"Net Neutrality" takes it on the Chin

[blu]

i see. Then you mark yourself that fears real cometition, and wants Nanny Government to force these evil doers to fall in line with your thinking.

It's their intellectual property, and can run it as they see fit. There ARE plenty of Sites out there that provide a better bang for the buck. Perhaps you're too lazy to go look?

The FCC was wrong in this. They were trying to dictate functions, information, and other rules under the guise of 'Fairness'.

The FCC has no authority for such dictates, especially on Internet Networks.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. there is no inteletucally property involved here. net neutratlity is about forcing ISPs to keep the internet open and allow its customers equal access to all sites. without net neutrality ISPs can pick and choose what sites you can visit, what content you can view, what games you can play, etc.

I know exactly wat I am talking about. The FCC has no such jurisdiction. YOU are barking UP the wrong tree. Try the First Amendment.

the first amendment? are you joking? and the fcc does have jurisdiction here

 

[Ravi]

Do you all even know what net neutrality is? How can any consumer be happy that net neutrality got defeated.

That's like saying, "Jeez, I wish the government would stop making water companies screen for lead poisoning in their water, so fucking intrusive."

Net neutrality isn't code for Chinese internet, how does that even make fucking sense. net neutrality means that your ISP can't throttle bandwith traffic based on how they see fit.

Without net neutrality, you ARE on the internet where big brother (i.e., your ISP) can control EXACTLY what you can and cannot access, what websites are "safe" or "worthy" for you to see or be on their network, and which websites they find "offensive" that they may ban.

Net neutrality is a NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY SITE type of law, but leave it up to the dipshits to be excited about this. Thankfully I've got FIOS at home and they don't throttle bandwith, but I know when I visit other state's and friends who have comcast it's abysmal. Legal torrents can be throttled, taking DAYS to download something that should have taken minutes, certain websites of competing ISP's are blocked, it's hilarious. It's like being on an Orwellian internet where Comcast tells you what you can and cannot watch, download, and consume.

God I wish people weren't so stupid.

You're preaching to Glen Beck followers.

 

[The T]

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. there is no inteletucally property involved here. net neutratlity is about forcing ISPs to keep the internet open and allow its customers equal access to all sites. without net neutrality ISPs can pick and choose what sites you can visit, what content you can view, what games you can play, etc.

I know exactly wat I am talking about. The FCC has no such jurisdiction. YOU are barking UP the wrong tree. Try the First Amendment.

the first amendment? are you joking? and the fcc does have jurisdiction here

No they Don't. You are saying that ISP's tha OWN their own Networks have to provide any and ALL information just like any other. NO they don't.

It is their property, and they can do with it how they see fit. Do you think ALL Search engines should provide the same amount of information?

Same thing applies here. Don't like what you see? Don't like what you find? There are other avenues.

Don't like what you see here On USMB? What's stopping you from going elsewhere?

 

[The T]

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. there is no inteletucally property involved here. net neutratlity is about forcing ISPs to keep the internet open and allow its customers equal access to all sites. without net neutrality ISPs can pick and choose what sites you can visit, what content you can view, what games you can play, etc.

I know exactly wat I am talking about. The FCC has no such jurisdiction. YOU are barking UP the wrong tree. Try the First Amendment.

the first amendment? are you joking? and the fcc does have jurisdiction here

The FCC deals with EMISSIONS of usually RF energy...and the information contained therin. Try cussing on broadcast TV/Radio? Guess what happens?

If what you say is true? THIS BOARD would be shut down...the entire Internet in the US would be shoutdown.

The FCC has no jurisdiction in regard to private Networks or the information contained within them.

But then you open another can of worms.

To Clarify? What was this all about?

"propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks,"
.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks,"

_________________

SOURCE

The FCC has no such jurisdiction on privately owned Networks.

 

[The T]

This was an attempt by Obama to control the free flow of information by telling ISP's that they had to provide the information like everyone else...or else.

It is a control issue.

