"Net Neutrality" takes it on the Chin

[Procrustes Stretched]

here's a thing that explains it all, minus the conservative spin

Telecoms and many internet activists have long argued that the internet is a developing technology that was innovating so quickly that strict regulations would hamper it.

no argument there.

but.....................................

... the FCC simply issued a set of four priniciples of net freedom that it said it expected broadband companies to follow. They promised that broadband users could plug-in whatever devices they wanted to their connection and then use whatever software or online application that they liked — without interference from their provider. Those principles never went through a rulemaking period, and when the FCC went after Comcast for blocking peer-to-peer file sharing services, the company sued the commission in court.

And, on Tuesday, won.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

 

[uscitizen]

Corporate stoolies are just pathetic.

 

[The T]

here's a thing that explains it all, minus the conservative spin

Telecoms and many internet activists have long argued that the internet is a developing technology that was innovating so quickly that strict regulations would hamper it.

no argument there.

but.....................................

... the FCC simply issued a set of four priniciples of net freedom that it said it expected broadband companies to follow. They promised that broadband users could plug-in whatever devices they wanted to their connection and then use whatever software or online application that they liked — without interference from their provider. Those principles never went through a rulemaking period, and when the FCC went after Comcast for blocking peer-to-peer file sharing services, the company sued the commission in court.

And, on Tuesday, won.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

And WHOM exactly is the FCC to establish such a thing? -And you DO realize that the Director of the FCC is an appointment, do you not?

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

People like T are idiots. I can only assume they see 'regulation' and get all crazed. Net neutrality can be served by what the FCC wanted to do: 4 Principles that favored the consumer over the providers who have abused the American consumer. The faux free market in the USA has put America behind other countries in internet service.

Is this what American markets demand---USA # 3, or #4 or # 99?

 

[The T]

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.

People like T are idiots. I can only assume they see 'regulation' and get all crazed. Net neutrality can be served by what the FCC wanted to do: 4 Principles that favored the consumer over the providers who have abused the American consumer. The faux free market in the USA has put America behind other countries in internet service.

Is this what American markets demand---USA # 3, or #4 or # 99?

*I* posted the FACTS on the case. YOU didn't read it...did you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And WHOM exactly is the FCC to establish such a thing? -And you DO realize that the Director of the FCC is an appointment, do you not?

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

This isn't about Obama or Bush. The case goes back to the Bush Admin.

It is about net neutrality. It is about how each government will protect it's consumers and infrastructure.

What you are doing is buying bs about Obama and ignoring how what you support is America being left behind.

your hate will help to destroy America.

 

[blu]

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?

it wasn't and is not a security risk. they just didn't want to supply the bandwith necessary for it.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Too bad not enough people understand this. It's not just their servers they want to control (ISPs).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

People like T are idiots. I can only assume they see 'regulation' and get all crazed. Net neutrality can be served by what the FCC wanted to do: 4 Principles that favored the consumer over the providers who have abused the American consumer. The faux free market in the USA has put America behind other countries in internet service.

Is this what American markets demand---USA # 3, or #4 or # 99?

*I* posted the FACTS on the case. YOU didn't read it...did you?

Wing nut, I did. I posted facts.

You posted a rant about Ovbama.

Dude posted Yahoo news. I posted Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

 

[hyakku]

here's a thing that explains it all, minus the conservative spin

Telecoms and many internet activists have long argued that the internet is a developing technology that was innovating so quickly that strict regulations would hamper it.

no argument there.

but.....................................

... the FCC simply issued a set of four priniciples of net freedom that it said it expected broadband companies to follow. They promised that broadband users could plug-in whatever devices they wanted to their connection and then use whatever software or online application that they liked — without interference from their provider. Those principles never went through a rulemaking period, and when the FCC went after Comcast for blocking peer-to-peer file sharing services, the company sued the commission in court.

And, on Tuesday, won.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

And WHOM exactly is the FCC to establish such a thing? -And you DO realize that the Director of the FCC is an appointment, do you not?

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

What the fuck? Who else is gonna establish such a thing? How is it a good thing for a corporation, which DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET, to restrict what device or service you can use on it, just because they provide you the connection to it, especially if i'm paying for INTERNET USAGE. I don't pay for Laptop Internet Usage, or Computer Internet usage. I expect to be able to use my phone over Wifi, my laptop over wifi or ethernet, my desktop on ethernet, and whatever else I wish to because I pay for unlimited usage.

When they start telling people that you're paying for a 1gb/month connection, then that's fine by me, but don't advertise unlimited internet and then try to subvert the contract I fucking signed by limiting how and what devices I can connect to the internet. It's fucking stupid, and i'm not gonna debate with you anymore if you can't see how net neutrality favors the consumer and the free market by ensuring an equitable market in which no one or two companies can have a monopoly over what sites people can access due to simply having infrastructure in places where smaller, more lenient and efficacious broadband providers can't provide access.

 

[blu]

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.

not all torrents hold illegal data though and by volume most are legal. all linux distributions are able to give away their multi gigabyte OSes and packages away for free due to the sharing of bandwith by users of bittorrent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Too bad not enough people understand this. It's not just their servers they want to control (ISPs).

ISPs are the enemy.

They have left America behind.

#
AT&T sued over NSA spy program - CNET News
NSA granted Net location-tracking patent. September 21, 2005 ... a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with ...
news.cnet.com/ATT-sued-over.../2100-1028_3-6033501.html - Cached - Similar
#
ECT News: News: Vonage, Others Sued by Sprint Nextel Over VoIP Patents
Sprint Nextel has filed suit against Vonage Holdings and other voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) startups, claiming those companies infringed on patents ...
ecommercetimes.net/story/46533.html
#
Spam Daily News | AT&T sued over NSA eavesdropping
Jan 31, 2006 ... Reporting has also indicated that those same companies—and AT&T ... to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, ...
www.spamdailynews.com/.../ATT_sued_over_NSA_eavesdropping.asp - Cached - Similar
#
Comcast Sued Over Internet Blocking
Nov 15, 2007 ... Comcast Sued Over Internet Blocking. ... while largely granting the every wish of telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which are now ...
www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/.../comcast_suit.html - Cached - Similar

 

[The T]

here's a thing that explains it all, minus the conservative spin

no argument there.

but.....................................

And WHOM exactly is the FCC to establish such a thing? -And you DO realize that the Director of the FCC is an appointment, do you not?

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

What the fuck? Who else is gonna establish such a thing? How is it a good thing for a corporation, which DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET, to restrict what device or service you can use on it, just because they provide you the connection to it, especially if i'm paying for INTERNET USAGE. I don't pay for Laptop Internet Usage, or Computer Internet usage. I expect to be able to use my phone over Wifi, my laptop over wifi or ethernet, my desktop on ethernet, and whatever else I wish to because I pay for unlimited usage.

When they start telling people that you're paying for a 1gb/month connection, then that's fine by me, but don't advertise unlimited internet and then try to subvert the contract I fucking signed by limiting how and what devices I can connect to the internet. It's fucking stupid, and i'm not gonna debate with you anymore if you can't see how net neutrality favors the consumer and the free market by ensuring an equitable market in which no one or two companies can have a monopoly over what sites people can access due to simply having infrastructure in places where smaller, more lenient and efficacious broadband providers can't provide access.

Now...that established? They don't. But they are FREE to establish RULES regarding their own usage/portals within the Internet.

What the lot of you pupport to do is to tell an entity that IF they're gonna be on the NET? They better reveal/provide all or YOU cannot participate.

*THAT* is what you are saying. it doesn't wash.

NEXT

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

it wasn't and is not a security risk. they just didn't want to supply the bandwith necessary for it.

why are you arguing with an idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution and the commerce clause? why argue with an idiot who backs teh companies that have left America behind?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

What the fuck? Who else is gonna establish such a thing? How is it a good thing for a corporation, which DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET, to restrict what device or service you can use on it, just because they provide you the connection to it, especially if i'm paying for INTERNET USAGE. I don't pay for Laptop Internet Usage, or Computer Internet usage. I expect to be able to use my phone over Wifi, my laptop over wifi or ethernet, my desktop on ethernet, and whatever else I wish to because I pay for unlimited usage.

When they start telling people that you're paying for a 1gb/month connection, then that's fine by me, but don't advertise unlimited internet and then try to subvert the contract I fucking signed by limiting how and what devices I can connect to the internet. It's fucking stupid, and i'm not gonna debate with you anymore if you can't see how net neutrality favors the consumer and the free market by ensuring an equitable market in which no one or two companies can have a monopoly over what sites people can access due to simply having infrastructure in places where smaller, more lenient and efficacious broadband providers can't provide access.

Now...that established? They don't. But they are FREE to establish RULES regarding their own usage/portals within the Internet.

