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

[Uncensored2008]

It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.

So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.

What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?

1. As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
2. 35 megabytes per second
3. 4.375 megabytes per second

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm saying that too few entities have too much control over a medium that, for all intents and purposes, was built with taxpayer money.

No, that is not what you said. Not at all. Not in the slightest. You have made up that excuse after the fact. This is what you have said.

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

You have based your argument on dissatisfaction with the quality of service you receive, and have alleged that you are being "screwed" because you are dissatisfied with the quality of service.

You cannot continually receive poor quality of service unless you continually buy the service. The fact that you, and others, continue to buy despite the low quality of service is exactly why you have the problems you have in the first place.

Stop buying. It's your fault you receive shitty service. You keep buying a shitty service.

 

[g5000]

It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.

So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.

What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?

1. As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
2. 35 megabytes per second
3. 4.375 megabytes per second

3

 

[Uncensored2008]

I did an Google search on the term "internet subframe" and it produced nothing relevant to this discussion. You're obviously just making these terms up.

The Soros drones here are laughable. They are clueless to the subject, yet willing to spew forth unending commands. I suspect not a one of them could tell the difference between a CSU/DSU, a WIC., or a router if their life depended on it. No doubt orogenic thinks that the proper use of dmarc is "on dmarc, get set, go.."

 

[SwimExpert]

[
Seeing as you've outed yourself as not knowing what you're taking about in the first place, despite your bullshit attempts to make yourself out to be some kind of expert, nothing you say has any relevance anymore. Especially if you have to go run to wikipedia to fill you in.

I outed myself did I?

ROFL

You are a shrill and stupid little troll. Satellite Internet is joke, and a bad one.

A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists. There's only one joke here. You.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How Kansas City taxpayers support Google Fiber Ars Technica

Taxpayers subsidizing Google Fiber project Computerworld

As depressing as it is to contemplate, we should acknowledge the possibility that it simply doesn't make economic sense for private firms to build new fiber networks without taxpayer subsidies. This is especially likely for new entrants, like Google, who would be building networks from scratch in towns that already have a couple of incumbent players.

Not the first time that backbone projects have whored out to government. Now that the FCC is ruler of the Internet, I assume the left will demand that the taxpayer fund massive upgrades to the backbone to handle the video streaming traffic, then claim it's all free...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.

So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.

What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?

1. As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
2. 35 megabytes per second
3. 4.375 megabytes per second

3

I wasn't asking you!

Do I come along and spoil your carefully crafted traps?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists. There's only one joke here. You.

Lying again?

Show where I said it didn't exist?

******* leftists - stupid and desperate.

 

[bripat9643]

A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists. There's only one joke here. You.

Lying again?

Show where I said it didn't exist?

******* leftists - stupid and desperate.

I was going to ask him that myself. These morons simply don't care what has actually been posted. Their posts are entirely fact free.

 

[SwimExpert]

Now that the FCC is ruler of the Internet...

Gandalf will arrive any day now. Right?

 

[SwimExpert]

A couple hours ago you didn't even know satellite internet exists. There's only one joke here. You.

Lying again?

Show where I said it didn't exist?

******* leftists - stupid and desperate.

You should really see a doctor about the short term memory problem you have.

 

[Pogo]

And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?

Hey, we got anything yet?


No? Golly gee, what a surprise.


Guess I'll check back in another 81 years.

 

[idb]

It's simply impossible for you to leave your cartoon partisan politics out of a discussion, isn't it?
Is it because you're incapable of holding your own in an intellectual debate?
That's my vote.

So far, I've not run into a single leftist here who has even an inkling of how networks operate. You spew idiocy for purely partisan purpose. I suspect Blindfool does have some knowledge, but he ran away once the conversation became technical.

What about you, Verizon fios offers you a 35 meg synchronous connection, how fast is your upload speed expected to be?

1. As fast as Walmart cuz that's the law
2. 35 megabytes per second
3. 4.375 megabytes per second

I've never yet received the theoretical maximum upload speed that I signed up for.
That's the nature of things.

Have you thought maybe that BlindBoo has other things to do...like sleep?

I've seen the quality of your debating skills.
Your default position is always to drive a discussion in a cartoon politically ideological direction.
You're completely predictable.

I have very little technical knowledge on how the internet works so I won't be drawn into a debate but your left vs right position weakens your credibility, and means that anything you say....no matter how technically well-informed...is read in the knowledge that it has first been run through your political filter so that it will never contradict your ideological ground.
The trouble with this, of course, is that you can get yourself tied up in knots trying to match the real world with your ideological fantasy one.

Oh well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gandalf will arrive any day now. Right?

You drink early and heavy, doncha sploogy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?

Dunno, why don't you send a letter to Janet Jackson over nipple exposure. Make sure to send it priority overnight for faster service - brite boi...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've never yet received the theoretical maximum upload speed that I signed up for.
That's the nature of things.

Have you thought maybe that BlindBoo has other things to do...like sleep?

I've seen the quality of your debating skills.
Your default position is always to drive a discussion in a cartoon politically ideological direction.
You're completely predictable.

I have very little technical knowledge on how the internet works so I won't be drawn into a debate but your left vs right position weakens your credibility, and means that anything you say....no matter how technically well-informed...is read in the knowledge that it has first been run through your political filter so that it will never contradict your ideological ground.
The trouble with this, of course, is that you can get yourself tied up in knots trying to match the real world with your ideological fantasy one.

