Obama hacks another limb off representative republic: FCC does Net Neutrality

[Ozmar]

Why should government tell you what content you must carry on your private network?

Sherman Antitrust Act

Internet providers are a monopoly? Is Sprint the same as Verizon the same as Road Runner?

My God you are a ******* idiot.

Can we have a combined thread of all this fool's drivel? It could save some bandwidth.

 

[asterism]

Your cable and telco has franchises with local authorities and no competitor can run fiber to your home or business.

If you have wireline service you can get different ISP's/DSL due to telephone deregulation.
If you have fiber it is not the same rules I think.

And you cannot get nearly the bandwidth out of wireless net service as you can DSL.

And many wireless carriers have no generator backups in case of power outages at their cell sites. So within 8 hours your wireless access dies.

and you still do not get that your cell service, your dsl, etc all funnel down to likely at most 3 Backbone carriers in your area. Most rural areas only have one backbone provider.

and cable net service can suck big time if you are in a university or some other high net use area as cable net service is pretty much just a big LAN and can choke big time during high useage. Same with cell type net service in many/most areas.
.

Traffic shaping and prioritizing content by type would alleviate that. Net neutrality eliminates that option.

 

[blu]

You're not free to use someone else's network on your terms. Sorry, chump.

They can do that now. Why aren't they?

Why do you want to pass a law against somethign that is not happening, and only government can abuse?

because they have tried it (comcast a few times and lost everyone) due to existing laws near what net neutrality wants to finally cement.

also, if ISPs want to start playing god of what passes through their network than they can loss their carrier-only status and start becoming legally responsible for what passes through. I can't wait for comcasts and cox's ceo to go to jail b/c their customers download child porn.

I thought I was on ignore, *****.

If Comcast blocks content and loses business, that's their problem.

they won't lose business they have local monopolies all over the country

 

[blu]

You're not free to use someone else's network on your terms. Sorry, chump.

They can do that now. Why aren't they?

Why do you want to pass a law against somethign that is not happening, and only government can abuse?

because they have tried it (comcast a few times and lost everyone) due to existing laws near what net neutrality wants to finally cement.

also, if ISPs want to start playing god of what passes through their network than they can loss their carrier-only status and start becoming legally responsible for what passes through. I can't wait for comcasts and cox's ceo to go to jail b/c their customers download child porn.

No, they're running the net. They're telling ISPs what content to carry.

There are already laws against child porn.

You're really out of arguments if you fall back on that one.

no you just completely missed the arugment

 

[Ozmar]

because they have tried it (comcast a few times and lost everyone) due to existing laws near what net neutrality wants to finally cement.

also, if ISPs want to start playing god of what passes through their network than they can loss their carrier-only status and start becoming legally responsible for what passes through. I can't wait for comcasts and cox's ceo to go to jail b/c their customers download child porn.

No, they're running the net. They're telling ISPs what content to carry.

There are already laws against child porn.

You're really out of arguments if you fall back on that one.

no you just completely missed the arugment

But then what else is new?

 

[hipeter924]

No, they're running the net. They're telling ISPs what content to carry.

There are already laws against child porn.

You're really out of arguments if you fall back on that one.

no you just completely missed the arugment

But then what else is new?

Can you understand the argument so far? I got lost on they're running the net.

 

[Ozmar]

I got lost at his first ******* post. Somehow this is all Obama's fault, even though government moves on this have been in the works for years.

 

[hipeter924]

I got lost at his first ******* post. Somehow this is all Obama's fault, even though government moves on this have been in the works for years.

Well corporations usually have control over most functions of the American government, so it is Obama's fault, but also the fault of the Presidents before him.

 

[Ozmar]

I blame Waldo. Where the hell is he?

 

[hipeter924]

I blame Waldo. Where the hell is he?

On ebay.

 

[uscitizen]

The fair way to do this is to charge users by the bit instead of flat fees.

 

[hipeter924]

The fair way to do this is to charge users by the bit instead of flat fees.

The fair way is to let doctors control their own wages and working hours, and for them to negotiate on an individual basis with their local community over it.