 

[Ravi]

This was an attempt by Obama to control the free flow of information by telling ISP's that they had to provide the information like everyone else...or else.

It is a control issue.

At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.

 

[blu]

This was an attempt by Obama to control the free flow of information by telling ISP's that they had to provide the information like everyone else...or else.

It is a control issue.

wow so you really have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Ravi]

This was an attempt by Obama to control the free flow of information by telling ISP's that they had to provide the information like everyone else...or else.

It is a control issue.

wow so you really have no idea what you are talking about

He's a Glenn Beck drone.

Let's all just be happy that liberals control the media and leave it at that. Pretty soon, the elimination of net neutrality means we can get rid of rightwingloon sites like World Nut Daily, BigGovernment, and Town Hall.

 

[hyakku]

Oh my God, I can't believe some people think that this has something to do with intellectual property. They don't OWN the internet, this isn't about Obama you fucktards. This was a case from YEARS ago, and the net neutrality debate has been raging since near the beginning of Bush's second term.

Why do people just make stuff up? We're on the INTERNET, you can VERIFY FACTS.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. This is like the government saying that companies MUST screen for lead in their water. Sure, some people could find alternative avenues if they didnt, but others are not left with that choice.

Similarly, what if the government said, "The media can completely make up facts because it's THEIR publications." That would be fucking outrageous.

No one "owns" the internet, that's why they are SERVICE providers. These aren't search engines, or AOL companies, they are throttling people's internet at its base.

And to the asshole saying this is fearmongering, this has been happening since around 2005, get with the times. Damn, the internet was invented so stupid shit like this isn't espoused, and now they want to regulate the internet.

God forbid the government try to keep the internet open and free instead of allowing it to be heavily regulated by invested interests.

Edit: In fact, why doesn't the government just tell these companies to fuck off then and provide a national internet service since the government is what provides the infrastructure for these filthy fucking providers to operate off of. This is essentially some private company setting up a toll both on an interstate highway you just paid a toll on because you're enjoying their section of the highway.

 

[The T]

Oh my God, I can't believe some people think that this has something to do with intellectual property. They don't OWN the internet, this isn't about Obama you fucktards. This was a case from YEARS ago, and the net neutrality debate has been raging since near the beginning of Bush's second term.

Why do people just make stuff up? We're on the INTERNET, you can VERIFY FACTS.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. This is like the government saying that companies MUST screen for lead in their water. Sure, some people could find alternative avenues if they didnt, but others are not left with that choice.

Similarly, what if the government said, "The media can completely make up facts because it's THEIR publications." That would be fucking outrageous.

No one "owns" the internet, that's why they are SERVICE providers. These aren't search engines, or AOL companies, they are throttling people's internet at its base.

And to the asshole saying this is fearmongering, this has been happening since around 2005, get with the times. Damn, the internet was invented so stupid shit like this isn't espoused, and now they want to regulate the internet.

God forbid the government try to keep the internet open and free instead of allowing it to be heavily regulated by invested interests.

Edit: In fact, why doesn't the government just tell these companies to fuck off then and provide a national internet service since the government is what provides the infrastructure for these filthy fucking providers to operate off of. This is essentially some private company setting up a toll both on an interstate highway you just paid a toll on because you're enjoying their section of the highway.

One word describes what this was really about.

Google "Torrent"

Got it ACE?

 

[Coyote]

Property rights for big corporatons scores a win.

Guess who will be paying more and getting less?

By this statement...you show that you have NO REGARD for their property, or what they DO with it. This is what you are saying.

When you are on someone's server? That is their Domain, and YOU are subject to their rules/procedures.

Much the same as this Board. They too have RULES. You wanna go to the FCC and complain *IF* you ever get banned?

You're retarded. That's not what he said at all.

There has to be a balance between regulation and private property rights or we all lose in the end.

 

[xotoxi]

The internet should be FREE
from regulation!

 

[The T]

Property rights for big corporatons scores a win.

