRAID STOP

ENDTRANS STOP STOP STOP

edit: To be Clear, let me say that, clearly, everyone should know: *BOHICA=Bend Over Here It Comes Again




Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2015, 03:33:50 PM »
i used to think i knew what "net neutrality" meant.  now i have no idea.  the term should just go away.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2015, 10:58:10 PM »
i used to think i knew what "net neutrality" meant.  now i have no idea...

The Obama Administration spinners and their Big Media accomplices have done their job. 

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2015, 12:11:21 AM »
Considering how this character Obama pushed for a personal internet "kill switch" and though that didn't pass (the government already has that power anyway apparently due to Communications Act of 1934 etc) and the idea to give up internet domain naming to more global entities I'm very suspect of this "net neutrality" stuff.  Granted in the ideal world a decent idea but at least the "evil" corporations have some competition and can fail, whereas short of a revolution, world war, etc the government, especially under the aegis of a person with clear animosity towards the country or at least many of the people, having total control over the internet is more disturbing than me having to deal with whether to go with google or time-warner ot at&t; as odious as they are.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2015, 12:52:20 AM »
I'd like to know exactly, um, what are the ISP's doing that's restricting us? I mean, I don't see any restriction. I can go wherever the hell I want on the internet and there I am. What exactly is the problem here that needs fixing?

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2015, 08:09:59 AM »
I'd like to know exactly, um, what are the ISP's doing that's restricting us? I mean, I don't see any restriction. I can go wherever the hell I want on the internet and there I am. What exactly is the problem here that needs fixing?

The problem is that, without regulation, the slimeball politicians can't use the Internet to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2015, 08:14:26 AM »
The problem is that, without regulation, the slimeball politicians can't use the Internet to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
Exactly.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2015, 09:12:59 AM »
A given, any title to a proposed act is usually executed as a 180 degree opposite of what that title is. Neutrality being the operative term  to neutralize opposing viewpoints. It will also be another you have to pass it to be able to know what is in it kind of DemocRATchik turdfest is being leveled on liberty.
Orwell is going "Oh, crap.  Not again."  Shouldn't a new agency, The Ministry for a Good and Just Internet, be created to administer this delightful creation?  ::)

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2015, 11:21:15 AM »
I'd like to know exactly, um, what are the ISP's doing that's restricting us? I mean, I don't see any restriction. I can go wherever the hell I want on the internet and there I am. What exactly is the problem here that needs fixing?
From what I've read recently, in the next few years net backbone technology will move to the next tech generation; the number of connections will expand radically along with gaining much higher bandwidth. The big ISPs like Comcast and T-W can and will use this technology to selectively throttle bandwidth to increase revenue.  You may not see it directly in your home net service bill, but the big users like Netflix and Amazon and MV will pay large premiums for access to higher bandwidth pipes they need, and those costs will be passed directly to consumers.  What the FCC is proposing is little different from what FERC does to prevent gas pipelines from throttling flow to force rates up in winter.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2015, 11:37:48 AM »
From what I've read recently, in the next few years net backbone technology will move to the next tech generation; the number of connections will expand radically along with gaining much higher bandwidth. The big ISPs like Comcast and T-W can and will use this technology to selectively throttle bandwidth to increase revenue.  You may not see it directly in your home net service bill, but the big users like Netflix and Amazon and MV will pay large premiums for access to higher bandwidth pipes they need, and those costs will be passed directly to consumers.  What the FCC is proposing is little different from what FERC does to prevent gas pipelines from throttling flow to force rates up in winter.
Which would seem counter-intuitive (if next generation going to be so much more bandwidth than why throttle it at all except as you mention a way to black-mail companies.) Having said that I'm a little surprised that "progressives" are against forcing large corporations like , Netflix, Amazon, Google etc to pay more of a "fair share." They didn't built it so why not make them pay?

If Obama's minions decree for Net Neutrality was so simply it wouldn't take +300pages and they would testify or at least let the public read the document before the royal decree.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2015, 11:51:21 AM »
From what I've read recently, in the next few years net backbone technology will move to the next tech generation; the number of connections will expand radically along with gaining much higher bandwidth. The big ISPs like Comcast and T-W can and will use this technology to selectively throttle bandwidth to increase revenue.  You may not see it directly in your home net service bill, but the big users like Netflix and Amazon and MV will pay large premiums for access to higher bandwidth pipes they need, and those costs will be passed directly to consumers.  What the FCC is proposing is little different from what FERC does to prevent gas pipelines from throttling flow to force rates up in winter.