 

[jillian]

It's making you carry another provider's traffic on your network, crone. You develop the backbone and they use it as they wish.

But they pay you for that use, just like the electrical and telephone grids.

Who cares? Who is government to demand you give access or provide content on your network?

who is government? who cares?

you're kidding right?

iyou really need to go educate yourself to get some understanding of this issue.

imagine if your cable company didn't like fauxnews and decided they would provide MSNBC for free but you would have to pay $50 a month for a package including fauxnews and its subsidiaries.

i say fauxnews b/c i know if i said something on the other end of the specturm, you wouldn't get it.

you want your calble company to decide what information you receive?

read and learn. it will be useful to you when you're older.

this isn't about "government" telling corporaitons what to do, it's about corporations wanting to control your content.

 

[hipeter924]

But they pay you for that use, just like the electrical and telephone grids.

Who cares? Who is government to demand you give access or provide content on your network?

who is government? who cares?

you're kidding right?

iyou really need to go educate yourself to get some understanding of this issue.

imagine if your cable company didn't like fauxnews and decided they would provide MSNBC for free but you would have to pay $50 a month for a package including fauxnews and its subsidiaries.

i say fauxnews b/c i know if i said something on the other end of the specturm, you wouldn't get it.

you want your calble company to decide what information you receive?

read and learn. it will be useful to you when you're older.

this isn't about "government" telling corporaitons what to do, it's about corporations wanting to control your content.

It's better if you don't take mainstream media seriously, and be skeptical about what it is saying. Media is mainstream for a reason, its short news not the full story, you have to read up in academic sources or see/learn it from personal experience to know the full story. For that reason I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, RT with an open mind, but not necessarily a believing mind.

In the end it's better believing what you see through your own eyes, rather than someone else's, the problem is that we can't be everywhere so we have to take the mainstream media's word on faith sometimes, and whatever word it's from it will be biased, it will have misinformation, and it will be partly wrong. There is no objective viewpoint we can just instantly switch on and tell us the truth, just biased viewpoints, some points of view are right and other's are wrong, but it's usually a hazy line.

 

[Missourian]

Someone who is making the "blocking websites" argument should link to something credible.

All I've ever heard about net neutrality was that internet providers wanted to create a two tiered system, a higher priced upper tier for priority business traffic, and a lower tier of service for low priority traffic.

Personally, I am not in favor of the two tiered model...but the real question is, if courts have ruled that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over the internet...how can it make these rules?

That's the power grab.

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.


Read more: Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality | Politics and Law - CNET News​

The point here is...the FCC does not have the AUTHORITY to regulate the internet under current U.S. law...period.

 

[asterism]

The fair way to do this is to charge users by the bit instead of flat fees.

While fair, that plan undermines the success of flat fee pricing which enabled high market penetration of the Internet in the first place.

 

[editec]

He can put his dick back on and tell me why the government should tell Verizon what it can and can't do on their fiber optic network.

Because Verizon and every other corporation in the USA exists at the pleasure of the STATE.

Because Verizon and every other corporation in the USA exists because the USA granted them a corporate charter.

Because in order for thse private corporations to have gotten so big to begin with depended on having the people of the USA give them the right to exist as a corporation to begin with.

Oh I know you think that a legal fiction (which is what all corporations really are) have all the rights of a person and are more important than THE SOCIETY that they exist amidst, but they're not.

Corporations exist ONLY with our permission.

 

[asterism]

Really?

That's what you think it is?

And just who do you think developed "the backbone" in the first place?

The government also developed the technology that makes the cordless drill possible. Does that give the FCC or any other agency de-facto control over what kind of shelves I am allowed to hang?

 

[California Girl]

As long as the FCC includes people like Mark Lloyd, I'm gonna be suspicious of their motives.

 

[Ozmar]

Really?

That's what you think it is?

And just who do you think developed "the backbone" in the first place?

The government also developed the technology that makes the cordless drill possible. Does that give the FCC or any other agency de-facto control over what kind of shelves I am allowed to hang?

Uh oh! Strawman!