Enjoy the internet while it is free...government will control it soon

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks to Al Gore. If it weren't for his leadership, you'd be right. The government would have control of the internet.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? I mean, actual, physical pain?

 

[Vaard]

Let's be clear here; the Republicans passed a measure that would END the so-called "net neutrality" that gave the federal government, through the FCC, control of the traffic flowing over the private networks that form the backbone of the Internet. The fascist democrats are the one demanding federal control.


Standard Disclaimer: I don't give a fuck if you're ignoring me, stupid - I will still expose your idiocy for what it is.

which part of net neutrality allows the govenrment to control internet internet traffic?

do you have a link to an actual part of the law that allows them to do that?

It doesn't. The only thing the government can do is put in a kill switch. Possibly shut down access to the main DNS servers but with all the switches and hubs that make up the phyical layer of the internet and WWW, folks (well geeks) could still access alot with IP addresses instead of names.

there is nothing i see in net neutrality the supports the claim that the fcc would be able to control the content of the internet.......

all i see in it is that internet cable providers cannot limit the access their customers have to internet content either by outright blocking those sites or reducing the speed to access those sites..... which is something i support

all these screams of "they are taking our liberty" and "giving control of the internet to the government" seem to be made out of utter ignorance of what the net neutrality law does since they cannot provide and evidence to support their claims.......


once there is some real evidence that the govenrment is trying to control internet content, i will be right there beside them protesting such action.......

 

[Vaard]

Thanks to Al Gore. If it weren't for his leadership, you'd be right. The government would have control of the internet.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? I mean, actual, physical pain?

that is pretty ironic since all your posts in this thread is arguing against something that does not exist (govenrment control of the internet)........

 

[Vaard]

this is no different that public accomidation laws that say businesses that operate in the public environment must allow all of the public access to the business........

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anyone who claims Al said that has never investigated the issue.

Lying for Algore, huh?

What a surprise.

{During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.} - Algore to Wolf Blitzer

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

But I can understand where you gush about Algore, 'cause who is likened unto him?

Gore DID create the Internet,

But more than that, Gore was technologically savvy enough to build himself a time machine, went back to February 1962, used the name J.C.R. Licklider and defined the concept of the "Galactic Network," which was the birth of the Internet.

Then Algore, our superhero went forward to October, used the names Ivan Sutherland, Bob Taylor, and Lawrence G. Roberts. Now this even further proves just how special our Algore is, because he had to use a special "molecular splitter" to assume all four of these roles at once, but nothing is too much for our Algore.

Using these four names, Algore convinced the Department of Defense (DARPA) to fund a project to determine the feasibility of his idea (as Licklider.)

(Yeah, it’s true that congress had nothing to do with any funding until 1991, but that’s a minor point, Algore was responsible for DoD funding, as you can see!)

Then he went forward to 1964, and turned himself into Leonard Kleinrock, under this name, our superhero Algore created "packet switching," alleviating the need for physical circuits.

Of course this went on for some time, Algore mounting his time machine to go to different periods and "create the Internet."

Algore the perfect, made stops as Bob Kahn, so he could create NCP, the foundation of TCP/IP. Then still being Kahn employed the help of Vint Cerf to develop TCP/IP itself.

And of course, he assumed the identity of Bob Metcalfe to develop Ethernet, the networking system the Internet and most LANs use.


Now no one is quite sure why Gore used all these different names, or why he changed his appearance. But as Gore supporters, our job is to never question. He said he created the Internet, and it's our job to show that he did, no matter how stupid we may have to be in doing so.

Maybe Algore will take credit for inventing time travel next, and release the plans for his "way back machine" to the public.

Wouldn't that be swell?

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging -- anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.

What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.

The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable.

The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane.

What's the Problem Here?
Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.

Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content.

Net Neutrality 101 | Save the Internet

 

[konradv]

Anyone who claims Al said that has never investigated the issue.

Lying for Algore, huh?

What a surprise.

{During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.} - Algore to Wolf Blitzer

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

But I can understand where you gush about Algore, 'cause who is likened unto him?