Oh well.

G5000 screwed it all up - by giving the correct answer.

The leftist hacks on this board generally support things from the strength of abject ignorance - this topic just happens to be an extreme example.Why do you think it is that not a person with any understanding of Networking is here supporting the government takeover of the Internet?

 

[Pogo]

And how does this relate to "censorship" then? When has FCC censored anything?

Dunno, why don't you send a letter to Janet Jackson over nipple exposure. Make sure to send it priority overnight for faster service - brite boi...

Wasn't censored, was it?

Tsk tsk ----- your own screen name.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wasn't censored, was it?

Tsk tsk ----- your own screen name.

Yer kidding, right?

{The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined CBS a record US$550,000 which was fought in the Supreme Court,
.
.
.
Website Soap Opera Central speculated that the fallout from this incident may have had a subtle effect on daytime television. These television shows are known for "love in the afternoon" and regularly feature romantic couplings; shortly before the Super Bowl, the Procter & Gamble soap operas As the World Turns and Guiding Light had gone as far as featuring rear male nudity during sexual scenes. After the Super Bowl controversy, FCC commissioner Michael J. Copps stated that it was time for a crackdown on daytime television and indicated that he was reviewing whether soap operas were violating the agency's indecency prohibitions.[131]

Two other major sporting events that followed the Super Bowl that year also were forced to clean up their respective halftime shows following the incident. The Pro Bowl, which would be played on February 8 at Aloha Stadium in Hawaii, originally was to feature singer JC Chasez, who was a member of boy band 'N Sync as was Timberlake, sing the National Anthem before the game and perform his hit song "Blowin' Me Up (with Her Love)" at halftime. However, the NFL did not allow Chasez to perform during halftime due to the sexually suggestive content of his chosen song, (even though cable network ESPN carried the game, and is not under FCC control) replacing it with traditional Hawaiʻian dancers.[132][133] The 2004 NBA All-Star Game also cleaned up its act, despite being broadcast on cable television channel TNT that was not under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation as with all other cable channels, having halftime performer Beyoncé Knowles perform "Crazy in Love" rather than "Naughty Girl", which they feared would incite controversy given its sexual content. Jackson was in attendance at the game, and dressed conservatively.[134] The networks that were to broadcast the 46th Grammy Awards (CBS) and the 76th Academy Awards (ABC), live events scheduled for February 8 and February 29 respectively, enhanced their broadcast delays to accommodate editing of inappropriate video in addition to audio.[135][136]}

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It spawned a wave of censorship by the FCC that hasn't let up to this day.

Oh, and these are the morons you leftists insist should run the Internet....

 

[orogenicman]

So the internet wasn't under this ruling until the other day and now it is being treated just like the following:

"Until the 1980s in the United States, the term "telephone company" was synonymous with American Telephone & Telegraph. AT&T controlled nearly all aspects of the telephone business. Its regional subsidiaries, known as "Baby Bells," were regulated monopolies, holding exclusive rights to operate in specific areas. The Federal Communications Commission regulated rates on long-distance calls between states, while state regulators had to approve rates for local and in-state long-distance calls.

Government regulation was justified on the theory that telephone companies, like electric utilities, were natural monopolies. Competition, which was assumed to require stringing multiple wires across the countryside, was seen as wasteful and inefficient. That thinking changed beginning around the 1970s, as sweeping technological developments promised rapid advances in telecommunications. Independent companies asserted that they could, indeed, compete with AT&T. But they said the telephone monopoly effectively shut them out by refusing to allow them to interconnect with its massive network."

Deregulating Telecommunications

(more at link)


If this rule is so good, why did the FCC deregulate AT&T?

ATT wasn't dregulated. It was broken up. And that occurred partially because the technology had advanced that made it possible to allow other industries to compete over the same medium, and partially because of anti-trust lawsuits that ultimately ended in the Supreme Court. But what does that have to do with the net neutrality regulations?

It was deregulated.

The internet has now been placed under the original set of terms that AT&T was way back when.

If it was so great, why didn't they just leave AT&T under those terms?

What do you think will happen with the internet now that it's placed under those 1934 rules?

I don't know what kool aid you've been drinking but you are mistaken. Perhaps you need to read the rules before you post.

 

[orogenicman]

I rather suspect it has everything to do with elitism.

People making their own purchasing decisions is elitism?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. You seem to think, based on what you've said here, that if people aren't happy with their internet service, that that is just tough shit, and they can just opt out instead of complaining about it. So yes, that is an elitist position if ever there was one.

So....are you saying they can't stop buying? That makes not sense.

Are you in the third grade, or is English a second (or third) language for you? I'm saying that too few entities have too much control over a medium that, for all intents and purposes, was built with taxpayer money. I'm saying that over the course of the time since the internet first came to be, there was an expectation by, well, pretty much everybody, that there would be MORE competition, MORE choices of providers, not LESS. Without the net neutrality regulations, that trend of more control by fewer and fewer providers would likely not only continue, it would accelerate.

The internet was not built with taxpayer money. Government toadies like you always claim that if government contributed 0.0001 % of the cost of something, then government built it. It's total bullshit. Darpa spent a few million developing a prototype network based on packet routing. That's about the limit of government involvement.

Erm, yes it was:

High Performance Computing Act of 1991 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia