# So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...



## IndependntLogic

So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality 

So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how? 

Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.

So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.

Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...


----------



## Avorysuds

Ok...


----------



## RDD_1210

Avorysuds said:


> Ok...



If you don't understand a topic, just say so. We can explain it to you.


----------



## RDD_1210

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board. 

Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.


----------



## FuelRod

Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.


----------



## RDD_1210

FuelRod said:


> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.



Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.


----------



## IndependntLogic

RDD_1210 said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
Click to expand...


Because the nice people on FOX told him so!


----------



## MikeFrank

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law. 

The market will decide who actually gets the business. 

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business? 

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.


----------



## RDD_1210

MikeFrank said:


> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.



So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?


----------



## Tech_Esq

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



Providing the government with a lever to control content on the internet is not consistent with tea party values. If you think whoever you support has never had a strange bedfellow in a political fight, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Keeping government's nose out of the tent is the prime objective, anything else is of relatively little importance by comparison.


----------



## Tech_Esq

RDD_1210 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
Click to expand...


And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.


----------



## RDD_1210

Tech_Esq said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.
Click to expand...


Where did I say that?


----------



## ClosedCaption

MikeFrank said:


> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.



Yes unless they do like AT&T and just absorb all the competition and make certain products unavailable to everyone else (iPhone).  That would great for the Internet that we helped pay to develop.


----------



## dilloduck

MikeFrank said:


> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.



The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.


----------



## code1211

RDD_1210 said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
Click to expand...




If an internet provider decides to set up a structure of charges that is objectionable, people will gravitate toward a less objectionable venue.

This is the free market.  If MSM wants to make unreasonable charges, let them go the way of AM Radio.


----------



## code1211

RDD_1210 said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?
Click to expand...




Have you ever seen a commercial on a news show?

Perhaps more to the point, have you ever seen a news show without a commercial?


----------



## code1211

RDD_1210 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
Click to expand...




Were you not asking the government to regulate the internet?


----------



## Sactowndog

Tech_Esq said:


> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.



Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something.  If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.


----------



## DontBeStupid

FuelRod said:


> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.



The FCC is currently protecting your right to visit any site you want.

I can see why you would hate that.


----------



## Sactowndog

code1211 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a commercial on a news show?
> 
> Perhaps more to the point, have you ever seen a news show without a commercial?
Click to expand...



That is not the point without net nuetrality you allow for Corporate censorship of information which may be more damaging then government censorship of information.  And yes to some extent it had already been censored via control over the print media as conservatives are so happy to point out.  

Do you really want to allow the same thing to happen to the internet?


----------



## Sactowndog

code1211 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you not asking the government to regulate the internet?
Click to expand...


Are you really that obtuse.  All the government is doing is saying providers can't regulate where you can go by varing the price.


----------



## Nic_Driver

MikeFrank said:


> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.



Until company A and B get together and collude to overcharge.

Damn plutocrats are determined to ruin our Republic, it's a shame.


----------



## code1211

Sactowndog said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something.  If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.
Click to expand...




What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?


----------



## BoycottTheday

You TeaParty haters are funny, you dont even know who to hate,

 its like they are an anonymous enemy all around,

 you dont know where to fire your vitrol,

 and they keep coming, for you.

 For your authoritarian mandates

your stupid unconstitutional laws

and unenforceable rules.

All you do will be for not

God willing.


----------



## idb

BoycottTheday said:


> You TeaParty haters are funny, you dont even know who to hate,
> 
> its like they are an anonymous enemy all around,
> 
> you dont know where to fire your vitrol,
> 
> and they keep coming, for you.
> 
> For your authoritarian mandates
> 
> your stupid unconstitutional laws
> 
> and unenforceable rules.
> 
> All you do will be for not
> 
> God willing.



Sorry, you're wrong, they hate anything or anyone with any possible connection to government....especially the current administration.
It must be bad if it has a link to gummint - therefore any alternative must be good...idiots!!!


----------



## BoycottTheday

idiots eh?  Welcome to ignore.


----------



## idb

BoycottTheday said:


> idiots eh?  Welcome to ignore.



Bugger!


----------



## Sactowndog

code1211 said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something.  If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?
Click to expand...


I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.  

I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it.  Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government.  And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security".   See the phone company actions under Bush.  The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.   

Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark.  The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.


----------



## chanel

Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?


----------



## RDD_1210

chanel said:


> Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?



Right, leave it as is. Which means content can't be censored or manipulated. Not by government, not by private business. This is how it has been, this is what the FCC is advocating going forward. Whats your problem with that?


----------



## Moonglow

MikeFrank said:


> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.



did you miss history and the Great Depression lesson?


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?
Click to expand...


Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather, but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

DontBeStupid said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC is currently protecting your right to visit any site you want.
> 
> I can see why you would hate that.
Click to expand...


Visiting a certain site isn't a right, it's a service.


----------



## Truthseeker420

code1211 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an internet provider decides to set up a structure of charges that is objectionable, people will gravitate toward a less objectionable venue.
> 
> This is the free market.  If MSM wants to make unreasonable charges, let them go the way of AM Radio.
Click to expand...


The problem is these are public airways and public utlities.


----------



## code1211

Sactowndog said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something.  If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.
> 
> I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it.  Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government.  And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security".   See the phone company actions under Bush.  The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.
> 
> Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark.  The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.
Click to expand...




Are you like three years old?  

Have you not witnessed the last 6 years of back room deals, WE have to pass it for YOU to know what's in it and Regulatory agencies unilaterally enforcing regulations based on nothing other than the agenda of the current administration?

My God!  Don't you know that you are free to give up your freedoms but have no authority to take them back once forfeited?

"The Congress shall make no law" is the only gaurd we have to keep the government away from its goal of total control.


----------



## RDD_1210

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather,* but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.
Click to expand...


The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## RDD_1210

Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.


----------



## Oddball

IndependntLogic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the nice people on FOX told him so!
Click to expand...

Wow!...Good thing _*you*_ don't project your biases onto others, huh?


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.


It's for the individual freedom of the providers of bandwidth to charge whatever they want, and let the marketplace shake out the rest.

What collectivist twirps like you are after amounts to rent control for the internet...And we all know how well rent control has (not) worked as advertised.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather,* but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.



If someone owns a business they're not an individual anymore? 

What freedom is being taken away from you if an ISP restricts certain sites?


----------



## RDD_1210

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather,* but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?
Click to expand...


Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.


----------



## RDD_1210

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone owns a business they're not an individual anymore?
> 
> What freedom is being taken away from you if an ISP restricts certain sites?
Click to expand...


Freedom to access information regardless of economic or social status. How this isn't clear to you is amazing.


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Freedom to access information regardless of economic or social status. How this isn't clear to you is amazing.


The freedom to do so doesn't give you a right to bandwidth supplied by someone else.

Go to the library and get a book.


----------



## KissMy

Without Net Neutrality one thing is for sure. Telecoms & cable companies will throttle & surge packets to see to it that VOIP & streaming video will never right again so you will hook your land-line telephone & cable box back up in order to communicate.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Sactowndog said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something.  If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.
> 
> I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it.  Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government.  And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security".   See the phone company actions under Bush.  The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.
> 
> Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark.  The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.
Click to expand...


Wow! An intelligent post! Who would have thought this would be found among the Bumper-Sticker Intellect of "No government is good government" and "You Tea Party Haters have *vitrol*!" (I found that particularly amusing from that there feller who was tryin so hard ta sound all interlektual and stuff).

Yes, there are times to have government! OMG
But if your every thought has been programmed by someone else, that's going to hard to figure out.

Nice post.


----------



## Oddball

KissMy said:


> Without Net Neutrality one thing is for sure. Telecoms & cable companies will throttle & surge packets to see to it that VOIP & streaming video will never right again so you will hook your land-line telephone & cable box back up in order to communicate.


What's in it for them to do that, when there are so many other options?


----------



## Oddball

IndependntLogic said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.
> 
> I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it.  Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government.  And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security".   See the phone company actions under Bush.  The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.
> 
> Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark.  The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! An intelligent post! Who would have thought this would be found among the Bumper-Sticker Intellect of "No government is good government" and "You Tea Party Haters have *vitrol*!" (I found that particularly amusing from that there feller who was tryin so hard ta sound all interlektual and stuff).
Click to expand...

You mean like implying that an opinion that doesn't match up with yours, or that you consider to be "intelligent", comes straight from Fox News, you sanctimonious gasbag?


----------



## uscitizen

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



Ahh no suprise, the Tea Partyers are mostly Ex Bush supporting Neocons.


----------



## KissMy

Oddball said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without Net Neutrality one thing is for sure. Telecoms & cable companies will throttle & surge packets to see to it that VOIP & streaming video will never right again so you will hook your land-line telephone & cable box back up in order to communicate.
> 
> 
> 
> What's in it for them to do that, when there are so many other options?
Click to expand...


There are not other options for most people. Telecoms own the backbone & long distance fiber. There is no getting around them.


----------



## uscitizen

KissMy said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without Net Neutrality one thing is for sure. Telecoms & cable companies will throttle & surge packets to see to it that VOIP & streaming video will never right again so you will hook your land-line telephone & cable box back up in order to communicate.
> 
> 
> 
> What's in it for them to do that, when there are so many other options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are not other options for most people. Telecoms own the backbone & long distance fiber. There is no getting around them.
Click to expand...


Yep 3 Telecoms mostly, bigger is better remember?
2 of them illegally wiretapped and got a legislative pardon for it.


----------



## Oddball

KissMy said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without Net Neutrality one thing is for sure. Telecoms & cable companies will throttle & surge packets to see to it that VOIP & streaming video will never right again so you will hook your land-line telephone & cable box back up in order to communicate.
> 
> 
> 
> What's in it for them to do that, when there are so many other options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are not other options for most people. Telecoms own the backbone & long distance fiber. There is no getting around them.
Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten that Comcast lost their "throttling" lawsuit...It's the primary reason that telecoms went to tiered pricing structures for bandwidth usage.

If there's sufficient bandwidth in the pipeline, so to speak, there's absolutely nothing in it for the telecoms to limit access to it.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.
Click to expand...


So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the _right_ to view it all I want.

What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone owns a business they're not an individual anymore?
> 
> What freedom is being taken away from you if an ISP restricts certain sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to access information regardless of economic or social status. How this isn't clear to you is amazing.
Click to expand...


You know, as fun as this has been, I'm going to end it by showing you what the Freedom of Information Act actually covers:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

It covers Government records only, not every bit of information in the world.


----------



## KissMy

Oddball said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's in it for them to do that, when there are so many other options?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are not other options for most people. Telecoms own the backbone & long distance fiber. There is no getting around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have forgotten that Comcast lost their "throttling" lawsuit...It's the primary reason that telecoms went to tiered pricing structures for bandwidth usage.
> 
> If there's sufficient bandwidth in the pipeline, so to speak, there's absolutely nothing in it for the telecoms to limit access to it.
Click to expand...


I don't know about the Comcast suit but I know what AT&T did to an Electric Coop who started providing WIFI fiber & wire network service. AT&T had the only spare fiber capacity in the region that would carry packets from the coop's switch to a major switch like Chicago or St. Louis. When AT&T found out that the coop was reaching some of their AT&T phone service areas, they throttled their fiber speed & told the coop they would only have limited bandwidth if they provided service to any area that AT&T provided dial-tone to. It was ok to provide service to Century-Tel customer areas.

Teleconference & Goto meeting would be impossible unless you paid up or subscribe to their AT&T service.


----------



## Oddball

That scenario sounds to me like there is only enough bandwidth to go around for ATT to deal with on their system...Why should they care if Century-Tel's lines got overloaded?


----------



## KissMy

Oddball said:


> That scenario sounds to me like there is only enough bandwidth to go around for ATT to deal with on their system...Why should they care if Century-Tel's lines got overloaded?



No AT&T had & still has plenty of dark fiber. They wanted the coop to provide high speed service to their rival CenturyTel's customers so those customers would shut off their expensive & slow dial-up phone service & go with high speed internet with VOIP. Since the coop agreed to not provide service to AT&T areas, AT&T allows them all the fiber & speed they want.


----------



## Oddball

OK....Gotcha.

Then it's a matter of ownership of the lines.

You change that by declaring them rights-of-way, reimbursing whomsoever installed them and opening it up for all comers....Which, of course, presents a whole different set of challenges, viz. capacity, maintenance, etcetera.

However, the one thing that's sure to make a bad situation even worse is to put a bunch mouth-breathing federal bureaucrats in charge of it all...Little to no track record of that tree bearing anything but rotten fruit.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Oddball said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.
> 
> I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it.  Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government.  And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security".   See the phone company actions under Bush.  The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.
> 
> Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark.  The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! An intelligent post! Who would have thought this would be found among the Bumper-Sticker Intellect of "No government is good government" and "You Tea Party Haters have *vitrol*!" (I found that particularly amusing from that there feller who was tryin so hard ta sound all interlektual and stuff).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like implying that an opinion that doesn't match up with yours, or that you consider to be "intelligent", comes straight from Fox News, you sanctimonious gasbag?
Click to expand...


LOL. Well Hi Oddball! I see your post are as on point and intelligent as always  
Boy, I must have really gotten under your skin for you to become such a little groupie and follow me everywhere like this! TYTYTY. 
See, the difference between you and me is simple. I can show posts on this very board, where I said to a Conservative who had an opposing point of view, "You're right. I was wrong." or "That's a great point and after doing some research, I've changed my mind!". That's what people who think for themselves are capable of.
Whereas as you are such mindless sheeple, that ALL your opinions are fed to you, so you can't have an open-mind or ever acknowledge opposing points of view from a Liberal or even Independents, as being valid. Your thought masters are not there to give you permission to think that way.
It's okay Oddball! The world _needs _stupid assholes like you! Otherwise, who would be around to defend Whackmann buy Eskimo Barbies' books! 
Have a Nice Day! Your BFF


----------



## Oddball

Fuck off, dickhead.

