"Net Neutrality" takes it on the Chin

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again, I'm perplexed how many Americans are upset with the phrase "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

The Federal government cant regulate speech. It's illegal. The courts upholding this principle is not bad.

Is that the principle the case was decided on?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again, I'm perplexed how many Americans are upset with the phrase "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

The Federal government cant regulate speech. It's illegal. The courts upholding this principle is not bad.

Is that the principle the case was decided on?

here is how it all started:

Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Supreme Court upheld cable companies' right to restrict rival Internet service providers from their networks, prompting telephone companies yesterday to argue that they should be relieved of a similar regulatory obligation.

Phone companies are required to share their lines with Internet providers, an outgrowth of an era when such rules were deemed necessary to foster competition. But the phone companies argue that the rules put them at a disadvantage compared with the largely unregulated cable industry.

The high court's 6 to 3 ruling affirmed the Federal Communications Commission's authority to decide which services it needs to regulate.

Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules - washingtonpost.com

was this principle that Avatar has alluded to been addressed?

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html

how is the lawsuit claims: "Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent," a free speech issue?

can somebody explain this?

---

an d the right wing lunacy keeps marching on: "...the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could raise obstacles to the Obama administration’s effort to increase Americans’ access to high-speed Internet networks." -nyt

gawd forbid the right wing allow Obama to help Americans, it is more important to defeat the Democrats than to help Americans

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The big government stooges lose.

Get used to that, you will soon see a lot more of it.

Um, no, they win. Corporations can dictate what we see on line.

Apparently your dream come true.

here is how it all started:

Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules

By Yuki Noguchi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Supreme Court upheld cable companies' right to restrict rival Internet service providers from their networks, prompting telephone companies yesterday to argue that they should be relieved of a similar regulatory obligation.

Phone companies are required to share their lines with Internet providers, an outgrowth of an era when such rules were deemed necessary to foster competition. But the phone companies argue that the rules put them at a disadvantage compared with the largely unregulated cable industry.

The high court's 6 to 3 ruling affirmed the Federal Communications Commission's authority to decide which services it needs to regulate.

Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules - washingtonpost.com

was this principle that Avatar has alluded to been addressed?

---

Court Favors Comcast in F.C.C. ?Net Neutrality? Ruling - NYTimes.com

how is the lawsuit claims: "Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent," a free speech issue?

can somebody explain this?

---

an d the right wing lunacy keeps marching on: "...the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could raise obstacles to the Obama administration’s effort to increase Americans’ access to high-speed Internet networks." -nyt

gawd forbid the right wing allow Obama to help Americans, it is more important to defeat the Democrats than to help Americans

---

another example of the right wing screwing over red state America in the interests of helping corporate America and fighting Obama:

the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.

-nyt

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

This was an attempt at "control" of "the free flow of information" by telling others they can't restrict that flow on their networks.


That is just all kinds of stupid right there.

 

[EriktheRed]

another example of the right wing screwing over red state America in the interests of helping corporate America and fighting Obama:

the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.

-nyt

And some still wonder why it was asked, "What's the matter with Kansas?"

 

[hyakku]

Honestly, after that cascade of evidence and logic, I fully expect T and the other ass to come back in here using a bunch of phrases that have NOTHING to do with this case, or freedom.

I think it's time you all should just wrap it up, looking back at this thread, all the facts have been presented, and they continue to ignore them.

I know its hard to try to understand how someone can be so fucking crazy and ignorant, but don't waste all your energy in this thread, your missing out on equally intellectual threads like:

"Doggy Style foreign policy"
"Another mex tries to scam the system"

Etc. God forbid you all miss those illuminating discourses by our right wing intellectuals up here.

Edit: Oh and I'm not sure who it was, but you are correct, I should have made my point clearer, ALL torrents aren't illegal. That's what I was trying to stress, which is why its laughable when Comcast, who was already defeated in this ruling, is still purporting that torrents represent a threat to their servers.

You all championing for the businesses fail to recognize that they don't advertise LIMITED internet, otherwise this would never have been an issue in the first place. There are companies out there that offer limited bandwith, and they aren't getting sued for this shit, the point is Comcast and the likes offer unlimited internet, and then try to throttle it and charge you the same amount. It's illegal, highway robbery, and thankfully Fios doesn't participate in this at home after they saw what happened to Comcast's rep.

I'm done with this thread for debating though, good luck to all of you still willing to try, i'm just gonna use this for the lulz.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

This was an attempt at "control" of "the free flow of information" by telling others they can't restrict that flow on their networks.


That is just all kinds of stupid right there.

The FCC has the right to "decide which services it needs to regulate." according to the courts in an earlier case that this one sprung out of: Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules - washingtonpost.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

another example of the right wing screwing over red state America in the interests of helping corporate America and fighting Obama:

the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.