What the lot of you pupport to do is to tell an entity that IF they're gonna be on the NET? They better reveal/provide all or YOU cannot participate.

*THAT* is what you are saying. it doesn't wash.

NEXT

next...

...the FCC simply issued a set of four priniciples of net freedom

...that it said it expected broadband companies to follow. They promised that...

...broadband users could plug-in whatever devices they wanted to their connection and then use whatever software or online application that they liked — without interference from their provider.

Those principles never went through a rule making period, and when the FCC went after Comcast for blocking peer-to-peer file sharing services, the company sued the commission in court.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

 

[The T]

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?

it wasn't and is not a security risk. they just didn't want to supply the bandwith necessary for it.

why are you arguing with an idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution and the commerce clause? why argue with an idiot who backs teh companies that have left America behind?

*I* understand it fully. And where does the FCC fit into the Commerce Clause? And are THEY obliged to 'Force' Commerce by Government writ of Law?

The Court said NO. This is what has you so pissed off of. but it's more complicated than that. The Court has disallowed what you idiots have tried to do to Talk Radio.

How's that fight going with the 'Fairness Doctrine' by the way?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it wasn't and is not a security risk. they just didn't want to supply the bandwith necessary for it.

why are you arguing with an idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution and the commerce clause? why argue with an idiot who backs teh companies that have left America behind?

*I* understand it fully. And where does the FCC fit into the Commerce Clause? And are THEY obliged to 'Force' Commerce by Government writ of Law?

The Court said NO. This is what has you so pissed off of. but it's more complicated than that. The Court has disallowed what you idiots have tried to do to Talk Radio.

How's that fight going with the 'Fairness Doctrine' by the way?

The fairness doctrine? I never cared about it. I think radio went downhill and so did news on television---an informed public took a hit, but I never thought it was a fight worth having.

I think the public is mostly ignorant any way.

When Congress gets the chance they can help the FCC work in the interests of the American public: "The option favored by public interest groups is for the FCC to take the drastic course of formally reclassifying broadband as a regulated service, reversing the position it held and defended just a few years ago."

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“Today’s court decision invalidated the prior Commission’s approach to preserving an open internet,” said FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard in a written statement. “But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”

“Other methods” obliquely refer to either Congress passing a law giving it the power (a process that would likely take years) or the FCC reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service — in legal terms, moving broadband from Title I to Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

Dear T., this is what the Constitution allows.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Too bad not enough people understand this. It's not just their servers they want to control (ISPs).

ISPs are the enemy.

They have left America behind.

#
AT&T sued over NSA spy program - CNET News
NSA granted Net location-tracking patent. September 21, 2005 ... a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with ...
news.cnet.com/ATT-sued-over.../2100-1028_3-6033501.html - Cached - Similar
#
ECT News: News: Vonage, Others Sued by Sprint Nextel Over VoIP Patents
Sprint Nextel has filed suit against Vonage Holdings and other voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) startups, claiming those companies infringed on patents ...
ecommercetimes.net/story/46533.html
#
Spam Daily News | AT&T sued over NSA eavesdropping
Jan 31, 2006 ... Reporting has also indicated that those same companies—and AT&T ... to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, ...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...s.com/.../ATT_sued_over_NSA_eavesdropping.asp - Cached - Similar
#
Comcast Sued Over Internet Blocking
Nov 15, 2007 ... Comcast Sued Over Internet Blocking. ... while largely granting the every wish of telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which are now ...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...affairs.com/news04/2007/.../comcast_suit.html - Cached - Similar

That is (sorta) what I said. I have no problem with businesses protecting their interests, it's when they attempt to overreach their control of a product or idea that is an issue for me. The same goes for the government (and all that entails).

 

[The T]

“Today’s court decision invalidated the prior Commission’s approach to preserving an open internet,” said FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard in a written statement. “But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”

“Other methods” obliquely refer to either Congress passing a law giving it the power (a process that would likely take years) or the FCC reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service — in legal terms, moving broadband from Title I to Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

Dear T., this is what the Constitution allows.

However? Some dissented to the premise that they MUST or *else*.

And where is Title I and Title II of the 'Telecommunications Act' Contained in the Constitution...and what *DO* they say first off?

And to wit? Something YOU just posted?

..."But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; "

What is 'Free and OPEN' when a Government entity forces YOU to provide something, or practice something that you deem dangerous such as "TORRENT" to the Security of *YOUR* Network?



That isn't "Freedom"...that's Tyranny.