As you can see, I was having an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't act as though he's the smartest dicksmoker in the room.

Now, go take two heaping tablespoons of get the fuck over yourself and call us in the morning.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Oddball said:


> Fuck off, dickhead.
> 
> As you can see, I was having an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't act as though he's the smartest dicksmoker in the room.
> 
> Now, go take two heaping tablespoons of get the fuck over yourself and call us in the morning.



 Yeah, you just do what weak little sheeple do. Run from the challenge sweetheart. I don't blame you. 
So remember Oddball, when faced with facts, issues or questions you don't want to deal with directly (in this case, you acknowledging the point of a Liberal or Independent with an opposing view), do what you always do:
Dodge the question
Change the subject
Insult
Moral Comparative
Cut & Run

Now you just Cut & Run along junior! Have a nice "intelligent conversation" with those who agree with your basic premises and do the above with everyone else. But do try to calm down. You seem rather hysterical and I am concerned for your health.


----------



## Oddball

Sorry, I don't bother myself with insufferably arrogant and supercilious blowhards.

I fell for it too many times to number, only to have them eventually reveal themselves the overly verbose boors that they are.

That's the thing that's _*really*_ grating about you self-professed "moderates" "centrists" and "independents"...Y'all actually believe that you're so unique and unheard of, when in actuality you're quite common and extremely trite.


----------



## code1211

RDD_1210 said:


> Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.





Anytime a law is passed that specifically grants anything, the implication is that the government gave and so the government can take away.

Net neutrality is regualting something that needs no regulation.  Even a cursory examination of the internet shows that it cannot be controlled and that it is an open door to anyone who wants to come in.

If you believe that ffeedom of speech is only speech that is regulated, you're crazy.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Oddball said:


> Sorry, I don't bother myself with insufferably arrogant and supercilious blowhards.
> 
> I fell for it too many times to number, only to have them eventually reveal themselves the overly verbose boors that they are.
> 
> That's the thing that's _*really*_ grating about you self-professed "moderates" "centrists" and "independents"...Y'all actually believe that you're so unique and unheard of, when in actuality you're quite common and extremely trite.



Ah. The dodge / excuse. Well that wasn't hard to predict, now was it? Never is with the weak.


----------



## Oddball

Refusal lower myself to engaging an overbearing and pretentious douchebag isn't dodging anything...It's merely refusal to try and kick the football.

But, by all means, revel in your self-decalred victory!...That's nothing new either.

[


----------



## uscitizen

The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.


----------



## Oddball

uscitizen said:


> The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.


I had no idea the likes of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul had "neocon sides" to them, to come out....Care to enlighten us?

BTW, opportunistic goofballs like Michelle Bachmann are merely hangers-on and suck-ups.

And what does any of that have to do with the "net neutrality" federal power grab?


----------



## RDD_1210

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the _right_ to view it all I want.
> 
> What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?


----------



## uscitizen

Oddball said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.
> 
> 
> 
> I had no idea the likes of Marco Rubio and Rand Paul had "neocon sides" to them, to come out....Care to enlighten us?
> 
> BTW, opportunistic goofballs like Michelle Bachmann are merely hangers-on and suck-ups.
> 
> And what does any of that have to do with the "net neutrality" federal power grab?
Click to expand...


Umm 44 of them voted to keep the Patriot act intact and even expand it.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the _right_ to view it all I want.
> 
> What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?
Click to expand...


Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.

What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?


----------



## RDD_1210

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the _right_ to view it all I want.
> 
> What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.
> 
> What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?
Click to expand...


Do you really need me to explain the difference between billboards and the internet? Really? Do you understand the role that the internet plays in our world and the increasing importance it has each and every day? The fact that you are comparing the power and importance of the internet to billboards, bumper stickers, etc.. tells me either you're incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



Why do people who think they are intelligent support net neutrality? Do you understand what happens when the government starts making rules?

As Expected, FCC Approving Net Neutrality Rules That AT&T Wants | Techdirt


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
Click to expand...


I prefer that to the government making rules that favor one company over another like the proposed rules do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?
Click to expand...


Why don't you give me a list of all the companies that are denying people internet access or charging them for stuff that comes from other companies.

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Oddball

Quantum Windbag said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people who think they are intelligent support net neutrality?
Click to expand...

Because his definition of "intelligence" means you  recognizing how utterly brilliant he is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ClosedCaption said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes unless they do like AT&T and just absorb all the competition and make certain products unavailable to everyone else (iPhone).  That would great for the Internet that we helped pay to develop.
Click to expand...


Apple made the iPhone, not AT&T. Since you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about we can ignore anything else you have to say.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sactowndog said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something.  If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.
Click to expand...


And you do that by having the government control either the companies or the internet. Another person who is incapable of discussing the subject intelligently and can be ignored by anyone who wants to have an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

DontBeStupid said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC is currently protecting your right to visit any site you want.
> 
> I can see why you would hate that.
Click to expand...


The FCC is currently doing no such thing, yet you still get to visit any site you want. I can see why you want the government to step in and change things.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sactowndog said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you not asking the government to regulate the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that obtuse.  All the government is doing is saying providers can't regulate where you can go by varing the price.
Click to expand...


If anyone ever starts trying that I will make sure to let you know.

What the government is actually objecting to is that providers charge people who spend a lot of time downloading torrents more than they do someone who only uses email. The only people I know who object to that are people who download massive amounts of torrents and idiots.

Which are you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

chanel said:


> Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?



Strange isn't it, they want to fix a problem that does not exist, and then wonder why people object to getting the government involved.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, leave it as is. Which means content can't be censored or manipulated. Not by government, not by private business. This is how it has been, this is what the FCC is advocating going forward. Whats your problem with that?
Click to expand...


That is not what the FCC is advocating, if it was I would have no problem.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Truthseeker420 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an internet provider decides to set up a structure of charges that is objectionable, people will gravitate toward a less objectionable venue.
> 
> This is the free market.  If MSM wants to make unreasonable charges, let them go the way of AM Radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is these are public airways and public utlities.
Click to expand...


They are not public anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.



Coming from a person that keeps telling me that PPACA will save money and give me more choices that is pretty ironic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.
Click to expand...


Can you tell me who is doing that, or should I just take your word for it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

IndependntLogic said:


> Sactowndog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.
> 
> I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it.  Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government.  And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security".   See the phone company actions under Bush.  The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.
> 
> Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark.  The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! An intelligent post! Who would have thought this would be found among the Bumper-Sticker Intellect of "No government is good government" and "You Tea Party Haters have *vitrol*!" (I found that particularly amusing from that there feller who was tryin so hard ta sound all interlektual and stuff).
> 
> Yes, there are times to have government! OMG
> But if your every thought has been programmed by someone else, that's going to hard to figure out.
> 
> Nice post.
Click to expand...


Wow.

You think someone who agrees with you is intelligent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KissMy said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without Net Neutrality one thing is for sure. Telecoms & cable companies will throttle & surge packets to see to it that VOIP & streaming video will never right again so you will hook your land-line telephone & cable box back up in order to communicate.
> 
> 
> 
> What's in it for them to do that, when there are so many other options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are not other options for most people. Telecoms own the backbone & long distance fiber. There is no getting around them.
Click to expand...


Really?

Unless you lie in the back end of nowhere there is plenty of competition. The reason that there is none there is most local governments take payments to OK monopoly service.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone owns a business they're not an individual anymore?
> 
> What freedom is being taken away from you if an ISP restricts certain sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom to access information regardless of economic or social status. How this isn't clear to you is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, as fun as this has been, I'm going to end it by showing you what the Freedom of Information Act actually covers:
> 
> The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
> 
> It covers Government records only, not every bit of information in the world.
Click to expand...


Not only that, the government actually charges for that information, which is why so few people can afford it.


----------



## Foxfyre

We already have antitrust laws that are both the watchdog and arbiter of illegal monopoly or unfair competition or price fixing to drive some segment of commerce and industry out of business.

We need to elect people who take those laws seriously.

We do NOT want to otherwise give government power to pick winners and losers or what exclusions can be made or anything else governing the internet.  You progressives who think the current government is virtuous, noble, pure, and incapable to doing anything unethical, just bear in mind that sooner or later there will again be a Republican President and a Republican Congress or a reasonable facsimile.

Will you be so confident in government then?

Let the government exercise its consitutionally mandated responsibility to protect everybody's rights and then keep it out of all free market issues including the internet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KissMy said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are not other options for most people. Telecoms own the backbone & long distance fiber. There is no getting around them.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have forgotten that Comcast lost their "throttling" lawsuit...It's the primary reason that telecoms went to tiered pricing structures for bandwidth usage.
> 
> If there's sufficient bandwidth in the pipeline, so to speak, there's absolutely nothing in it for the telecoms to limit access to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about the Comcast suit but I know what AT&T did to an Electric Coop who started providing WIFI fiber & wire network service. AT&T had the only spare fiber capacity in the region that would carry packets from the coop's switch to a major switch like Chicago or St. Louis. When AT&T found out that the coop was reaching some of their AT&T phone service areas, they throttled their fiber speed & told the coop they would only have limited bandwidth if they provided service to any area that AT&T provided dial-tone to. It was ok to provide service to Century-Tel customer areas.
> 
> Teleconference & Goto meeting would be impossible unless you paid up or subscribe to their AT&T service.
Click to expand...


Do you have an actual link to that? What you are describing is actually illegal, federal law requires telecoms to provide access to fiber optic lines at rates that are set by law, and they cannot limit the bandwidth. That is how Sprint came into existence in the first place, they leased the lines from AT&T at government mandated rates, and then sold it to their customers are lower rates than AT&T could afford to pay.

That makes me think someone is lying about what happened. Is it you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the _right_ to view it all I want.
> 
> What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?
Click to expand...


And that is bad and evil and should be prevented at all costs because...

By the way, how is that any different than content suppliers having to pay for content in the first place? Do you think Hulu, Netflix, Joost, and Bockbuster get all those movies and TV shows for free?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Oddball said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people who think they are intelligent support net neutrality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his definition of "intelligence" means you  recognizing how utterly brilliant he is.
Click to expand...


I noticed that his first week here.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.



Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
Click to expand...


So far it works without the government. Being pragmatic therefore means keeping the government out of it.


----------



## KissMy

dilloduck said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
Click to expand...


That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.

Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.


----------



## Big Black Dog

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.
> 
> What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really need me to explain the difference between billboards and the internet? Really? Do you understand the role that the internet plays in our world and the increasing importance it has each and every day? The fact that you are comparing the power and importance of the internet to billboards, bumper stickers, etc.. tells me either you're incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.
Click to expand...


There is one very important fact that you are over looking here...  A person can never be elected President unless he, or she, has a really snappy, eye-catching bumper sticker.


----------



## Annie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
Click to expand...


Seriously, with the exception of the military, coinage, post office, and true interstate commerce, where has the Federal government proved superior to private? Mind you, I'm not ignorant of the abuses, sometimes fatal, of the private realm. Triangle shirtwaist comes immediately to mind. So was the answer to go to big government or should it have been to charge owners/operators with murder? 

Can we not all see that 'regulations' have gone berserk? Take Fannie and Freddie for instance. Hello housing bubble. It didn't have to happen. Yet, Congress, SEC, the Fed, the Executive Branch were all involved. Indeed, they still are. On mortgage rates, Obama wants proposal for how government can keep big role - The Washington Post

Of course the above followed the opposite:

Obama Calls For End Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

He just was exercising his right to segue I guess.


----------



## idb

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
Click to expand...


Perfect!

That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.

Morans!


----------



## code1211

uscitizen said:


> The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.





The Social Conservative part of the TEA Party is somewhat anachronistic.  If they want to return to the roots of the Constitution, that means that they should Pass No Law.

That said, UNpassing a couple laws would be a good thing.

The only appeal the TEA Pary has for me is the cut back on the Feds spending and the subsquent restraint of their power.  By the looks of things, expanding the power of Washington constains the power of the USA.

Go Figure...


----------



## code1211

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, dumb and irrelevant point. If information is out there, it should be accessible to all, not to be defined and restricted by who pays more to access it. I love the hypocrisy of the "individual liberty" crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no more hiding your posts on Facebook then? I mean, if that information is out there then I should have the _right_ to view it all I want.
> 
> What about cable. Are my rights being violated because I'm not paying enough for every channel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?
Click to expand...




So only the deep pocket guys like the USMB will have access to the internet?

Wow!  That does restrict things allot.  Oh, yeah! And organizations like the class reunion committees and every jack ass with a Face Book account and that sort of gate keeper?

How will we survive with only the few access points left?


----------



## Annie

code1211 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The longer TP'ers are in congress they more of their Neocon side comes out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Social Conservative part of the TEA Party is somewhat anachronistic.  If they want to return to the roots of the Constitution, that means that they should Pass No Law.
> 
> That said, UNpassing a couple laws would be a good thing.
> 
> The only appeal the TEA Pary has for me is the cut back on the Feds spending and the subsquent restraint of their power.  By the looks of things, expanding the power of Washington constains the power of the USA.
> 
> Go Figure...
Click to expand...


I've said this since early days. "Beware of those saying they are Tea Party." The first to jump on were Gingrich and far right GOP. Since then, a mix of the same and some conspiracy types. 

Good thing it's not a party, but a political philosophy. Now needs a new label. 

Lower taxes
Less government, make that least government. Make that at lowest level government in our federated system.
Government should do only what can't be done by citizens. With that said, starting from the bottom level up, not vice versa.


----------



## idb

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far it works without the government. Being pragmatic therefore means keeping the government out of it.
Click to expand...


Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?


----------



## editec

End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.

It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.


----------



## Annie

idb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect!
> 
> That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
> 
> Morans!
Click to expand...


Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?


----------



## idb

Annie said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect!
> 
> That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
> 
> Morans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
Click to expand...


So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?


----------



## Annie

idb said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect!
> 
> That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
> 
> Morans!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?
Click to expand...


Actually, because of 'deregulation' on a 'regulate' entity or in this case, entities. It's a case of all controls off. The regulated was manipulating the regulators.


