Enter the Age of Censorship, FCC circumvents Congress to classify internet as Public Utility

[Uncensored2008]

Oh no that layer is where the work of the internet is actually done. Streaming bits from one device to another........Rubber, road. Not a hard concept. Unless of course you have a different goal.

So, routing of packets would occur at the physical layer?

Impact of FCC ruling, not a hard concept...

 

[bendog]

I'm sure you don't which is why you're a partisan joke. It's all good for providers to charge consumers surcharges to not intentionally slow down service. Of course you support that.

You don't even know the difference between the ISP and the Network providers. This ruling does nothing to change your ISP, who can still charge your for tiers of service.

cyber quarter, you're welcome

Net neutrality vs. tiered services Network World

 

[The2ndAmendment]

When has FCC censored anything?
You know that, right?

It hasn't been able to, it can now, that's the point.

Ah, so it comes from the speculation fallacy of your own as-we-know-by-now unhinged imagination.

Four.

A big powerful government is as dangerous as a big powerful corporation.

Actually it's worse because we have to give our money to the government or they can take everything you own and put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes.

It's even worse than that. The Government has Sovereign Immunity, you can't even sue them unless they allow you to.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, your entire position becomes bullshit when we admit that some content providers have been throttled. Let's be honest, Comcast and Time Warner don't really care about bandwidth issues. They care that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and the like are cutting into their cable profits. So they want to charge for it.

Your post has to be one of the stupidest posts ever put on the board. Network providers don't care about bandwidth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't have a fucking clue what any of this is about.

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

 

[Skylar]

When has FCC censored anything?
You know that, right?

It hasn't been able to, it can now, that's the point.

Ah, so it comes from the speculation fallacy of your own as-we-know-by-now unhinged imagination.

Four.

A big powerful government is as dangerous as a big powerful corporation.

Actually it's worse because we have to give our money to the government or they can take everything you own and put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes.

It's even worse than that. The Government has Sovereign Immunity, you can't even sue them unless they allow you to.

What exactly are you accusing the government of? So far, I've heard endless babble about 'big government' and how 'dangerous' it is. But when I ask you what censorship you're referring to....

......you've got nothing.

Is there anything to your rhetoric but vague innuendo and bumperstick slogans?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you?

Are you going to tell me, straight from a Soros hate site?

LOL

This should be rich!

It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

Well isn't that special.

Of course you do appear a bit confused by basic terms...

ISP - Internet Service Provider: This is your local hook up, cable company or Earthlink, AOL, etc.

Network Operator (or provider): These are the people behind the scenes, running a NOC or "network operations center" where the ISP connects so that the local customer has access to the backbone that connects regional networks together.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Net neutrality prevents a farce? A figment of the imagination of ignorant fools?

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

While you have no grasp of what an ISP is or what a network does, your are even less cognizant of what the issue that the original net neutrality claimed it would solve. I see BlindFool has run off once I brought up the OSI model and QOS. Apparently he actually does have some idea what these are and couldn't spew idiocy the way you do.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

You're an ignorant fool without a hint of a clue what you're talking about. You are spewing idiocy for partisan purposes and don't even grasp what a fool you make of yourself.

 

[Skylar]

While you have no grasp of what an ISP is or what a network does, your are even less cognizant of what the issue that the original net neutrality claimed it would solve. I see BlindFool has run off once I brought up the OSI model and QOS. Apparently he actually does have some idea what these are and couldn't spew idiocy the way you do.

Then explain how we're wrong. Notice in all your delightfully and intentionally vague insults, you don't actually disagree with me.

Try again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then explain how we're wrong. Notice in all your delightfully and intentionally vague insults, you don't actually disagree with me.

Try again.

1. You don't even know the question - yet think the Soros hate sites gave you the right answer
2. You don't know the difference between an ISP and a network operator
3. You don't know the difference between packet optimization and throttling.
4. You have no idea what QOS is or does

You argue from a position of abject ignorance based on your partisanship. You have not a hint of a clue about what is going on.

 

[Skylar]

Then explain how we're wrong. Notice in all your delightfully and intentionally vague insults, you don't actually disagree with me.

Try again.

1. You don't even know the question - yet think the Soros hate sites gave you the right answer
2. You don't know the difference between an ISP and a network operator
3. You don't know the difference between packet optimization and throttling.
4. You have no idea what QOS is or does

You argue from a position of abject ignorance based on your partisanship. You have not a hint of a clue about what is going on.

Then explain it to us. You claim to be the expert. You claim that no such thing as Net Neutrality actually exists.

Make your case.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then explain it to us. You claim to be the expert. You claim that no such thing as Net Neutrality actually exists.

Make your case.

I already did, you just didn't understand it or it failed to meet with your political agenda.

 

[Skylar]

Then explain it to us. You claim to be the expert. You claim that no such thing as Net Neutrality actually exists.

Make your case.

I already did, you just didn't understand it or it failed to meet with your political agenda.

No, you just made a variety of claims about me. You lean almost exclusively on personal insult. You didn't touch the actual issues, or explain how net neutrality doesn't exist, or explain how things 'actually' work.

If you're the expert, explain it. If you can't, then you can hardly expect to convince anyone but your fellow partisans. And they don't ask questions anyway.