Guess who will be paying more and getting less?

By this statement...you show that you have NO REGARD for their property, or what they DO with it. This is what you are saying.

When you are on someone's server? That is their Domain, and YOU are subject to their rules/procedures.

Much the same as this Board. They too have RULES. You wanna go to the FCC and complain *IF* you ever get banned?

You're retarded. That's not what he said at all.

There has to be a balance between regulation and private property rights or we all lose in the end.

I see. And where in the Constitution does it address Government telling a private entity what it must do with it's own resources...and services they MUST provide?

I'll say the same to you... Google 'TORRENT'

Comcast saw it as a Security RISK. And the Government is gonna tell them that they have to allow it on their intellectual property [servers]?

You gonna stay with this answer? Seriously?

 

[Coyote]

By this statement...you show that you have NO REGARD for their property, or what they DO with it. This is what you are saying.

When you are on someone's server? That is their Domain, and YOU are subject to their rules/procedures.

Much the same as this Board. They too have RULES. You wanna go to the FCC and complain *IF* you ever get banned?

You're retarded. That's not what he said at all.

There has to be a balance between regulation and private property rights or we all lose in the end.

I see. And where in the Constitution does it address Government telling a private entity what it must do with it's own resources...and services they MUST provide?

There's a shitload of stuff that's not in the Constitution - you know, silly stuff like child labor regulations, and regulations that say the bread you buy is actually made of flour and not sawdust.

I'll say the same to you... Google 'TORRENT'

Say what you want but your moronic statements have reached new partisan lows and I'm a cranky bitch.

Comcast saw it as a Security RISK. And the Government is gonna tell them that they have to allow it on their intellectual property [servers]?

You gonna stay with this answer? Seriously?

Net Neutrality is a bit more complicated than that.

 

[hyakku]

By this statement...you show that you have NO REGARD for their property, or what they DO with it. This is what you are saying.

When you are on someone's server? That is their Domain, and YOU are subject to their rules/procedures.

Much the same as this Board. They too have RULES. You wanna go to the FCC and complain *IF* you ever get banned?

You're retarded. That's not what he said at all.

There has to be a balance between regulation and private property rights or we all lose in the end.

I see. And where in the Constitution does it address Government telling a private entity what it must do with it's own resources...and services they MUST provide?

I'll say the same to you... Google 'TORRENT'

Comcast saw it as a Security RISK. And the Government is gonna tell them that they have to allow it on their intellectual property [servers]?

You gonna stay with this answer? Seriously?

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever used a torrent program? That's like saying, "Comcast felt you having a browser that can DOWNLOAD things was a security risk."

Torrents, like usenet, and other P2P application are completely legal downloading options. In fact, P2P download methods reduce the load of stress on ISP servers, so wherever you got that idea from should not be listened to. I doubt you use torrents, I use them daily for things like podcasts or episodes of shows that don't come out in America.

The issue is that there are copyrighted materials in torrents, which is the responsibility of the individual websites who host direct links to illegal torrents to handle. Sites like mininova.org have done so, other sites like torrentreactor, have complied with U.S. laws and either blocked or filtered content when coming from American IPs.

The fact of the matter is, this does nothing to add to their security, only add to their power over our ability to surf the web freely. Please stop talking about technology if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[The T]

You're retarded. That's not what he said at all.

There has to be a balance between regulation and private property rights or we all lose in the end.

I see. And where in the Constitution does it address Government telling a private entity what it must do with it's own resources...and services they MUST provide?

There's a shitload of stuff that's not in the Constitution - you know, silly stuff like child labor regulations, and regulations that say the bread you buy is actually made of flour and not sawdust.

I'll say the same to you... Google 'TORRENT'

Say what you want but your moronic statements have reached new partisan lows and I'm a cranky bitch.

Comcast saw it as a Security RISK. And the Government is gonna tell them that they have to allow it on their intellectual property [servers]?

You gonna stay with this answer? Seriously?

Net Neutrality is a bit more complicated than that.