----------



## code1211

editec said:


> End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.
> 
> It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.





Whoa there Big Fellow.

Net Neutrality is a set of laws that regulates the Net, is it not?  Ending net Nuetrality means leaving it as it is.

Right now I can render my valued and sought after opinions on any topic at all on the net to the gratification of my legion of devotees.  Before the Net, i could not and the legion was forced to have their own unpoluted opinoins.

What misery...

If the government "gives" something, the implication is that the government can take it away.



Net Neutrality

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality: 
The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality"  and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, *would give *the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody  no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional  has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt


----------



## code1211

idb said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect!
> 
> That's the problem with developing political policy with shrill one-dimensional slogans and bumper stickers, you end up painted into a no-compromise, blinkered corner with no opportunity or mechanism to examine alternatives.
> 
> Morans!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?
Click to expand...




It was due to the Sub prime lending pactices.  That is, lending money to the folks with sub prime qualifications:  change to read:  those who will not pay it back.

This was demanded by laws based on anti discrimination.  Money is loaned on the idea that it is loaned to those with the wherewithall to repay it.  The government demanded that the idea of repayment be termed discriminatory and that institutions thinking in that way needed to be "regulated".

Some were thereby regulated into olblivion.

The resulting assets are "toxic" and have not been addressed by the Trillions we have squandered to avoid the solution.  Thanks Big 0.  Godd approach.

Whether you think this is too much regulation or too little, it's government sticking its nose in where it don't belong.  Without the intrusion of the government, it doesn't happen and the bubble never exists in the first place to burst in the last place.

This was nothing more than another example of Wealth Redistribution.  The result is the inevitable result of this poorly conceived practice.


----------



## Annie

There's lots of players:

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



> Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality
> By: Declan McCullagh April 6, 2010 8:15 AM PDT
> 
> 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.
> 
> Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210

code1211 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.
> 
> It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there Big Fellow.
> 
> Net Neutrality is a set of laws that regulates the Net, is it not?  *Ending net Nuetrality means leaving it as it is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net Neutrality
> 
> A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:
> The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" &#8211; and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
> 
> In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, *would give *the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
> 
> Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody &#8211; no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional &#8211; has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
> 
> Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
> 
> Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
> 
> Eric Schmidt
Click to expand...


This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.


----------



## ogibillm

RDD_1210 said:


> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.


this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.


----------



## RDD_1210

ogibillm said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.
Click to expand...


They're so brainwashed to assume that if the government wants to do ANYTHING they assume it's bad. Even when they contradict themselves and the values they claim to stand for.


----------



## edjax1952

dilloduck said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
Click to expand...

 
I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government.  A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make.  The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C.  This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government.  If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.

Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation.  We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes.  If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.
Click to expand...

_*PFFFFT!*_

I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.

But nice invocation of the strawman argument.


----------



## RDD_1210

edjax1952 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government.  A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make.  The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C.  This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government.  If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.
> 
> Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation.  We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes.  If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.
Click to expand...


You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*PFFFFT!*_
> 
> I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
> 
> But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
Click to expand...


so your problem with open access to the internet is... what exactly?


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> _*PFFFFT!*_
> 
> I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
> 
> But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so your problem with open access to the internet is... what exactly?
Click to expand...

Gubmint intervention &#8800; "open access"....There's your first semantic miscalculation.

Secondly, nearly  the entire argument from the "open access" crowd is filled with the same corporate booger men and "yeahbut they *could*..." mythical straw dog arguments....IOW, it doesn't pass the smell test from square one.

After that, I'm currently posting from one of those "remote rural areas" that all the hand-wringers seem to be constantly harping about and have full-on broadband.

At the rate technology moves, so-called net neutrality is little more than a political lap dog yapping at a passing car.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

RDD_1210 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
Click to expand...


Shut down the FCC


----------



## edjax1952

RDD_1210 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government. A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make. The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C. This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government. If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.
> 
> Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation. We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes. If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.
Click to expand...

 
What is it that makes you think I do not understand? I do understand that putting the government in charge of something that the private market, engenuity, and American resolve should be taking care of is NOT a good thing.


----------



## RDD_1210

edjax1952 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would much prefer dealing with a large corporation than the US Government. A large Corporation cannot fine you or force you to a decision that you do not want to make. The Feds can make a ruling that the only programs that are available are programs A,B and C. This leaves the public with no other options without committing a crime or stalling any new programs for years because of red tape and the government. If the large corporations tell you that the only programs available are A,B and C. You can create program D.
> 
> Most of the retoric of this thread as neglected to consider the ingenuity of the coming generation. We very well may have another Steve Jobs or Bill gates out there ready to get a new thing going that will make current internet and all its large corporations small potatoes. If we continue to turn to the government to solve our problems we will be no more than serfs to that government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it that makes you think I do not understand? I do understand that putting the government in charge of something that the private market, engenuity, and American resolve should be taking care of is NOT a good thing.
Click to expand...


Put in charge? Right there says enough about your understanding. Net Neutrality says that no one can hinder access, not private business, not government.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*PFFFFT!*_
> 
> I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
> 
> But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your problem with open access to the internet is... what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gubmint intervention &#8800; "open access"....There's your first semantic miscalculation.
> 
> Secondly, nearly  the entire argument from the "open access" crowd is filled with the same corporate booger men and "yeahbut they *could*..." mythical straw dog arguments....IOW, it doesn't pass the smell test from square one.
> 
> After that, I'm currently posting from one of those "remote rural areas" that all the hand-wringers seem to be constantly harping about and have full-on broadband.
> 
> At the rate technology moves, so-called net neutrality is little more than a political lap dog yapping at a passing car.
Click to expand...


so... you don't have a problem with it

and you somehow believe that mandating open acces means that access will somehow be limited.

honestly, this is just a case of government being ahead of the curve. it could be (probably would be) profitable for a company to limit and steer access over their network. that would be what a capitalist would do.


----------



## Oddball

*chuckle*...Gubmint....*snert*...ahead of the curve....*chortle*

...Dude, stop it...Yer' killin' me over heah!


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*PFFFFT!*_
> 
> I don't need a media windbag's yammerings for me recognize a pig in a poke when I see it.
> 
> But nice invocation of the strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your problem with open access to the internet is... what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gubmint intervention &#8800; "open access"....There's your first semantic miscalculation.
Click to expand...

Actually that's exactly what it means. 


> Secondly, nearly  the entire argument from the "open access" crowd is filled with the same corporate booger men and "yeahbut they *could*..." mythical straw dog arguments....IOW, it doesn't pass the smell test from square one.



That's the point. We've enjoyed open access to the internet and we'd like to keep it that way. It could happen because it has been proposed. Hence the need for Net Neutrality legislation.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> *chuckle*...Gubmint....*snert*...ahead of the curve....*chortle*
> 
> ...Dude, stop it...Yer' killin' me over heah!



If nothing else, this topic exposes you as a world class hypocrite. "Freedom" my ass. You're a corporate suckup who would sell out your own mother if it meant someone could make a dollar off of it.


----------



## Oddball

Oh, please...You snivelers have been going on and on and on and on about "net neutrality" since at least the first term of Chimpola.

In the meantime, the holy grail of "access" has only expanded, Comcast lost the "throttling" lawsuit brought against them -prompting tiered price structures for bandwidth usage- and nary a one of your mythical corporate doomsday prophecies has come to pass.

Hell, Mario Mendoza is a Hall-of-Famer compared to your batting average.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> Oh, please...You snivelers have been going on and on and on and on about "net neutrality" since at least the first term of Chimpola.
> 
> In the meantime, the holy grail of "access" has only expanded, Comcast lost the "throttling" lawsuit brought against them -prompting tiered price structures for bandwidth usage- and nary a one of your mythical corporate doomsday prophecies has come to pass.
> 
> Hell, Mario Mendoza is a Hall-of-Famer compared to your batting average.



I'll steal a page from Rabbi's playbook now...

Translation: You give up since your hypocrisy has been fully exposed.


----------



## Oddball

Right...I want politicians,  bureaucrats and various other busybody do-gooders to STFU and mind their place, remind you that none of your techno-apocalypse doomsday scenarios have ever come to pass,  and that makes me a "corporate suck-up".

How quaint.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> Right...I want politicians,  bureaucrats and various other busybody do-gooders to STFU and mind their place, remind you that none of your techno-apocalypse doomsday scenarios have ever come to pass,  and that makes me a "corporate suck-up".
> 
> How quaint.



here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...I want politicians,  bureaucrats and various other busybody do-gooders to STFU and mind their place, remind you that none of your techno-apocalypse doomsday scenarios have ever come to pass,  and that makes me a "corporate suck-up".
> 
> How quaint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?
Click to expand...

I certainly do have another argument....That the past arguments of the doomsayers and hand-wringers have shown themselves to be utterly baseless...That  technology advances and litigation over legislation are getting the job done....Likewise, the claim of my wanting to maintain the status quo is entirely fallacious, as I've pointed out that technological advances render that claim impotent.

OTOH, when do we ever get rid of any bureaucracy once they've completed their mission?...When has any bureaucracy ever gone out of business for shoddy practices, crappy business models (think AMTRAK), negligence, and /or outright criminal malfeasance?...Hell, if past performance is any indicator, they'll fuck things up just to have a "problem" to fix.

Thanks...But I'll stay over here and trust the profit motive and _*real*_ freedom, over any mirage that bureaucratic aggression claims to provide.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not users who will have to pay to gain access, it's content providers or businesses who will have to pay to make sure their content shows up. If they don't pay they fall behind the big guys who can pay. Thats where it stops being content is all accessible and consumers decide which is best to the guy with the deepest pockets gets to spread his information the furtherst/easiest. Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.
> 
> What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really need me to explain the difference between billboards and the internet? Really? Do you understand the role that the internet plays in our world and the increasing importance it has each and every day? The fact that you are comparing the power and importance of the internet to billboards, bumper stickers, etc.. tells me either you're incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.
Click to expand...


The importance of the internet is to make communication and information gathering easier, nothing more. Even without the internet you would be able to find all the knowledge in the world, provided you knew where to look and didn't mind putting in the leg work. There is nothing so special about the internet that we need a government watch group hovering over it and protecting it from the very people who own the bandwidth.

My point of listing billboards and bumper stickers was to try and make you realize how crazy your argument sounds, I suppose it's my fault for assuming it would work with an ideologue. You're trying deny a basic fundamental of the world, you get more if you give more. But you only care about it in this instance because it's a big bad boogeyman corporation that's involved. If an internet provider wants to deny access to a certain site then it's their right, as the owners of those lines, to do so. Don't like it? Switch to a different provider.

Even if a provider ever did this, do you honestly think the internet community would just sit back and accept it? They'll start hosting sites within sites, just so people can get around the restriction and view the content anyways.


----------



## edjax1952

RDD_1210 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that makes you think I do not understand? I do understand that putting the government in charge of something that the private market, engenuity, and American resolve should be taking care of is NOT a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put in charge? Right there says enough about your understanding. Net Neutrality says that no one can hinder access, not private business, not government.
Click to expand...

 
If the government has the authority to say that no-one can hinder internet access, then that is not being in charge of (regulating) the activity and evolution of the internet?  Will the government decide what activities do hinder access and what activities do not?

If we allow the Government to stifle the evolution of natural events, we give up the ability to influence that evolution as a body of people.  I have more faith in how the masses react to natural events than I have faith that the federal government can protect us from harm those natural event may bring about.

I speak of this in a post on my blog in WordPress about the difference in equal justice vs social justice.  Give it a read and let me know what you think about it.  

Social justice is based on the idea that a group of people are _entitled_ to certain treatment or resources due to circu
mstances other than what the general population experiences. It usually involves taking resources, provided by someone else, and providing them to the group of people. It also involves allowing for different treatment or rights when a group of people do not have access to liberties, rights or resources due to a disadvantaged position in society. It requires government to dictate conditions in order to regulate private affairs and gain equality for the disadvantaged group of people. ...Credit to Wikipedia on "Social Justice"

Social justice is the very thing the founding fathers fought against when they formed our nation. This is the reason they wrote the first ten amendments to The Constitution. The intent of the Bill of Rights was to provide all citizens with protection from government dictate or intrusion in certain parts of our lives.


----------



## Foxfyre

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...I want politicians,  bureaucrats and various other busybody do-gooders to STFU and mind their place, remind you that none of your techno-apocalypse doomsday scenarios have ever come to pass,  and that makes me a "corporate suck-up".
> 
> How quaint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?
Click to expand...


The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.

It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government.  There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue.  And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.

Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything.  We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government.  We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.


----------



## ogibillm

Foxfyre said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...I want politicians,  bureaucrats and various other busybody do-gooders to STFU and mind their place, remind you that none of your techno-apocalypse doomsday scenarios have ever come to pass,  and that makes me a "corporate suck-up".
> 
> How quaint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.
> 
> It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government.  There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue.  And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.
> 
> Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything.  We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government.  We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.
Click to expand...


uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.

if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.

but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KissMy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.
> 
> Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.
Click to expand...


That would violate existing federal law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatism is the answer, not the blind adherence to one dogma or another. The above may have been true in 1800 but not today. Go with what works, be it government or private.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far it works without the government. Being pragmatic therefore means keeping the government out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
> And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
> Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?
Click to expand...


No.

From the OP link.



> A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.



The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.

In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.
> 
> It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.



The net neutrality we have exists precisely because the government has no say in what we see. Why do you feel a need to fix it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

RDD_1210 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
Click to expand...


Business will support the Tea Party in return for Tea Party permission for government to fleece us all.  This is corporatism, pioneered by Mussolini and developed by Hitler.

The Tea Party favors economic fascism.  Some in the party suffer race hatred, and we know where that leads.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> End net neutraility and the internet becomes a very one sided propaganda tool of the corporations that dominate internet traffic.
> 
> It does not surprise me that the TP tools are cozying up to the corporations seeking to end net nuetraility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there Big Fellow.
> 
> Net Neutrality is a set of laws that regulates the Net, is it not?  *Ending net Nuetrality means leaving it as it is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net Neutrality
> 
> A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:
> The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality"  and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
> 
> In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, *would give *the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
> 
> Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody  no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional  has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
> 
> Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
> 
> Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
> 
> Eric Schmidt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.

Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ogibillm said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> this is the problem with many 'conservatives' and net neutrality. they don't understand it, but have been told by sean and rush and beck that it's bad - and so they believe it.
Click to expand...


Funny how someone who thinks the FCC regulates the internet is saying I do not understand the issues.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> edjax1952 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think that someone who had a picture of themselves sitting at a computer would understand how Net Neutrality and the internet worked. Guess not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that makes you think I do not understand? I do understand that putting the government in charge of something that the private market, engenuity, and American resolve should be taking care of is NOT a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put in charge? Right there says enough about your understanding. Net Neutrality says that no one can hinder access, not private business, not government.
Click to expand...


Right now the only actually hindering of access is coming from the government. How is giving the government more power going to prevent them from further hindering access?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...I want politicians,  bureaucrats and various other busybody do-gooders to STFU and mind their place, remind you that none of your techno-apocalypse doomsday scenarios have ever come to pass,  and that makes me a "corporate suck-up".
> 
> How quaint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?
Click to expand...


You want specifics? Seriously? Do you honestly think it will be a challenge to show that the government will end up making things worse if they get involved?

How about the government shutting down legal foreign sites because rich corporations and lobbying groups don't like them?

Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security &#038; ICE Over Domain Seizure | Techdirt

U.S. Faces Legal Challenge to Internet-Domain Seizures | Threat Level | Wired.com

Under current government theory they could shut down this message board if someone mentions the name of a site that might break the law, or any link from this site leads to a site that links to a site that links to an illegal site. Is that really the attitude you want regulating your internet access?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ogibillm said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.
> 
> It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government.  There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue.  And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.
> 
> Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything.  We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government.  We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.
> 
> if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.
> 
> but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.
Click to expand...


Guess what?

If that ever happens I know hundreds of ways to watch YouTube without my ISP being able to stop it. I already use them to watch stuff that various government agencies tell me I am not allowed to see because I live in the wrong country. I do not need the government to protect me from the big bad evil ISP, especially since it does not exist, and I can get internet access through another ISP with a phone call.

Do you still call your mommy if someone calls you names? Do you expect her, or the government, to protect you from me when I say you are an idiot? Do you often whine about things that have no basis in reality?

Quiz: Are You a Pussy?: Humor: GQ


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business will support the Tea Party in return for Tea Party permission for government to fleece us all.  This is corporatism, pioneered by Mussolini and developed by Hitler.
> 
> The Tea Party favors economic fascism.  Some in the party suffer race hatred, and we know where that leads.
Click to expand...


The idiot speaketh, let all statists worship at his feet.


----------



## Foxfyre

ogibillm said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem?  how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.
> 
> It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government.  There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue.  And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.
> 
> Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything.  We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government.  We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.
> 
> if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.
> 
> but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.
Click to expand...


The free market has a means to get around just about any 'trap' unscrupulous enterprise wants to set for its own advantage.  When people wanted to be able to post a photo or other content without every Tom, Dick and Harry stealing it, they were able to accomplish that without any help from Big Brother Government.

If somebody tries to block access to Youtube or any other location on the internet, somebody will develop the technology so that every computer owner can easily get around the roadblock.   And if that can't be done, then Youtube has a really good case for an anti-trust lawsuit against Time Warner that should take care of the matter.  Those laws are already on the books without turning the internet over to the government to manage.

Really, can you think of ANYTHING the government has EVER managed that hasn't been more expensive, more inefficient, and more problematic than it had to be?   Why in the world do you think government management of the internet would be any different?


----------



## idb

Annie said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, because of 'deregulation' on a 'regulate' entity or in this case, entities. It's a case of all controls off. The regulated was manipulating the regulators.
Click to expand...


But...I thought you would want de-regulation?
That is some pretty twisted logic there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Quantum Windbag said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.
> 
> It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government.  There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue.  And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.
> 
> Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything.  We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government.  We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.
> 
> if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.
> 
> but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> If that ever happens I know hundreds of ways to watch YouTube without my ISP being able to stop it. I already use them to watch stuff that various government agencies tell me I am not allowed to see because I live in the wrong country. I do not need the government to protect me from the big bad evil ISP, especially since it does not exist, and I can get internet access through another ISP with a phone call.
> 
> Do you still call your mommy if someone calls you names? Do you expect her, or the government, to protect you from me when I say you are an idiot? Do you often whine about things that have no basis in reality?
> 
> Quiz: Are You a Pussy?: Humor: GQ
Click to expand...


What in the hell is Darjeeling and what is a bookbiding Cafe?


----------



## idb

code1211 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was due to the Sub prime lending pactices.  That is, lending money to the folks with sub prime qualifications:  change to read:  those who will not pay it back.
> 
> This was demanded by laws based on anti discrimination.  Money is loaned on the idea that it is loaned to those with the wherewithall to repay it.  The government demanded that the idea of repayment be termed discriminatory and that institutions thinking in that way needed to be "regulated".
> 
> Some were thereby regulated into olblivion.
> 
> The resulting assets are "toxic" and have not been addressed by the Trillions we have squandered to avoid the solution.  Thanks Big 0.  Godd approach.
> 
> Whether you think this is too much regulation or too little, it's government sticking its nose in where it don't belong.  Without the intrusion of the government, it doesn't happen and the bubble never exists in the first place to burst in the last place.
> 
> This was nothing more than another example of Wealth Redistribution.  The result is the inevitable result of this poorly conceived practice.
Click to expand...


I've never read that explanation before.
So you're saying that the gummint forced the banks to loan to the sub-prime market?
I suspect you're working too hard to blame the gummint on this.
I think it was simple greed, I can't think of a sector more in need of regulation.


----------



## idb

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far it works without the government. Being pragmatic therefore means keeping the government out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
> And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
> Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> From the OP link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.
> 
> In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.
Click to expand...


OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
> And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
> Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> From the OP link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.
> 
> In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, granted.
> I've done a tiny bit more research now.
> It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
> Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?
Click to expand...


I do not know what the Tea Party wants.

I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.


----------



## RDD_1210

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.
> 
> What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need me to explain the difference between billboards and the internet? Really? Do you understand the role that the internet plays in our world and the increasing importance it has each and every day? The fact that you are comparing the power and importance of the internet to billboards, bumper stickers, etc.. tells me either you're incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The importance of the internet is to make communication and information gathering easier, nothing more. Even without the internet you would be able to find all the knowledge in the world, provided you knew where to look and didn't mind putting in the leg work. There is nothing so special about the internet that we need a government watch group hovering over it and protecting it from the very people who own the bandwidth.
> 
> My point of listing billboards and bumper stickers was to try and make you realize how crazy your argument sounds, I suppose it's my fault for assuming it would work with an ideologue. You're trying deny a basic fundamental of the world, you get more if you give more. But you only care about it in this instance because it's a big bad boogeyman corporation that's involved. If an internet provider wants to deny access to a certain site then it's their right, as the owners of those lines, to do so. Don't like it? Switch to a different provider.
> 
> *Even if a provider ever did this, do you honestly think the internet community would just sit back and accept it? They'll start hosting sites within sites, just so people can get around the restriction and view the content anyways.*
Click to expand...


Bwahahahahaah! Holy shit thanks for making my day. LOL!! Please enlighten me with what you do for a living. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.


----------



## RDD_1210

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there Big Fellow.
> 
> Net Neutrality is a set of laws that regulates the Net, is it not?  *Ending net Nuetrality means leaving it as it is.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net Neutrality
> 
> A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:
> The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality"  and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
> 
> In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, *would give *the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
> 
> Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody  no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional  has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
> 
> Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
> 
> Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
> 
> Eric Schmidt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing
Click to expand...


Right, and without legislation things could change drastically very soon if the major ISPs get what they want. The legislation simply says, no one, not business, not government can restrict access to any site. 

You're acting as if ANY legislation posed by government is automatically going to be bad. This legislation does EXACTLY what you and I both want. The only way you can oppose that is if you don't understand the issue or oppose government existing all-together.


----------



## KissMy

Quantum Windbag said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.
> 
> Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would violate existing federal law.
Click to expand...


Which part is against existing federal law?

Which law?

Maybe it is against some law & that is why it has not happened on a large scale yet.

Nearly every bit of data in this country passes through certain AT&T & Verizon buildings around the US. There is virtually no way around these companies who control & monitor the entire internet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM"]Mark Klein - AT&T WhistleBlower[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
> And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
> Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> From the OP link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.
> 
> In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, granted.
> I've done a tiny bit more research now.
> It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
> Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?
Click to expand...


The FCC should be watching all mass communications in the USA and be prepared to apply the law in all cases of illegal infringement or illegal business practices.  Speaking as a tea partier, I have no problem with that.  Laws are useless unless enforced and anti trust laws are good laws.

The Tea Party and I would hope every American who is opposed to an ever over reaching and growing federal government does not want the Federal government to have any power as to who can and can't use the internet even if they tell us the power will not be exercised.


----------



## RDD_1210

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> From the OP link.
> 
> The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.
> 
> In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, granted.
> I've done a tiny bit more research now.
> It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
> Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not know what the Tea Party wants.
> 
> I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.
Click to expand...


So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?


----------



## Wacky Quacky

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, granted.
> I've done a tiny bit more research now.
> It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
> Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know what the Tea Party wants.
> 
> I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?
Click to expand...


Most of our laws are reactionary. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that jazz.

But it doesn't even matter if they do restrict content, it's their right to do so. I'm just not understanding your problem with allowing businesses to run their company the way they see fit, within the context of the law of course.


----------



## Oddball

KissMy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.
> 
> Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would violate existing federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part is against existing federal law?
> 
> Which law?
> 
> Maybe it is against some law & that is why it has not happened on a large scale yet.
> 
> Nearly every bit of data in this country passes through certain AT&T & Verizon buildings around the US. There is virtually no way around these companies who control & monitor the entire internet.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM"]Mark Klein - AT&T WhistleBlower[/ame]
Click to expand...

Yeah?...And what do you think  will be accomplished by creating a new federal bureaucracy for the likes of AT&T  and Verizon to buy off?

What makes you think that this mythical "net neutrality"  bureaucratic unicorn will turn out any better than the FDA, AMTRAK, or the "universal service" telephone regs that ended up creating one of the biggest monopolies of all time: AT&T?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and without legislation things could change drastically very soon if the major ISPs get what they want. The legislation simply says, no one, not business, not government can restrict access to any site.
> 
> You're acting as if ANY legislation posed by government is automatically going to be bad. This legislation does EXACTLY what you and I both want. The only way you can oppose that is if you don't understand the issue or oppose government existing all-together.
Click to expand...


People have been warning me things could change for the worse for decades. Funny thing, not one of them has proven the need for government regulation yet, yet they still keep spouting the warnings.

Each and everyone person that thinks the government needs to fix something that is not broken is an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KissMy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.
> 
> Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would violate existing federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part is against existing federal law?
> 
> Which law?
> 
> Maybe it is against some law & that is why it has not happened on a large scale yet.
> 
> Nearly every bit of data in this country passes through certain AT&T & Verizon buildings around the US. There is virtually no way around these companies who control & monitor the entire internet.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM"]Mark Klein - AT&T WhistleBlower[/ame]
Click to expand...


It has not happened at all.

By the way, how is a video about how the government is abusing its power supposed to convince me that we need to give the government more power?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, granted.
> I've done a tiny bit more research now.
> It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
> Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know what the Tea Party wants.
> 
> I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?
Click to expand...


Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.

I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.


----------



## KissMy

Oddball said:


> Yeah?...And what do you think  will be accomplished by creating a new federal bureaucracy for the likes of AT&T  and Verizon to buy off?
> 
> What makes you think that this mythical "net neutrality"  bureaucratic unicorn will turn out any better than the FDA, AMTRAK, or the "universal service" telephone regs that ended up creating one of the biggest monopolies of all time: AT&T?



Well I guess you are right, since Comcast lost the case monopolization has not happened again. So in light of that I will agree that we don't need FCC bureaucratic "net neutrality".


----------



## RDD_1210

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know what the Tea Party wants.
> 
> I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.
> 
> I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.
Click to expand...


Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches? 

I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.


----------



## mudwhistle

Bump


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?


Ironic, coming from the party man stooge who's living by the same tired old clichés viz. them eeeeevil corporations.


----------



## mudwhistle

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



Don't get sucked in by the name. It's a deception. 

There is nothing neutral about it. 

Just like there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.


----------



## mudwhistle

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.
> 
> I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?
> 
> I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Doh!!!!!

Still living with mommy?


----------



## ogibillm

mudwhistle said:


> Don't get sucked in by the name. It's a deception.
> 
> There is nothing neutral about it.
> 
> Just like there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.



what is not neutral about net neutrality?

please, explain.


----------



## 007

IndependntLogic said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the nice people on FOX told him so!
Click to expand...


Nice talking point, because the people on MSNBC told you so!

I saw your board name "IndependntLogic" and thought, hmmm... I'm an independent too, and I read another one of your posts and thought, hmmm... sounds like a reasonable person. Now here you are posting liberal/progressive crap and bashing Fox News. Yeah, you're independent alright. And MSNBC is conservative.

You blew your cover there skippy. You sound just like another liberal/progressive moron now.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get sucked in by the name. It's a deception.
> 
> There is nothing neutral about it.
> 
> Just like there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is not neutral about net neutrality?
> 
> please, explain.
Click to expand...

What's neutral about politicians and bureaucrats -and the big money corporate lobbyists who buy them off- picking winners and losers?

Y'all whine and cry about corporate influence in politics, yet keep proposing the very things that encourage them to peddle more influence.

Amazing.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get sucked in by the name. It's a deception.
> 
> There is nothing neutral about it.
> 
> Just like there is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is not neutral about net neutrality?
> 
> please, explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's neutral about politicians and bureaucrats -and the big money corporate lobbyists who buy them off- picking winners and losers?
> 
> Y'all whine and cry about corporate influence in politics, yet keep proposing the very things that encourage them to peddle more influence.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...


how do you think this would let anyone pick winners and losers?

it's the opposite - it keeps the internet open to everyone, not just the big guys.

yes, it is a restriction on what providers can do. but it's a blanket restriction - no exceptions.

so by all means - tell us what harm the rule could cause.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is not neutral about net neutrality?
> 
> please, explain.
> 
> 
> 
> What's neutral about politicians and bureaucrats -and the big money corporate lobbyists who buy them off- picking winners and losers?
> 
> Y'all whine and cry about corporate influence in politics, yet keep proposing the very things that encourage them to peddle more influence.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how do you think this would let anyone pick winners and losers?
> 
> it's the opposite - it keeps the internet open to everyone, not just the big guys.
> 
> yes, it is a restriction on what providers can do. but it's a blanket restriction - no exceptions.
> 
> so by all means - tell us what harm the rule could cause.
Click to expand...

The same way that the FDA picks winners and losers.

Have a new medication, but can't afford the $500 million it takes to overcome the regulatory hurdles it takes to bring it to market?...Too bad for you.

Whom does that regulatory mess favor, Joe's Pharm Lab or Merck?


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> The same way that the FDA picks winners and losers.
> 
> Have a new medication, but can't afford the $500 million it takes to overcome the regulatory hurdles it takes to bring it to market?...Too bad for you.
> 
> Whom does that regulatory mess favor, Joe's Pharm Lab or Merck?



try again. that analogy doesn't get close to working.

if a service provider is not allowed to throttle speeds how does that pick a winner or loser?


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way that the FDA picks winners and losers.
> 
> Have a new medication, but can't afford the $500 million it takes to overcome the regulatory hurdles it takes to bring it to market?...Too bad for you.
> 
> Whom does that regulatory mess favor, Joe's Pharm Lab or Merck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again. that analogy doesn't get close to working.
> 
> if a service provider is not allowed to throttle speeds how does that pick a winner or loser?
Click to expand...

That analogy is how virtually all regulatory agencies basically work like huge  protection rackets...Cant afford to buy off the regulators, then the likelihood of you even getting in the game are next to nonexistent....That favors the big players; them eeeeevil big corporations that liberoidals are always mewling about.


The throttling issue is a dead letter, with tiered pricing structures....You really need to come up with a better strawman.


----------



## RDD_1210

Pale Rider said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the nice people on FOX told him so!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice talking point, because the people on MSNBC told you so!
> 
> I saw your board name "IndependntLogic" and thought, hmmm... I'm an independent too, and I read another one of your posts and thought, hmmm... sounds like a reasonable person. Now here you are posting liberal/progressive crap and bashing Fox News. Yeah, you're independent alright. And MSNBC is conservative.
> 
> You blew your cover there skippy. You sound just like another liberal/progressive moron now.
Click to expand...


You're independent?? LOL. That's f*cking classic.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way that the FDA picks winners and losers.
> 
> Have a new medication, but can't afford the $500 million it takes to overcome the regulatory hurdles it takes to bring it to market?...Too bad for you.
> 
> Whom does that regulatory mess favor, Joe's Pharm Lab or Merck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again. that analogy doesn't get close to working.
> 
> if a service provider is not allowed to throttle speeds how does that pick a winner or loser?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That analogy is how virtually all regulatory agencies basically work like huge  protection rackets...Cant afford to buy off the regulators, then the likelihood of you even getting in the game are next to nonexistent....That favors the big players; them eeeeevil big corporations that liberoidals are always mewling about.
> 
> 
> The throttling issue is a dead letter, with tiered pricing structures....You really need to come up with a better strawman.
Click to expand...


so a rule that says you can't vary bandwith based on requested services translates into a beaurocracy based on pay-offs?

that about right to you?
this is a clear rule. either providers are chainging speeds, or they aren't. everyone follows the same rules.

your delusions of bribes and favoritism are just that.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way that the FDA picks winners and losers.
> 
> Have a new medication, but can't afford the $500 million it takes to overcome the regulatory hurdles it takes to bring it to market?...Too bad for you.
> 
> Whom does that regulatory mess favor, Joe's Pharm Lab or Merck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again. that analogy doesn't get close to working.
> 
> if a service provider is not allowed to throttle speeds how does that pick a winner or loser?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That analogy is how virtually all regulatory agencies basically work like huge  protection rackets...Cant afford to buy off the regulators, then the likelihood of you even getting in the game are next to nonexistent....That favors the big players; them eeeeevil big corporations that liberoidals are always mewling about.
> 
> 
> The throttling issue is a dead letter, with tiered pricing structures....You really need to come up with a better strawman.
Click to expand...


You couldn't possibly understand this issue any less than you do right now. Congratulations. Net Neutrality ensures that the small guys can compete, now and forever. That's the point. Every time you post, your hypocrisy shoots to a new level never imagined possible.


----------



## RDD_1210

mudwhistle said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.
> 
> I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?
> 
> I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doh!!!!!
> 
> Still living with mommy?
Click to expand...


Yeah, while collecting unemployment, government disability, food stamps and Medicaid. So what?


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> You couldn't possibly understand this issue any less than you do right now. Congratulations. Net Neutrality ensures that the small guys can compete, now and forever. That's the point. Every time you post, your hypocrisy shoots to a new level never imagined possible.


You're out of your fucking mind.

Consolidate regulatory power and those who seek to buy off the regulators -i.e. corporate lobbyists- know exactly where to go to do the buying...That favors the big players...Alway has, always will.

Talk about someone who couldn't understand  the concept any less.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> You're out of your fucking mind.
> 
> Consolidate regulatory power and those who seek to buy off the regulators know exactly where to go.
> 
> Talk about someone who couldn't understand a inceptor the concept any less.



What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of your fucking mind.
> 
> Consolidate regulatory power and those who seek to buy off the regulators know exactly where to go.
> 
> Talk about someone who couldn't understand a inceptor the concept any less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.
Click to expand...

Right....Massive central regulation will work _*this time*_, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.

I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.


----------



## 007

RDD_1210 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the nice people on FOX told him so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point, because the people on MSNBC told you so!
> 
> I saw your board name "IndependntLogic" and thought, hmmm... I'm an independent too, and I read another one of your posts and thought, hmmm... sounds like a reasonable person. Now here you are posting liberal/progressive crap and bashing Fox News. Yeah, you're independent alright. And MSNBC is conservative.
> 
> You blew your cover there skippy. You sound just like another liberal/progressive moron now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're independent?? LOL. That's f*cking classic.
Click to expand...

That's right, shit for brains. I became a registered independent after the last Presidential election.

Yes Virginia, there really are conservative independents.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of your fucking mind.
> 
> Consolidate regulatory power and those who seek to buy off the regulators know exactly where to go.
> 
> Talk about someone who couldn't understand a inceptor the concept any less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....Massive central regulation will work _*this time*_, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.
> 
> I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.
Click to expand...


That's where your blind hatred of anything government is failing you. There is no MASSIVE regulation. It's actually quite simple in what it sets out to do. You're a tired old, past-his-prime geezer who obviously doesn't understand technology. Much like your ideas, you're outdated and are obviously having trouble keeping up with the times. It's quite evident through your desires to live in a world that resembles the 18th century. Once the backwards thinking of your generation dies off maybe our country can actually solve some of its problems (ok, that part may always be a pipe dream).


----------



## RDD_1210

Pale Rider said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking point, because the people on MSNBC told you so!
> 
> I saw your board name "IndependntLogic" and thought, hmmm... I'm an independent too, and I read another one of your posts and thought, hmmm... sounds like a reasonable person. Now here you are posting liberal/progressive crap and bashing Fox News. Yeah, you're independent alright. And MSNBC is conservative.
> 
> You blew your cover there skippy. You sound just like another liberal/progressive moron now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're independent?? LOL. That's f*cking classic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, shit for brains. I became a registered independent after the last Presidential election.
> 
> Yes Virginia, there really are conservative independents.
Click to expand...


I don't care what you're registered as. You're as much an independent as I am a right winger. You're a disgrace to anyone who is a true independent.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of your fucking mind.
> 
> Consolidate regulatory power and those who seek to buy off the regulators know exactly where to go.
> 
> Talk about someone who couldn't understand a inceptor the concept any less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....Massive central regulation will work _*this time*_, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.
> 
> I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.
Click to expand...


massive central regualtion...

1 rule. 1 rule that requires no beaurocracy to enforce, no testing or anything - just consumver complaints and someone to investigate.

again, what problem do you believe would arise due to net neutrality?


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Right....Massive central regulation will work _*this time*_, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.
> 
> I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where your blind hatred of anything government is failing you. There is no MASSIVE regulation. It's actually quite simple in what it sets out to do. You're a tired old, past-his-prime geezer who obviously doesn't understand technology. Much like your ideas, you're outdated and are obviously having trouble keeping up with the times. It's quite evident through your desires to live in a world that resembles the 18th century. Once the backwards thinking of your generation dies off maybe our country can actually solve some of its problems (ok, that part may always be a pipe dream).
Click to expand...

This is where your naïvete is failing you.

It always starts out with with the do-gooder saying "well, we just want to regulate this little thing over here...we're just looking out for the little guy."

Next thing you know, y'all are whining and crying about "corporate capture" of the regulators by monied corporate interests, who can afford to pay politicians to write the regulations....Yet, somehow or another, you're such rubes to believe that _*just one more*_ agency or regulation is going to be the magic bullet that solves all the woes you brought upon yourself....Talk about backward thinkers.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Right....Massive central regulation will work _*this time*_, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.
> 
> I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> massive central regualtion...
> 
> 1 rule. 1 rule that requires no beaurocracy to enforce, no testing or anything - just consumver complaints and someone to investigate.
> 
> again, what problem do you believe would arise due to net neutrality?
Click to expand...

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.
> 
> Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....



so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.
> 
> Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
Click to expand...

The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.

Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.
> 
> Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
Click to expand...

BTW...I've stated repeatedly that this issue is better attended to by litigation rather than legislation, so your "anti-gubmint views" straw dog don't hunt.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.
> 
> Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.
> 
> Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.
Click to expand...


this wouldn't launch any agency.


----------



## ogibillm

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.
> 
> Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW...I've stated repeatedly that this issue is better attended to by litigation rather than legislation, so your "anti-gubmint views" straw dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...


litigation - how would someone sue?


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.
> 
> Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.
> 
> Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.
Click to expand...


Name one Federal Agency that is being launched to enforce Net Neutrality. Just one. 

Your fear of anything government is crippling. Do you wear a tin foil hat all day or just while you sleep?


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW...I've stated repeatedly that this issue is better attended to by litigation rather than legislation, so your "anti-gubmint views" straw dog don't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> litigation - how would someone sue?
Click to expand...

I see you missed the "throttling" suit brought against Comcast....Which they lost.

Comcast P2P throttling suit settled

So much for that stale argument.


----------



## Oddball

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.
> 
> 
> 
> The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.
> 
> Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this wouldn't launch any agency.
Click to expand...

Fine...Name a regulation that didn't get expanded upon, to the point it didn't need an army of regulators to try and enforce it.

The TSA started with "just one regulation" requiring airports to screen passengers.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.
> 
> Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this wouldn't launch any agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine...Name a regulation that didn't get expanded upon, to the point it didn't need an army of regulators to try and enforce it.
> 
> The TSA started with "just one regulation" requiring airports to screen passengers.
Click to expand...


I get it, you're just a government doomsdayer. Why do you even live in a society that has a government? If EVERYTHING that the government does will automatically turn out bad, why even live in this country?


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> this wouldn't launch any agency.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine...Name a regulation that didn't get expanded upon, to the point it didn't need an army of regulators to try and enforce it.
> 
> The TSA started with "just one regulation" requiring airports to screen passengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it, you're just a government doomsdayer. Why do you even live in a society that has a government?
Click to expand...

No, I'm a realist who can point to track records....Unfortunately, the track record of the politicians and bureaucrats for whom you're pimping sucks on toast.



RDD_1210 said:


> If EVERYTHING that the government does will automatically turn out bad, why even live in this country?


Strawman and gross distortion, which can't distract from the overwhelming evidence that political/bureaucratic "solutions" to mundane problems, almost always end up creating bigger ills than those they were reputedly set forth to cure.  

In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.


----------



## RDD_1210

Oddball said:


> In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.



Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper. 

How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and without legislation things could change drastically very soon if the major ISPs get what they want. The legislation simply says, no one, not business, not government can restrict access to any site.
> 
> You're acting as if ANY legislation posed by government is automatically going to be bad. This legislation does EXACTLY what you and I both want. The only way you can oppose that is if you don't understand the issue or oppose government existing all-together.
Click to expand...


I am basing my opinion on the fact that all regulations the government comes up with eventually grows to the point where the cure is worse than the disease. You, on the other hand, want me to believe that somehow the government will get this one right, and I will like it.

Which position makes more sense given the fact that my position is based on history and experience, and yours is based on hope and a belief that good intentions will lead to good results?

By the way, I already proved that everyone, including you, is actually wrong about what the government is already doing. I think that proves that I understand the issue, since you think the government should keep doing something it is not doing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.
> 
> I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?
> 
> I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.

What do I not understand?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ogibillm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> try again. that analogy doesn't get close to working.
> 
> if a service provider is not allowed to throttle speeds how does that pick a winner or loser?
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy is how virtually all regulatory agencies basically work like huge  protection rackets...Cant afford to buy off the regulators, then the likelihood of you even getting in the game are next to nonexistent....That favors the big players; them eeeeevil big corporations that liberoidals are always mewling about.
> 
> 
> The throttling issue is a dead letter, with tiered pricing structures....You really need to come up with a better strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so a rule that says you can't vary bandwith based on requested services translates into a beaurocracy based on pay-offs?
> 
> that about right to you?
> this is a clear rule. either providers are chainging speeds, or they aren't. everyone follows the same rules.
> 
> your delusions of bribes and favoritism are just that.
Click to expand...