I understand that part, but it just seems premature especially in light of how contentious the issue is. It also seems rather far reaching in that there are tons of reports out there of potential unintended consequences of the regulation.

I'm not against regulation and treating necessities as utilities--I for one would love to see this kind of regulation imposed on the oil industry--but this one just doesn't ring as necessary yet.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2015, 12:39:25 PM »
--but this one just doesn't ring as necessary yet.
By the time the big ISPs impose the fees it will be too late.  Comcast and the others aren't spending tens of millions lobbying for their love of humanity and free speech.  The corporations are trying to paint it as some kind of govt. intrusion, and thats BS.  Its no different from the regulation of pipelines and your land phone line. But never mind; they'll own us all in the name of liberty and free markets soon anyway.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2015, 02:29:56 AM »
By the time the big ISPs impose the fees it will be too late.  Comcast and the others aren't spending tens of millions lobbying for their love of humanity and free speech.  The corporations are trying to paint it as some kind of govt. intrusion, and thats BS.  Its no different from the regulation of pipelines and your land phone line. But never mind; they'll own us all in the name of liberty and free markets soon anyway.

Well, free markets are out the window in that in a free market these ISP's are using equipment that they've invested in. We're not talking about pumping oil out of the ground or gas. We're talking about an entirely technological entity, i.e. the internet. That established, we're also talking about costs. Alright, Netflix costs me $9 a month. Cable costs me around $100. The market can't handle a predicted rise of a few bucks for Netflix? What function does Netflix serve: entirely entertainment. This isn't heating a house, it's simply providing TV content. That's why I say it seems premature, why would you pre-regulate something, with apparently much further reaching implications than just controlling ISP bandwidth cost, this early?

It makes no sense as far as I can tell. You're attacking one sector of corporatism in defense of . . . Amazon and Netflix's running costs. They're also enormous corporations. I just don't see how that makes sense, given the controversy over this issue.


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2015, 07:20:50 AM »
I'm having a hard time finding a real reason to oppose this change. Ars Technica has a good article about it:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2015, 08:22:39 AM »
I'm having a hard time finding a real reason to oppose this change...

I wuz hoping twas a todo over nuthin.

Thanx fer settin' mynds at ease...



completely disregard and delete this whole misunderstanding, I beg you!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2015, 10:02:07 AM »
More grist for the mill.
Nice article explaining how some ISPs are playing both sides of Title II Regulations, and how they double dip to profit. Some tidbits of the article below.

This Is How Verizon Bullshits You
 Posted 02/26/2015 at 8:05pm | by Tuan Nguyen

... "The carriers, like Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc., are all claiming that the new FCC net neutrality rules based on Title II Regulations, will "hurt" and "stifle" Internet innovation for future generations. In fact, Verizon went as far as releasing a press release in Morse code to mock how the FCC is using a dated rule from the 1930's to regulate modern technology." ...

... "This is amusing because Verizon previously forced its hand through the FCC by saying it is a common carrier under Title II Regulations. In fact, it's not recent at all. According to a extremely detailed PULP report on Verizon, the carrier has been using Title II Regulations on and off, depending on its business needs. Verizon flip-flops between saying that it's a heavily regulated network or a deregulated service provider. In a report by The Verge, Verizon's own documents say:"

"As noted, Verizon NJ has been upgrading substantial portions of its telecommunications network with FTTP technology as a common carrier pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934..."
...

... "Verizon uses Title II to gain common carrier benefits, such as regulated lower prices, for when it wants to push out infrastructure and dip its hands into tax dollars for the build-outs, but shams Title II for when it wants to throttle broadband speeds so that it can siphon money from content providers--all after the Verizon customer has already paid for the access" ...

http://www.maximumpc.com/fcc_tom_wheeler_net_neutrality_verizon_2015

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2015, 10:17:46 AM »
Government controlled internet. Gee, what could possibly go wrong??

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2015, 10:18:36 AM »
I'm having a hard time finding a real reason to oppose this change. Ars Technica has a good article about it:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/
You have to go back to 10th Grade and reread "Atlas Shrugged" with the naivete of a 15 year old to see the evil in it.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2015, 11:10:50 AM »
That one made me sleepy...


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2015, 04:23:28 AM »
You have to go back to 10th Grade and reread "Atlas Shrugged" with the naivete of a 15 year old to see the evil in it.

A+ for Effort, but E-1 for delivery.  My non-math mynd gif's that n F-...