You addressed ZERO except talking points and called yerself a 'Bitch' of what I wrote.

Thing is? The lot of you are sore that Obama's entry to take over the Internet has failed.

Buh-Bye.

 

[Coyote]

I see. And where in the Constitution does it address Government telling a private entity what it must do with it's own resources...and services they MUST provide?

There's a shitload of stuff that's not in the Constitution - you know, silly stuff like child labor regulations, and regulations that say the bread you buy is actually made of flour and not sawdust.



Say what you want but your moronic statements have reached new partisan lows and I'm a cranky bitch.

Comcast saw it as a Security RISK. And the Government is gonna tell them that they have to allow it on their intellectual property [servers]?

You gonna stay with this answer? Seriously?

Net Neutrality is a bit more complicated than that.

You addressed ZERO except talking points and called yerself a 'Bitch' of what I wrote.

Thing is? The lot of you are sore that Obama's entry to take over the Internet has failed.

Buh-Bye.

Example A: wheel still turning, hamster decomposing

Remember how everyone used to blame everything on Bush? Welll now it's - Obama. Obama's trying to take over the internet (is a dictator, marxist, fascist....) - and guess what T?

It's no. more. true. now. than. it. was. then.

Learn to think critically.

The incredible abundance of partisan hacks lately (is it a full moon or something?) is like a horde of itchy annoying mindless little mosquitos.

 

[The T]

There's a shitload of stuff that's not in the Constitution - you know, silly stuff like child labor regulations, and regulations that say the bread you buy is actually made of flour and not sawdust.



Say what you want but your moronic statements have reached new partisan lows and I'm a cranky bitch.



Net Neutrality is a bit more complicated than that.

You addressed ZERO except talking points and called yerself a 'Bitch' of what I wrote.

Thing is? The lot of you are sore that Obama's entry to take over the Internet has failed.

Buh-Bye.

Example A: wheel still turning, hamster decomposing

Remember how everyone used to blame everything on Bush? Welll now it's - Obama. Obama's trying to take over the internet (is a dictator, marxist, fascist....) - and guess what T?

It's no. more. true. now. than. it. was. then.

Learn to think critically.

The incredible abundance of partisan hacks lately (is it a full moon or something?) is like a horde of itchy annoying mindless little mosquitos.

Excuse me? HAD you bothered to READ this thread? I posted what this issue was about.

*YOU* however are way off the mark.

To revisit?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Finally, some GOOD news, for a *ahem* change.

US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality'

<snip>

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so-called "net neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The ruling also marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to officially set net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski argues that such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some online content and services over others.

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_internet_rules

http://blog.internetnews.com/apatrizio/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jp/img][/QUOTE]

Good News? Is this really good news? Is net neutrality really served by this?

Is all deregulation or all anti-regulation in the best interests of the consumer and the nation as a whole? We in the USA are far behind some other democratic capitalist nations when it comes to broadband delivery.[quote]
[B]
Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband[/B]

While this might seem like a win for the nation&#8217;s broadband and wireless companies, the ruling could be so strong that it boomerangs on them. For instance, if the FCC is left without the power to implement key portions of the National Broadband Plan &#8212; a so-far popular idea &#8212; then Congress or the FCC may have to find a way to restore power to the commission. That could leave the FCC stronger than it was before the ruling.

Read More [url=http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/#ixzz0kM7icYBH]Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com[/url]


Read More [url=http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/#ixzz0kM6EaYFV]Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com[/url]
[/quote]

 

[uscitizen]

Property rights for big corporatons scores a win.

Guess who will be paying more and getting less?

By this statement...you show that you have NO REGARD for their property, or what they DO with it. This is what you are saying.

When you are on someone's server? That is their Domain, and YOU are subject to their rules/procedures.

Much the same as this Board. They too have RULES. You wanna go to the FCC and complain *IF* you ever get banned?

Ahh terminating in a server and using the "pipe" are not the same things.
I have worked with the net before it became the net.