The "clear rule" was written by AT&T lobbyists.


----------



## Foxfyre

RDD_1210 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.
> 
> How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.
Click to expand...


Almost all big mega corporations favor mandated healthcare, even that as outrageous as Obamacare.  Why?  Because they already are on the hook for basic medical, major medical, disability, and a zillion other perks their unions demand or that they have to provide to attract top notch corporate executives.

So, since more government interference won't hurt them and might even help them, they are most eager for it to be imposed on their smaller competitors who don't provide such cadillac benefit packages for their employees and therefore can be very competitive in bidding.  Force the little guys to do what the big boys do and they won't have the ability to underbid the big boys and without the manpower and scope of the big boys, they get shut out completely.  No more competition for the big boys.

That is not a pie in the sky metaphor.  That is a fact.

So consider why the big boys might be in favor of more government control over the internet while those of much lesser assets view that with a great deal of skepticism.


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.
> 
> How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.
Click to expand...

I already gave specifics...The AT&T monopoly brought about by, at least partially, the call for "equal access" to land line phone service a few decades ago....The gargantuan pharmaceutical protection racket enforced by the FDA.

You don't think that crony capitalism just springs up out of the clear blue sky, do you?

And you have the nerve to talk about  ignorance?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.
> 
> How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.
Click to expand...


Gee, I have no idea. 

There is no way that the government would do anything like letting large corporations help write the rules that govern net neutrality.

As Expected, FCC Approving Net Neutrality Rules That AT&T Wants | Techdirt

Nor would any government ever write a bunch of regulations and then simply sit by not enforcing them.

Canada's Failure To Actually Enforce Its Net Neutrality Rules Shows Why Focusing On Regulation Is Missing The Point | Techdirt

Maybe, just maybe, if you actually educated yourself on the issue and everything that surrounds it instead of simply focusing on the fact that you think it is a good idea you might actually understand why people actually oppose the idea. Not that I expect you to do anything like actually read the links I post. This is the second time I posted the on about AT&T in this thread yet you still insist that this is about letting the little guy have access.

You should try climbing out of the box you put yourself in and look at the real world.


----------



## RDD_1210

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.
> 
> I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?
> 
> I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.
> 
> What do I not understand?
Click to expand...


Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.


----------



## midcan5

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

The argument that the market will provide is a total joke, I think the cost of gold for my sweetie is too high? Anyone know a market where I can get it cheap? After all gold serves no real value other than fluff and is plentiful. Markets quickly form into oligarchies, often there is no choice as investment is expensive. How many communications companies are there? Few and they will control the price, not any magical imaginary market. Look at the price of oil as another example. The irony is government works both for good and bad.  

"Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class."  Thomas Frank  The Conservative Nanny State


----------



## Oddball

Are you this big a crashing goddamn bore in real life, s0n?


----------



## Foxfyre

Ironic that Midcan would use an Adam Smith, the father of and chief advocate for a free market system, quote as a basis for his/her refutation of a free market system.  Not so ironic but more typical to use a quote from Thomas Frank, pro big government, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, big time socialist leftist, as an illustration for criticism of conservatism.

And meanwhile the Tea Party, composed of a broad and diverse segment of American society, continues with the one point all its advocates agree on:  the federal government is too big, too intrusive, too over reaching, too expensive, too inefficient and all that combined continues to chip away at our liberties and unalienable rights.

Everybody who values mom, apple pie, freedom, and the American way should join with them to insist that the federal government protect our rights, enforce antitrust laws, and otherwise keep its cotton picking paws away from any regulation of the internet.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.



Yeah, because nothing leads to innovation like government regulation!

The FCC determining content is the one sure way to keep the internet evolving! Nipple slips and opposition politics have no place on the internet - "net neutrality" will get rid of those once and for all, placing a nice FCC watch guard over the comings and goings.

Freedom through obedience! Government control of the internet and the content on it is a winning future!

Let me look at this on my LTE tablet - OH WAIT, LTE is faster than GSM, damn, better shut it down so the "rich people" on Verizon don't get more than their fair share.

You know, you leftists are really some stupid fuckers - seriously.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> So freedom of information is not important to you?



Placing the FCC over the internet ends freedom of information. Since freedom of information IS important, I want the government the fuck out of it..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?
> 
> I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.
> 
> What do I not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.
Click to expand...


Really?

As an ideal, I support net neutrality completely. As a regulation, or a law, I oppose it. The reason I oppose it is I live in the real world, and I know nothing is free. Yet you, for some reason, want to force people who connect you to the internet not to limit the traffic that goes over the network they built, and own. That is the legal equivalent of forcing a person who went to the trouble of building a road on his own property to open that road to the public because it is shorter and faster than using the public roads, and not charge them for it, while he is still responsible for maintaining it.

That actually makes your argument exactly what I laid out, you are just incapable of examining the consequences of your position well enough to keep up with me. That is not my problem, even when I attempt to explain it to you.

By the way, do you plan to deal with the fact that AT&T is helping to  write the regulations that you think will protect the little guy from  AT&Y? Or do you insist on living in a world where good intentions  count more than actual results?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith
> 
> The argument that the market will provide is a total joke, I think the cost of gold for my sweetie is too high? Anyone know a market where I can get it cheap? After all gold serves no real value other than fluff and is plentiful. Markets quickly form into oligarchies, often there is no choice as investment is expensive. How many communications companies are there? Few and they will control the price, not any magical imaginary market. Look at the price of oil as another example. The irony is government works both for good and bad.
> 
> "Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class."  Thomas Frank  The Conservative Nanny State



Your post, as usual, has nothing to do with the discussion, and indicates a remarkable lack of understanding of the real world.


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because nothing leads to innovation like government regulation!
> 
> The FCC determining content is the one sure way to keep the internet evolving! Nipple slips and opposition politics have no place on the internet - "net neutrality" will get rid of those once and for all, placing a nice FCC watch guard over the comings and goings.
> 
> Freedom through obedience! Government control of the internet and the content on it is a winning future!
> 
> Let me look at this on my LTE tablet - OH WAIT, LTE is faster than GSM, damn, better shut it down so the "rich people" on Verizon don't get more than their fair share.
> 
> You know, you leftists are really some stupid fuckers - seriously.
Click to expand...


You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it. 

You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placing the FCC over the internet ends freedom of information. Since freedom of information IS important, I want the government the fuck out of it..
Click to expand...


So private companies can move in and determine who sees what. I got it. You're a corporate stooge. You'd vote for AT&T, Philip Morris or DOW Chemical to run the country in the next election if you could.


----------



## RDD_1210

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.
> 
> What do I not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> As an ideal, I support net neutrality completely. As a regulation, or a law, I oppose it. The reason I oppose it is I live in the real world, and I know nothing is free. Yet you, for some reason, want to force people who connect you to the internet not to limit the traffic that goes over the network they built, and own. That is the legal equivalent of forcing a person who went to the trouble of building a road on his own property to open that road to the public because it is shorter and faster than using the public roads, and not charge them for it, while he is still responsible for maintaining it.
> 
> That actually makes your argument exactly what I laid out, you are just incapable of examining the consequences of your position well enough to keep up with me. That is not my problem, even when I attempt to explain it to you.
> 
> By the way, do you plan to deal with the fact that AT&T is helping to  write the regulations that you think will protect the little guy from  AT&Y? Or do you insist on living in a world where good intentions  count more than actual results?
Click to expand...


I think you are hands down the worst person on this site when it comes to creating analogies. 

You claim to want Net Neutrality but are ready to concede its possibility to private business and their desires. You're right you do live in the real world, one run by big business....and you're totally ok with it. Be proud. I'll continue to support Net Neutrality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> As an ideal, I support net neutrality completely. As a regulation, or a law, I oppose it. The reason I oppose it is I live in the real world, and I know nothing is free. Yet you, for some reason, want to force people who connect you to the internet not to limit the traffic that goes over the network they built, and own. That is the legal equivalent of forcing a person who went to the trouble of building a road on his own property to open that road to the public because it is shorter and faster than using the public roads, and not charge them for it, while he is still responsible for maintaining it.
> 
> That actually makes your argument exactly what I laid out, you are just incapable of examining the consequences of your position well enough to keep up with me. That is not my problem, even when I attempt to explain it to you.
> 
> By the way, do you plan to deal with the fact that AT&T is helping to  write the regulations that you think will protect the little guy from  AT&Y? Or do you insist on living in a world where good intentions  count more than actual results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are hands down the worst person on this site when it comes to creating analogies.
> 
> You claim to want Net Neutrality but are ready to concede its possibility to private business and their desires. You're right you do live in the real world, one run by big business....and you're totally ok with it. Be proud. I'll continue to support Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...


No, I said I support the concept of net neutrality. We already have that concept, and it works despite the fact that evil big businesses are in charge. 

You, on the other hand, prefer to listen to idiots that write opeds like this.

Opinion: Subsidizing Netflix - San Jose Mercury News

Can you go through that opinion piece and point out all the facts they got wrong?


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom of information is not important to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placing the FCC over the internet ends freedom of information. Since freedom of information IS important, I want the government the fuck out of it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So private companies can move in and determine who sees what. I got it. You're a corporate stooge. You'd vote for AT&T, Philip Morris or DOW Chemical to run the country in the next election if you could.
Click to expand...

Look, up in the sky...

It's a bird...

It's a plane...

No, its....


----------



## BoycottTheday

This website can ban or moderate in any way they want,

 do you think the FCC has the authority to say any different?

If they did this website wouldnt bother being here.

My websites do as i please, if you dont like it dont tick on them.

How many of you trying to impose your will even own you own websites?

Lets see them, whats the odds they are clickNbuild and not worth the bother.

You liberals need to get a life.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.
> 
> You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!



You're an idiot -  I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443?  It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)

You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BoycottTheday said:


> This website can ban or moderate in any way they want,
> 
> do you think the FCC has the authority to say any different?



If net neutrality were imposed, this website and all like it would be closed down. The free discussion of issues often includes racism, sexism and even opposition to abortion, the FCC would enforce political correctness rules and end free discussion forums like this.


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.
> 
> You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot -  I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443?  It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)
> 
> You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.
Click to expand...


Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue. Impressive. Hey, at least your consistent! You're right though, this is just about getting access to the internet for free! Solid analysis.


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> BoycottTheday said:
> 
> 
> 
> This website can ban or moderate in any way they want,
> 
> do you think the FCC has the authority to say any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If net neutrality were imposed, this website and all like it would be closed down. The free discussion of issues often includes racism, sexism and even opposition to abortion, the FCC would enforce political correctness rules and end free discussion forums like this.
Click to expand...


And if Net Neutrality was imposed the Nazis would take over too. I heard that Net Neutrality would result in more women having abortions as well.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.
> 
> You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot -  I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443?  It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)
> 
> You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue. Impressive. Hey, at least your consistent! You're right though, this is just about getting access to the internet for free! Solid analysis.
Click to expand...


Is there a specific reason, other than your complete inability to deal with reality, why you have not addressed the fact that I actually posted a link that shows that AT&T wrote the net neutrality regulations the FCC is trying to impose?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue.



Well, we can't all have your technological prowess. You once navigated to DailyKOS without having to call your mom down to the basement.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> And if Net Neutrality was imposed the Nazis would take over too. I heard that Net Neutrality would result in more women having abortions as well.



Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443? It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic.

Oh, you don't know what a port is, sorry...


----------



## RDD_1210

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot -  I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443?  It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)
> 
> You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue. Impressive. Hey, at least your consistent! You're right though, this is just about getting access to the internet for free! Solid analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a specific reason, other than your complete inability to deal with reality, why you have not addressed the fact that I actually posted a link that shows that AT&T wrote the net neutrality regulations the FCC is trying to impose?
Click to expand...


Because I learned long ago that you don't know how to have a rational conversation.

But just to humor you, yes, I am aware of the bastardization of the Net Neutrality legislation, which proposed keeping wired networking neutral while allowing wireless communication to be manipulated. It certainly isn't ideal, but it's still better than letting big ISPs run rampant across everything.


----------



## Oddball

There you have it....Crony capitalism is better than capitalism capitalism.

What a bloody fool.


----------



## Foxfyre

I think what those who want to give more power to government in this regard are not yet able to see that government never stops with a little involvement in anything.  It starts out with a simple ruling that makes sense to most everybody and because it seems like no big deal it isn't challenged.  But it never stops there.

The next committee and Congress will dicker with it a little more, tweak it here, add to it there, impose something else in the middle until the law bears little resemblance to that first simple act and we find that we have lost all our freedoms regarding it, nobody fully understands it, and it costs twice as much as before.

I suggest we don't allow government to get even a toe in the door on this one.


----------



## RDD_1210

Foxfyre said:


> I think what those who want to give more power to government in this regard are not yet able to see that government never stops with a little involvement in anything.  It starts out with a simple ruling that makes sense to most everybody and because it seems like no big deal it isn't challenged.  But it never stops there.
> 
> The next committee and Congress will dicker with it a little more, tweak it here, add to it there, impose something else in the middle until the law bears little resemblance to that first simple act and we find that we have lost all our freedoms regarding it, nobody fully understands it, and it costs twice as much as before.
> 
> I suggest we don't allow government to get even a toe in the door on this one.




This post doesn't sound like someone who is an eternal optimist.


----------



## Foxfyre

RDD_1210 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what those who want to give more power to government in this regard are not yet able to see that government never stops with a little involvement in anything.  It starts out with a simple ruling that makes sense to most everybody and because it seems like no big deal it isn't challenged.  But it never stops there.
> 
> The next committee and Congress will dicker with it a little more, tweak it here, add to it there, impose something else in the middle until the law bears little resemblance to that first simple act and we find that we have lost all our freedoms regarding it, nobody fully understands it, and it costs twice as much as before.
> 
> I suggest we don't allow government to get even a toe in the door on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post doesn't sound like someone who is an eternal optimist.
Click to expand...