Gore DID create the Internet,

But more than that, Gore was technologically savvy enough to build himself a time machine, went back to February 1962, used the name J.C.R. Licklider and defined the concept of the "Galactic Network," which was the birth of the Internet.

Then Algore, our superhero went forward to October, used the names Ivan Sutherland, Bob Taylor, and Lawrence G. Roberts. Now this even further proves just how special our Algore is, because he had to use a special "molecular splitter" to assume all four of these roles at once, but nothing is too much for our Algore.

Using these four names, Algore convinced the Department of Defense (DARPA) to fund a project to determine the feasibility of his idea (as Licklider.)

(Yeah, it’s true that congress had nothing to do with any funding until 1991, but that’s a minor point, Algore was responsible for DoD funding, as you can see!)

Then he went forward to 1964, and turned himself into Leonard Kleinrock, under this name, our superhero Algore created "packet switching," alleviating the need for physical circuits.

Of course this went on for some time, Algore mounting his time machine to go to different periods and "create the Internet."

Algore the perfect, made stops as Bob Kahn, so he could create NCP, the foundation of TCP/IP. Then still being Kahn employed the help of Vint Cerf to develop TCP/IP itself.

And of course, he assumed the identity of Bob Metcalfe to develop Ethernet, the networking system the Internet and most LANs use.


Now no one is quite sure why Gore used all these different names, or why he changed his appearance. But as Gore supporters, our job is to never question. He said he created the Internet, and it's our job to show that he did, no matter how stupid we may have to be in doing so.

Maybe Algore will take credit for inventing time travel next, and release the plans for his "way back machine" to the public.

Wouldn't that be swell?

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging -- anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.

What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.

The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable.

The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane.

What's the Problem Here?
Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.

Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content.

Net Neutrality 101 | Save the Internet

You seem to go rather freely between 'invent' and 'create', as if they mean the same thing. He never said he "invented" the internet, but he DID have an important part in creating the internet, as we know it today. Even the REAL inventors of the internet say so.

Net builders Kahn, Cerf recognise Al Gore ? The Register

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't.

You're nuts, that's all it does.

The only thing the government can do is put in a kill switch.

Probably not.

Possibly shut down access to the main DNS servers but with all the switches and hubs that make up the phyical layer of the internet and WWW, folks (well geeks) could still access alot with IP addresses instead of names.

You're nuts, too much redundancy in DNS.

The ONLY thing this does is place legal restrictions on backbone operators, stopping them from selling prioritized traffic to business.

 

[konradv]

The ONLY thing this does is place legal restrictions on backbone operators, stopping them from selling prioritized traffic to business.

ONLY?!?! I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

ONLY?!?! I've got a bridge to sell you.

You're talking out of your ass, moron.

You have no clue what the issue is or what the technology involved does.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yes...much better to allow corporations to control what is on the Internet

The Gov't will say there is a Cyber Attack happening and shut down the Net, for our "safety and security".

But how will we know an actual attack happened other than just the Gov't saying so? Well we can verify that fact by checking out other websites around the world via the Internet!

Oh wait...

 

[konradv]

ONLY?!?! I've got a bridge to sell you.

You're talking out of your ass, moron.

You have no clue what the issue is or what the technology involved does.

I'll take Cerf's word over yours anyday. Al's the Man when it comes to the internet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Gov't will say there is a Cyber Attack happening and shut down the Net, for our "safety and security".

But how will we know an actual attack happened other than just the Gov't saying so? Well we can verify that fact by checking out other websites around the world via the Internet!

Oh wait...

From a technological standpoint, I don't know if they could. Ad hoc and point to point networks would start popping up within hours.

I still have a copy of WildCat and Procom.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll take Cerf's word over yours anyday.

Too bad you didn't take his word about Global Crossings and invest heavily.

Al's the Man when it comes to the internet.

ROFL

You're a fucking moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He Konrad - I happen to know that Shallow actually has a fair amount of technical knowledge: He is in the field.

Notice how he made himself scarce once facts started being discussed? Do you wonder why that is?

 

[rdean]

All over the Internet, right wingers are complaining that their right to be soaked for every cent they have by corporations like Verizan and Comcast is being taken away from them.