-nyt

And some still wonder why it was asked, "What's the matter with Kansas?"

---

and the right wing lunacy keeps marching on: "...the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could raise obstacles to the Obama administration’s effort to increase Americans’ access to high-speed Internet networks." -nyt

gawd forbid the right wing allow Obama to help Americans, it is more important to defeat the Democrats than to help Americans

---

another example of the right wing screwing over red state America in the interests of helping corporate America and fighting Obama:

the national broadband plan released by the administration last month proposed to shift billions of dollars in money from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that helps pay for Internet access in those areas. Legal observers said the court decision suggested that the F.C.C. did not have the authority to make that switch.

-nyt
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html]Court Favors Comcast in F.C.C. ?Net Neutrality? Ruling - NYTimes.com[/URL]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Honestly, after that cascade of evidence and logic, I fully expect T and the other ass to come back in here using a bunch of phrases that have NOTHING to do with this case, or freedom.

I think it's time you all should just wrap it up, looking back at this thread, all the facts have been presented, and they continue to ignore them.

I know its hard to try to understand how someone can be so fucking crazy and ignorant, but don't waste all your energy in this thread, your missing out on equally intellectual threads like:

"Doggy Style foreign policy"
"Another mex tries to scam the system"

Etc. God forbid you all miss those illuminating discourses by our right wing intellectuals up here.

Edit: Oh and I'm not sure who it was, but you are correct, I should have made my point clearer, ALL torrents aren't illegal. That's what I was trying to stress, which is why its laughable when Comcast, who was already defeated in this ruling, is still purporting that torrents represent a threat to their servers.

You all championing for the businesses fail to recognize that they don't advertised LIMITED internet, otherwise this would never have been an issue in the first place.

There are companies out there that offer limited bandwith, and they aren't getting sued for this shit, the point is Comcast and the likes offer unlimited internet, and then try to throttle it and charge you the same amount. It's illegal, highway robbery, and thankfully Fios doesn't participate in this at home after they saw what happened to Comcast's rep.

I'm done with this thread for debating though, good luck to all of you still willing to try, i'm just gonna use this for the lulz.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please provide the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate speech on the internet

 

[blu]

Please provide the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate speech on the internet

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Please provide the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate speech on the internet

egg-zactly.

 

[EriktheRed]

Please provide the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate speech on the internet

How 'bout you tell us just how the the government is regulating speech on the internet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Please provide the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate speech on the internet

Will a Supreme Court Decision do?Cable Firms Don't Have to Share Networks, Court Rules - washingtonpost.com

"The high court's 6 to 3 ruling affirmed the Federal Communications Commission's authority to decide which services it needs to regulate."

posted this before.

you're a troll who listens to nothing anyone else says.

 

[hyakku]

Please provide the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate speech on the internet

How 'bout you tell us just how the the government is regulating speech on the internet.

I hope i make it back with the popcorn before he starts .

 

[Toronado3800]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With Net Neutrality a service provider has to provide unlimited data transfer across their wires to anyone hosting a website. Most of the time this doesn't matter, the lines can handle it. Thanks to existing Net Neutrality the internet keeps making technological leaps and bounds. From Cam Girls last decade to on line medical services from across the globe.

BUT sometimes its just like when we had AOL back in the day, there are bottlenecks.

Comcast says some folks use 99.999% more bandwidth than others and should be charged accordingly since those folks are the reason Comcast needs to upgrade its transmission lines.

As much as I am for freedom and against China's (I mean Comcast's) ability to regulate net traffic I do understand their point that dork boy Steve sharing files 24 x 7 is taxing the system way more than Marge and Ethel who just check their emails.

I'd split the difference. Either find a point where if someone hits the 99.5 percentile of highest internet users they get charged double and the FCC investigates if copyrighted materials were transferred Or declare that person a business and just make them pay double for internet access.

 

[Polk]

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?

You really think there are other avenues? Most markets have two ISPs at most.

 

[EriktheRed]

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?

You really think there are other avenues? Most markets have two ISPs at most.

By me the only high-speed options are Comcast cable or Verizon DSL.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh, I also believe ISP's receive some kind of government sponsored RIGHTS to cross my property with their lines even if I don't want them to. This is because running their lines all over the place is considered to be good for the general welfare.

So by taking this government sponsored advantage of protection on my property they have to give something back for the general welfare

 

[EriktheRed]

Oh, I also believe ISP's receive some kind of government sponsored RIGHTS to cross my property with their lines even if I don't want them to. This is because running their lines all over the place is considered to be good for the general welfare.

So by taking this government sponsored advantage of protection on my property they have to give something back for the general welfare

You dirty commie...