Being an optimist does not require me to put on blinders, ignore history, ignore facts, or pretend everything will be okay despite the evident track record.

I am optimisitic about the capacity of humankind to understand, feel, believe, appreciate, excel, thrive, and achieve in a world in which our rights are protected and we are otherwise left alone to govern ourselves.  The more of our freedoms we give over to government to manage for us, the more everything else will be diminished.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> Because I learned long ago that you don't know how to have a rational conversation.



Besides that, you have NO fucking idea what you're talking about...



> But just to humor you, yes, I am aware of the bastardization of the Net Neutrality legislation, which proposed keeping wired networking neutral while allowing wireless communication to be manipulated. It certainly isn't ideal, but it's still better than letting big ISPs run rampant across everything.



Hey sparky, if I put my son on a static IP, then cap the bandwidth at the router to that IP to say, 1 MBPS because I don't want his YouTube watching to lower the ping on my  BF2 match, should I be sent to prison, or just heavily fined? Obviously the fact that I pay for the connection doesn't give me the right to prioritize traffic, that's your decision to make, right?


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I learned long ago that you don't know how to have a rational conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides that, you have NO fucking idea what you're talking about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just to humor you, yes, I am aware of the bastardization of the Net Neutrality legislation, which proposed keeping wired networking neutral while allowing wireless communication to be manipulated. It certainly isn't ideal, but it's still better than letting big ISPs run rampant across everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey sparky, if I put my son on a static IP, then cap the bandwidth at the router to that IP to say, 1 MBPS because I don't want his YouTube watching to lower the ping on my  BF2 match, should I be sent to prison, or just heavily fined? Obviously the fact that I pay for the connection doesn't give me the right to prioritize traffic, that's your decision to make, right?
Click to expand...


What's a static IP?
What is bandwidth?
What is this router that you speak of?

Please explain these strange concepts to me.


----------



## RDD_1210

Foxfyre said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what those who want to give more power to government in this regard are not yet able to see that government never stops with a little involvement in anything.  It starts out with a simple ruling that makes sense to most everybody and because it seems like no big deal it isn't challenged.  But it never stops there.
> 
> The next committee and Congress will dicker with it a little more, tweak it here, add to it there, impose something else in the middle until the law bears little resemblance to that first simple act and we find that we have lost all our freedoms regarding it, nobody fully understands it, and it costs twice as much as before.
> 
> I suggest we don't allow government to get even a toe in the door on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post doesn't sound like someone who is an eternal optimist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being an optimist does not require me to put on blinders, ignore history, ignore facts, or pretend everything will be okay despite the evident track record.
> 
> I am optimisitic about the capacity of humankind to understand, feel, believe, appreciate, excel, thrive, and achieve in a world *in which our rights are protected* and we are otherwise left alone to govern ourselves.  The more of our freedoms we give over to government to manage for us, the more everything else will be diminished.
Click to expand...


And who should do that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> What's a static IP?
> What is bandwidth?
> What is this router that you speak of?
> 
> Please explain these strange concepts to me.



Exactly.


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's a static IP?
> What is bandwidth?
> What is this router that you speak of?
> 
> Please explain these strange concepts to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


Didn't think you could. Just throwing terms out there again are we...Sparky?


----------



## Foxfyre

RDD_1210 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post doesn't sound like someone who is an eternal optimist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being an optimist does not require me to put on blinders, ignore history, ignore facts, or pretend everything will be okay despite the evident track record.
> 
> I am optimisitic about the capacity of humankind to understand, feel, believe, appreciate, excel, thrive, and achieve in a world *in which our rights are protected* and we are otherwise left alone to govern ourselves.  The more of our freedoms we give over to government to manage for us, the more everything else will be diminished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who should do that?
Click to expand...


The Founders intended that the federal government do that.  And then they intended that the federal government otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we saw fit.


----------



## RDD_1210

Foxfyre said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being an optimist does not require me to put on blinders, ignore history, ignore facts, or pretend everything will be okay despite the evident track record.
> 
> I am optimisitic about the capacity of humankind to understand, feel, believe, appreciate, excel, thrive, and achieve in a world *in which our rights are protected* and we are otherwise left alone to govern ourselves.  The more of our freedoms we give over to government to manage for us, the more everything else will be diminished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who should do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founders intended that the federal government do that.  And then they intended that the federal government otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we saw fit.
Click to expand...


So which is it? The federal government should protect us, or leave us alone? You do know that if you want protection, that there has to be some rules and regulation that they have to pass in order to be successful. Right?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> Didn't think you could. Just throwing terms out there again are we...Sparky?



This is the best you can do?

Again, if I cap the bandwidth at the router in my house to 1mbps, to the IP assigned to my son's machine, should I be put in prison, or just fined.

Try answering the question after you finish looking up what the terms mean.


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think you could. Just throwing terms out there again are we...Sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best you can do?
> 
> Again, if I cap the bandwidth at the router in my house to 1mbps, to the IP assigned to my son's machine, should I be put in prison, or just fined.
> 
> Try answering the question after you finish looking up what the terms mean.
Click to expand...


Neither, that's called being a parent. You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



I prefer to keep the govt out of any decisions as to what information I can and can not receive from the internet.

I also dont trust government officials, who are humans and members of political parties, to determine just what is "neutral" behavior and what isn't.

This gives the FCC too much control over the actual information on the internet.


----------



## BoycottTheday

And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain

The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned 

You aMericans want a internet like China?

Be my guest,

 y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.


----------



## Foxfyre

RDD_1210 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who should do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders intended that the federal government do that.  And then they intended that the federal government otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we saw fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which is it? The federal government should protect us, or leave us alone? You do know that if you want protection, that there has to be some rules and regulation that they have to pass in order to be successful. Right?
Click to expand...


The federal government should protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights.  And that's it.  It should not be who smooths out every bump in the road, solves every problem, fixes everything that breaks, eliminates every hazard, prevents us from being frustrated or angry or offended or getting our feelings hurt.

Do you know what an unalienable right is?  Can you define it as the Founders intended it?


----------



## RDD_1210

Foxfyre said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders intended that the federal government do that.  And then they intended that the federal government otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we saw fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which is it? The federal government should protect us, or leave us alone? You do know that if you want protection, that there has to be some rules and regulation that they have to pass in order to be successful. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government should protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights.  And that's it.  It should not be who smooths out every bump in the road, solves every problem, fixes everything that breaks, eliminates every hazard, prevents us from being frustrated or angry or offended or getting our feelings hurt.
> 
> Do you know what an unalienable right is?  Can you define it as the Founders intended it?
Click to expand...


Sure do. Sure can.

I guess then it boils down to what value you place on the internet, technology and the way we get information in this day and age. If you are ok with information being restricted and controlled then that's your choice. If you don't consider the internet to be of enough importance to protect its use by all, then that's where we'll just have to disagree.


----------



## oreo

IndependntLogic said:


> So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.
> 
> Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
> 
> So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?
> 
> Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.
> 
> So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.
> 
> Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...



So you would prefer that a Federal Government whom has shown time and time again--_that they couldn't manage a lemonade stand without driving it in to bankruptcy_--would be better equipped to handle the internet than the private sector---

Corporations should be able to charge what they want--without interference from the Federal Government.  That is what free-market competition is all about--and as we know--it's free market competition that keeps prices low--and quality and service UP.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> Neither, that's called being a parent.



Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.



> You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?



I want to buy what I like. 

When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?

Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither, that's called being a parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to buy what I like.
> 
> When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?
> 
> Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...
Click to expand...


But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

BoycottTheday said:


> And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain
> 
> The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned
> 
> You aMericans want a internet like China?
> 
> Be my guest,
> 
> y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.



Basically sums up what I said but in a different way 


I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

RDD_1210 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither, that's called being a parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want Big Business to be your parent and decide what you get to see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to buy what I like.
> 
> When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?
> 
> Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?
Click to expand...


I get a new ISP and that old ISP loses me and any other customers who like whatever websites they screw with.

Thats the beauty of american capitalism, well what is still left of it anyway.


----------



## RDD_1210

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> BoycottTheday said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain
> 
> The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned
> 
> You aMericans want a internet like China?
> 
> Be my guest,
> 
> y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically sums up what I said but in a different way
> 
> 
> I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.
Click to expand...


Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that. 

Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?



If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.

But that isn't what this is about. This is about traffic prioritization. This is about recognizing the reality that business has a legitimate need to BUY greater bandwidth and ensure quality of service. Why? Because while it may not seem like it to you, the ability of an order entry person to succeed in posting an order actually IS more important to society at large than the porn stream into some kids basement. So should the backbone operators be "allowed" to make service level agreements with ISP's to ensure packet prioritization for certain streams? Damn they should, it's THEIR FUCKING NETWORK. Before you spout off the DARPA built it, let me tell you that they didn't. 90% of the infrastructure is 100% privately funded. Verizon and AT&T have sunk billions into it.


----------



## RDD_1210

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm doing it for selfish reasons. I want a lower ping when I play Bad Company 2. I don't care if his YouTube crap stutters and buffers, as long as I get more frags.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to buy what I like.
> 
> When I have a remote site connecting to the ERP over a VPN tunnel, I want a QOS clause with my ISP ensuring that my traffic gets priority. Since I'm paying for it, why shouldn't I be able to contractually set an SLA that is binding? Why should the telcos not be able to prioritize traffic for those willing to pay for it? Why should I pay for a DS3, only to have it all go to shit once it passes the CO?
> 
> Honestly, you guys remind me of little kids who demand governors be put on Corvettes so they can't go any faster than your Scion, why should the rich people get to go faster...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get a new ISP and that old ISP loses me and any other customers who like whatever websites they screw with.
> 
> Thats the beauty of american capitalism, well what is still left of it anyway.
Click to expand...


The problem is such competition simply does not exist, and it isnt likely to exist in the foreseeable future. Most Americans have access to two broadband providers  cable and DSL. Thats it. These two systems dominate, holding over 98 percent of the broadband market. 

A significant chunk of the country has only one broadband provider, and around 10 percent of households have none at all. This is hardly a competitive market. Certainly there is insufficient competition between different technologies to produce any kind of deterrent. If both the local cable and telephone companies are using their networks to discriminate, the consumer is trapped. There is nowhere else to go.

Thats why nondiscrimination through Network Neutrality is so critical for the content and
application layer of the Internet. Without Network Neutrality, the telephone and cable duopoly will leverage its market power over the network to gain control over the content and application markets, establishing a handful of wireline companies as the gatekeepers of the Internet.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

RDD_1210 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BoycottTheday said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why i outsourced my BTD website to Spain
> 
> The FCC can kiss my ass as far as im concerned
> 
> You aMericans want a internet like China?
> 
> Be my guest,
> 
> y'all being led into the third world by your liberal task masters imho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically sums up what I said but in a different way
> 
> 
> I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.
> 
> Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?
Click to expand...


I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit.  If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways.  Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.

And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC.  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf   <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.*
Click to expand...


And there goes any credibility you have on the subject. If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all, out there for consumers.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

RDD_1210 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there goes any credibility you have on the subject. If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all, out there for consumers.
Click to expand...


Your incorrect.

I can choose from about 10 ISPs right now!
Massachusetts ISPs, MA Internet Service Providers, MA ISPs


----------



## RDD_1210

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically sums up what I said but in a different way
> 
> 
> I dont want the govt involved in telling me what information I can and can not have, how much information, or what the information may or may not cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.
> 
> Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit.  If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways.  Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.
> 
> And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC.  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf   <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .
Click to expand...


Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> And there goes any credibility you have on the subject.



Yeah, I'm worried about my creditability.... Especially with someone like you.



> If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all,



Covad, Paetec, Sky River, Telepacific, XO, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Business - yeah, there are no choices at all...


----------



## RDD_1210

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If an ISP does that, I switch to a different ISP.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there goes any credibility you have on the subject. If you truly understood the infrastructure, you would know that this truly isn't feasible as there are very few options, if any at all, out there for consumers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your incorrect.
> 
> I can choose from about 10 ISPs right now!
> Massachusetts ISPs, MA Internet Service Providers, MA ISPs
Click to expand...


You realize you are looking at resellers who are all more or less buying from the same source?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Your incorrect.
> 
> I can choose from about 10 ISPs right now!



He thinks AOL and Cable are the only choices out there....


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> You realize you are looking at resellers who are all more or less buying from the same source?



Do you have any clue what an ISP is? Do you think that ISP's own and run the backbone? (actually, Verizon, Paetec and AT&T do, but that is independent from their ISP portions.)


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

RDD_1210 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing that government wouldn't be doing that.
> 
> Are you ok with Private Business telling you what information you can have and not have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit.  If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways.  Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.
> 
> And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC.  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf   <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?
Click to expand...


Its evident throughout the language in the entire bill and the attachements.  the whole bill reads as "The government now has the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable for ISPs to provide their customers"

Im serious, take the time to go read through it and then re-bump this thread so we can discuss it on equal footing. 

Make sure as your reading through dont skip past the reference numbers, once you finish a section read what the reference goes to below, many times it will sound like the section is saying one thing but once they reference it it sounds like something else.


----------



## RDD_1210

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you are looking at resellers who are all more or less buying from the same source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any clue what an ISP is? Do you think that ISP's own and run the backbone? (actually, Verizon, Paetec and AT&T do, but that is independent from their ISP portions.)
Click to expand...


Ahhhh, so you do know what a backbone is. Well at least you've heard of it. So you do realize if a backbone provider is throttling content that would have widespread effects. No?