Republicans think they are fighting for "Internet Freedom" because of the clever way these companies have worded their insidious plans. The truth is, they are trying to block portions of the Internet so they can force you to pay more.

Republicans have learned to hate government so much, they assume it's the government that's the bad guy. But this is an example of corporations trying to soak the American people and government keeping it from happening. For now. Republican politicians are paid by their masters never to give up. I'm sure that they will prevail and the same base that is unknowingly screaming to PAY more will find they don't like to PAY more. Then they will say government is rotten because it didn't protect them. What a bunch of LOSERS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the signees were the CEOs of Google, Inc., Amazon.com, Netflix, Inc., Facebook, YouTube and eBay, Inc.

Senate Rejects GOP Bid To Overturn Internet Rules : NPR

The rules bar service providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling services such as Skype and Web video services such as Netflix, that could compete with their core operations. They require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content and prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing services.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/11/10/business/AP-Internet-Rules.html?_r=1

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said those trying to overturn the rules say they want to "liberate the Internet when, in fact, what they want to do is imprison the Internet within the hands of the most powerful communications entities today to act as the gatekeepers."

 

[konradv]

He Konrad - I happen to know that Shallow actually has a fair amount of technical knowledge: He is in the field.

Notice how he made himself scarce once facts started being discussed? Do you wonder why that is?

You can't prove your contention. Another example of the BIG LIE, Adolf. Don't worry, got your number, know all your tricks. Cerf also knows a thing or two about tech. Why's he wrong about Al? Your turn, if you dare, son.

 

[BlindBoo]

which part of net neutrality allows the govenrment to control internet internet traffic?

do you have a link to an actual part of the law that allows them to do that?

It doesn't. The only thing the government can do is put in a kill switch. Possibly shut down access to the main DNS servers but with all the switches and hubs that make up the phyical layer of the internet and WWW, folks (well geeks) could still access alot with IP addresses instead of names.

there is nothing i see in net neutrality the supports the claim that the fcc would be able to control the content of the internet.......

all i see in it is that internet cable providers cannot limit the access their customers have to internet content either by outright blocking those sites or reducing the speed to access those sites..... which is something i support

all these screams of "they are taking our liberty" and "giving control of the internet to the government" seem to be made out of utter ignorance of what the net neutrality law does since they cannot provide and evidence to support their claims.......


once there is some real evidence that the govenrment is trying to control internet content, i will be right there beside them protesting such action.......

I completely agree

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't prove your contention. Another example of the BIG LIE, Adolf. Don't worry, got your number, know all your tricks. Cerf also knows a thing or two about tech. Why's he wrong about Al? Your turn, if you dare, son.

Hey Konrad, what are your thoughts on the transition to IPV6? Got subnetting figured out?

LOL; blowhard.

 

[konradv]

You can't prove your contention. Another example of the BIG LIE, Adolf. Don't worry, got your number, know all your tricks. Cerf also knows a thing or two about tech. Why's he wrong about Al? Your turn, if you dare, son.

Hey Konrad, what are your thoughts on the transition to IPV6? Got subnetting figured out?

LOL; blowhard.

Changing the subject, eh? Can't deal with the fact that the REAL inventors of the internet support Gore? TYPICAL, when the tide turns against you, distract the people with an irrelevancy, the Nazi playbook through and through. What's next, genius? Poland going to attack us?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I completely agree

You know Boo; I have some concerns that Time Warner or Comcast could set the QOS for Netflix very low to safeguard their absurd and over-priced on-demand offerings. IF they did that, I would cancel service and find another ISP.

That said, no one has suggest blocking sites or services - other than Ayranna Huffington's AOL.

This talk of blocking service is crap, and you know it. The whole thing revolves around tiered service, can providers offer a higher QOS to business for UC traffic? Offer a logical reason why they shouldn't be able to? I pay $2,700 a month for a DS3, why shouldn't I be guaranteed better QOS as part of the SLA than some shlub paying $14.95 for DSL Extreme?

Your position is as absurd as demanding that government force grocery stores sell fillet for the same price as ground chuck.