 

[idb]

Then explain it to us. You claim to be the expert. You claim that no such thing as Net Neutrality actually exists.

Make your case.

I already did, you just didn't understand it or it failed to meet with your political agenda.

No, you just made a variety of claims about me. You lean almost exclusively on personal insult. You didn't touch the actual issues, or explain how net neutrality doesn't exist, or explain how things 'actually' work.

If you're the expert, explain it. If you can't, then you can hardly expect to convince anyone but your fellow partisans. And they don't ask questions anyway.

Watch him slip into semantic arguments over technical jargon.

 

[bripat9643]

[

"Free to air" radio and television broadcasts are subject to FCC regulation for indecency. This does not apply to paid radio, cable TV, or the internet.

You don't know that. The FCC now has the authority to do anything they please. With the Internet classified a public medium, they have just as much ability to regulate for decency standards as they do on broadcast TV.

How do they justify calling it a "public medium" when every part of it is privately owned?

 

[bripat9643]

The FCC now has the authority to regulate content

No they don't.

I support Net neutrality but that is not what the FCC just did - CNET

Did you even read the article you quoted?

{Internet evangelists frequently promote the virtues of innovation without permission. We now move to a world that turns that on its head. Networks may be less exciting than new software apps, but they too require innovation, evolution and revolution. That process now is subject to constant bureaucratic review, political considerations, and collateral attack by competitors.}

ROFL

You Soros monkeys are a hoot.

Actually, what is now, for the first time, under review are the 'innovative' ways ISPs screw us while charging outrageous prices for shitty service.

Ugh, shut up. Even in the 1% of instances where you are right on an issue (supporting net neutrality) you still do it for all the wrong reasons. If you don't like the service you are receiving, then cancel it. Nobody is forcing you to buy internet or cable services.

Excuse me? If there is only one service provider in an area (and that is certainly true in many locations across the country), and it happens to be the worst provider in the country, what choices do you think people in that market have? No one is forcing you to own a car, but I suspect that if your only choice was a model T, you might have one or two things to say about that.

Government is the reason your choice of service providers is limited. Local governments grant monopolies to a single provider. How is net neutrality going to alleviate that problem? The answer is: it won't.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I do know that, because I'm not a sensationalizing lunatic who knows little and dishonestly portrays what little you do happen to know.

No, you don't know this - you are just a blind sycophant who is convinced that all government is perfect and the more government we have the better life will be.

The FCC regulates free-to-air broadcasts for indecency. This is something Congress has granted it has the power to do for free-to-air services. This regulatory power does not exist for paid services, like cable, satellite radio, or internet. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying "Cable is television and they can regulate broadcast television, so they can regulate cable." Or to give an example more relevant to your own life, it's the equivalent of a four year old asking "But mommy if boys marry girls why can't I marry you?"

How did congress grant the FCC this power?

Hint - think "Telecommunications act of 1934."

Skippy, I'm far more small government than you.

I've seen no evidence of that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, you just made a variety of claims about me. You lean almost exclusively on personal insult. You didn't touch the actual issues, or explain how net neutrality doesn't exist, or explain how things 'actually' work.

If you're the expert, explain it. If you can't, then you can hardly expect to convince anyone but your fellow partisans. And they don't ask questions anyway.

False, I explained early on about packet prioritization and the fact that no one is throttling or suggesting throttling, and that it isn't even feasible. Prioritization of packets by content type is what is suggested. HTML5 Video packets might be given a lower priority than MIME packets or SMTP, etc. The QOS might also prioritize on service class. But this is placing traffic at the top of the queue (assuming a FILO data stack), not throttling connection speed.

I also explained that leftists are petulant and selfish, thus cannot grasp why a VPN tunnel connecting a hospital to an ambulance should have packet prioritization over their Facebook page. The idea that all data is the same is utterly stupid. Some is vital, some is spurious. The less vital the data. the lower the QOS should be. And yes, Verizon did negotiate with Netflix higher QOS for a fee. Welcome to adulthood, where you pay more for better service.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, your entire position becomes bullshit when we admit that some content providers have been throttled. Let's be honest, Comcast and Time Warner don't really care about bandwidth issues. They care that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and the like are cutting into their cable profits. So they want to charge for it.

Your post has to be one of the stupidest posts ever put on the board. Network providers don't care about bandwidth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't have a fucking clue what any of this is about.

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How do they justify calling it a "public medium" when every part of it is privately owned?

Verizon and the pre-SBC AT&T whored themselves out to the government. They took huge grants of taxpayer money to build fiber networks. This makes them beholden to the government. Like the railroads of old, it's not quite as private as it appears.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

The Soros drones can't seem to grasp the difference between the backbone networks and the ISP. All ISP's in a locality will connect to the same backbone. I'm a Level 3 customer and end up talking to the Telepacific NOC all the time, they own the backbone in the LA area.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Watch him slip into semantic arguments over technical jargon.

Isn't that cute? This is a technical issue that you Soros drones have zero knowledge of, and you claim that professionals pointing out your ignorance are using "jargon." You leftists seem to think that the most ignorant is the most qualified to speak on technical issues...