----------



## RDD_1210

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am ok with a private business running their internet as they see fit.  If I dont like what they are doing I go and get a different provider, if enough people dont like it that ISP will go out of business or change its ways.  Kinda like its been done for the last 15-20 years without a problem.
> 
> And if the net neutrality act passes there will be government officials deciding these things, its right in the net neutrality bill along with many other new internet use oversight powers being granted to the FCC.  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf   <----read it and talk to me in 2 or 3 days when you've had a chance to review the actual text of the bill .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its evident throughout the language in the entire bill and the attachements.  the whole bill reads as "The government now has the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable for ISPs to provide their customers"
> 
> Im serious, take the time to go read through it and then re-bump this thread so we can discuss it on equal footing.
> 
> Make sure as your reading through dont skip past the reference numbers, once you finish a section read what the reference goes to below, many times it will sound like the section is saying one thing but once they reference it it sounds like something else.
Click to expand...


Let's be honest, I appreciate the link but I'm not reading through 194 pages to try and find something you are claiming is in there. I'm happy to read any specific examples you'd like to point me towards, but despite what others would love to claim, I really do have better things to do with my time then comb through this document.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RDD_1210 said:


> Ahhhh, so you do know what a backbone is. Well at least you've heard of it. So you do realize if a backbone provider is throttling content that would have widespread effects. No?



Actually, that isn't what they are doing. They are prioritizing traffic. 

You didn't grasp it the first time, so you won't grasp it this time. But what the hell...

If a business leases a fat pipe from their ISP, they do so with the intent of transacting across it. So IF an office in East Los Angeles wants to create a persistent tunnel to a server farm in Downey, they are in luck. Because the whole area is Verizon. So all they have to do is get an SLA from Verizon, and they're good.

BUT, what if an Office in Denver, needs to connect to the SAP instantiation in Brooklyn? Now we have a problem, because once the traffic leaves the local loop, it becomes open season. SO, what groups have done is create SLA's with the backbone operators, ensuring that this sort of traffic is prioritized across their switches.  Yes, this means that during peak times, the QOS of your porn will be lower than that of the VPN traffic. Too fucking bad - if you want to ensure porn than never stutters, pay business prices and get an SLA.


----------



## asterism

RDD_1210 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its evident throughout the language in the entire bill and the attachements.  the whole bill reads as "The government now has the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable for ISPs to provide their customers"
> 
> Im serious, take the time to go read through it and then re-bump this thread so we can discuss it on equal footing.
> 
> Make sure as your reading through dont skip past the reference numbers, once you finish a section read what the reference goes to below, many times it will sound like the section is saying one thing but once they reference it it sounds like something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be honest, I appreciate the link but I'm not reading through 194 pages to try and find something you are claiming is in there. I'm happy to read any specific examples you'd like to point me towards, but despite what others would love to claim, I really do have better things to do with my time then comb through this document.
Click to expand...


Here's one:



> 74. Standard Practices. The conformity or lack of conformity of a practice with best
> practices and technical standards adopted by open, broadly representative, and independent Internet engineering, governance initiatives, or standards-setting organizations is another factor to be considered in evaluating reasonableness.  Recognizing the important role of such groups is consistent with Congresss intent that our rules in the Internet area should not fetter[] the free market with unnecessary regulation, 223 and is consistent with broadband providers historic reliance on such groups.  224 We make clear, however, that we are not delegating authority to interpret or implement our rules to outside bodies. 22



That's a fancy way to say that their interpretation and implementation is the only authority.


----------



## Oddball

RDD_1210 said:


> Let's be honest, I appreciate the link but I'm not reading through 194 pages to try and find something you are claiming is in there. I'm happy to read any specific examples you'd like to point me towards, but despite what others would love to claim, I really do have better things to do with my time then comb through this document.


Translation:

Don't cloud the issue with the facts and let me continue to spew my ignorant party man hack drivel.


----------



## asterism

RDD_1210 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously are well versed in this bill, can you kindly point me to the portion that states where government officials will be restricting sites and throttling back access wherever they want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its evident throughout the language in the entire bill and the attachements.  the whole bill reads as "The government now has the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable for ISPs to provide their customers"
> 
> Im serious, take the time to go read through it and then re-bump this thread so we can discuss it on equal footing.
> 
> Make sure as your reading through dont skip past the reference numbers, once you finish a section read what the reference goes to below, many times it will sound like the section is saying one thing but once they reference it it sounds like something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be honest, I appreciate the link but I'm not reading through 194 pages to try and find something you are claiming is in there. I'm happy to read any specific examples you'd like to point me towards, but despite what others would love to claim, I really do have better things to do with my time then comb through this document.
Click to expand...



Here's another:



> 75. In evaluating unreasonable discrimination, the types of practices we would be
> concerned about include, but are not limited to, discrimination that harms an actual or potential competitor to the broadband provider (such as by degrading VoIP applications or services when the broadband provider offers telephone service), 226 that harms end users (such as by inhibiting end users from accessing the content, applications, services, or devices of their choice),227 or that impairs free expression (such as by slowing traffic from a particular blog because the broadband provider disagrees with the bloggers message).
> 228



"Harms an actual competitor" is the key phrase here.  Microsoft was under LOTS of pressure from the FTC for doing something Apple does everyday now, bundling a browser with an operating system.  It's common practice now and it's fine.  But that wasn't the case a few years ago.

So if Verizon develops a new video protocol and they optimize their network to transmit this protocol for competitive advantage is that a situation where their use of their network "harms an actual competitor?"

In government speak it is.  Microsoft was told it could not optimize its operating system for its own browser and bundle it.  Now every OS does it.

Do we really want the government in charge of writing and interpreting the rules?

Especially as they have demonstrated how slow they are to adapt?


----------



## Foxfyre

The point is, those who HAVE read the bill or who have read or listened to the analysis of credible people as to what is in it are in a much better position to judge whether the bill is acceptable to people who value personal freedom or not.

People who value big government control--those who want a king to give them what they want and keep them safe from all harm--don't care.  They trust the government more than they trust the people to do what is best.

And then there are people like me who want the government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives, conduct our business, and pursue and strive for whatever we want.  I oppose giving the government control over anything that has potential, now or in the future, to screw up or derail the free market system.


----------



## asterism

Uncensored2008 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh, so you do know what a backbone is. Well at least you've heard of it. So you do realize if a backbone provider is throttling content that would have widespread effects. No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that isn't what they are doing. They are prioritizing traffic.
> 
> You didn't grasp it the first time, so you won't grasp it this time. But what the hell...
> 
> If a business leases a fat pipe from their ISP, they do so with the intent of transacting across it. So IF an office in East Los Angeles wants to create a persistent tunnel to a server farm in Downey, they are in luck. Because the whole area is Verizon. So all they have to do is get an SLA from Verizon, and they're good.
> 
> BUT, what if an Office in Denver, needs to connect to the SAP instantiation in Brooklyn? Now we have a problem, because once the traffic leaves the local loop, it becomes open season. SO, what groups have done is create SLA's with the backbone operators, ensuring that this sort of traffic is prioritized across their switches.  Yes, this means that during peak times, the QOS of your porn will be lower than that of the VPN traffic. Too fucking bad - if you want to ensure porn than never stutters, pay business prices and get an SLA.
Click to expand...


Here's another:



> 76. For a number of reasons, including those discussed above in Part II.B, a
> commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the broadband Internet access service connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., pay for priority) would raise significant cause for concern.  22



So nobody can shape traffic according to this.  Your torrent download is as important and "neutral" as my emails, chat, and package download.  This perspective right here shows that the objective is either control and regulation or just plan lack of actual experience in network management.

In my company emails without large attachments and chat ALWAYS get priority.  Torrents, file downloads, and streaming video are behind them.  It's the only way to get things done.  Otherwise I'd have to upgrade from a T-1 to a T-3 for the same functionality.  The torrents can wait.  My traffic shaping only affects large distro downloads by a few seconds.  But without those rules in my router email just plain stops for an hour or so.  Chat ceases to function.

Under the FCC proposal even upgrading to a T-3 won't solve the problem because there will be no option for me to purchase a plan that allows the provider to shape the traffic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

asterism said:


> So nobody can shape traffic according to this.  Your torrent download is as important and "neutral" as my emails, chat, and package download.  This perspective right here shows that the objective is either control and regulation or just plan lack of actual experience in network management.
> 
> In my company emails without large attachments and chat ALWAYS get priority.  Torrents, file downloads, and streaming video are behind them.  It's the only way to get things done.  Otherwise I'd have to upgrade from a T-1 to a T-3 for the same functionality.  The torrents can wait.  My traffic shaping only affects large distro downloads by a few seconds.  But without those rules in my router email just plain stops for an hour or so.  Chat ceases to function.
> 
> Under the FCC proposal even upgrading to a T-3 won't solve the problem because there will be no option for me to purchase a plan that allows the provider to shape the traffic.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If he won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to you.


----------



## asterism

> 78. We also reject the argument that only anticompetitive discrimination yielding
> substantial consumer harm should be prohibited by our rules.  241 We are persuaded those
> proposed limiting terms are unduly narrow and could allow discriminatory conduct that is
> contrary to the public interest.  242



Here's a real case in point right now:

A content provider, HBO, and an ISP, Bright House, can't strike a deal to allow me to watch True Blood on the Internet.  Comcast folks can, but not Bright House.  No problem, if I really want to watch Sookie's tits I can switch to DirecTV or Dish.  How would this be interpreted under the proposed FCC rules?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

MikeFrank said:


> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.



The debate here is over what the law should be. You're not a very deep thinker.



> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?



Thanks for ECON 101 lesson. Now here's another one

EXAMPLE: Let's say internet regulations are relaxed, allowing company A, who previously charged $25 a month, and company B, who previously charged $25 a month, to both charge you an_ extra fee_ of $20 a month to open you big fat trap on US Message Board.com. Which one do you you choose, and are you happy now?


> the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government,


 Do you have any REAL WORLD evidence to back that up or just your stupid hypothetical econ 101 examples?


----------



## asterism

Uncensored2008 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So nobody can shape traffic according to this.  Your torrent download is as important and "neutral" as my emails, chat, and package download.  This perspective right here shows that the objective is either control and regulation or just plan lack of actual experience in network management.
> 
> In my company emails without large attachments and chat ALWAYS get priority.  Torrents, file downloads, and streaming video are behind them.  It's the only way to get things done.  Otherwise I'd have to upgrade from a T-1 to a T-3 for the same functionality.  The torrents can wait.  My traffic shaping only affects large distro downloads by a few seconds.  But without those rules in my router email just plain stops for an hour or so.  Chat ceases to function.
> 
> Under the FCC proposal even upgrading to a T-3 won't solve the problem because there will be no option for me to purchase a plan that allows the provider to shape the traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> If he won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to you.
Click to expand...


I was a huge (for me) advocate of "Net Neutrality" when the concept first came about.  I, like most of the activists, didn't want Comcast (then a division of AT&T) to block voice chat.  I didn't want Time Warner to block streaming video to my computer out of fear that I would buy from someone else instead of using their pieces of shit Video On Demand services.

But now I have Internet through a Comcast spin off, and I don't need to buy starz because I  have a Roku, Netflix and Amazon Prime.  I was told early on that these services would never happen without government regulation.

But when I saw that traffic shaping clause (and it's been there the whole time) I stopped supporting it.  I've seen how government manages networks.  For the most part their view of traffic is somewhere around the capabilities of Novell 3.11.  That's not a good national policy.


----------



## asterism

OohPooPahDoo said:


> MikeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate here is over what the law should be. You're not a very deep thinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market will decide who actually gets the business.
> 
> Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for ECON 101 lesson. Now here's another one
> 
> EXAMPLE: Let's say internet regulations are relaxed, allowing company A, who previously charged $25 a month, and company B, who previously charged $25 a month, to both charge you an_ extra fee_ of $20 a month to open you big fat trap on US Message Board.com. Which one do you you choose, and are you happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any REAL WORLD evidence to back that up or just your stupid hypothetical econ 101 examples?
Click to expand...


Landline long distance fees were extremely high during the 1990s but they were much lower or free for cell phones.  The reason was government regulation.

Under the current situation, if the current provider charged extra based on the content an alternative would be available.  AOL and CompuServe used to charge $4.95 per hour for Internet access and had to switch because other ISPs (without any government intervention) provided unlimited dialup access for $20 per month.

If there was a proposal back then for the government to "protect the consumer," I speculate that it would be something like a regulated $1.95 per hour.  Would we really be better off?  Only in the short term.  Before broadband got ubiquitous market forces had dialup down to $2.95 per month.

Same thing on healthcare.  I had a great policy in Georgia but now I live in Florida and it isn't as good.  Why can't I just keep my Georgia health insurance?


----------



## asterism

Another:



> 79. We disagree with commenters who argue that a rule against unreasonable
> discrimination violates section 3(51) of the Communications Act for those broadband providers
> that are telecommunications carriers but do not provide their broadband Internet access service as
> a telecommunications service.
> 246
> Section 3(51) provides that a &#8220;telecommunications carrier shall
> be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing
> telecommunications services.&#8221;
> 247
> This limitation is not relevant to the Commission&#8217;s actions
> here.
> 248
> The hallmark of common carriage is an &#8220;undertak[ing] to carry for all people
> indifferently.&#8221;
> 249



Skype, Google Talk, Windows Live voice chat, and a bunch of other services (the ones that the Net Neutrality activists said would not exist without government involvement) would not exist under the proposed rules.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

asterism said:


> Landline long distance fees were extremely high during the 1990s but they were much lower or free for cell phones.  The reason was government regulation.




Bullshit.


----------



## asterism

This one's a whopper:



> A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to
> achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular
> network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service



That's the same caveat the IRS uses when they say this:



> VII. Appeals and Judicial Review
> 
> If you disagree with us about the amount of your tax liability or certain collection actions, you have the right to ask the Appeals Office to review your case. You may also ask a court to review your case



http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1.pdf

What the IRS doesn't tell you is that if you appeal you are now subject to their Byzantine rules on appeals, and all of your assets are seized or frozen.  So you have the right to argue your case in front a court, but you get to do so representing yourself since you can't hire a lawyer with frozen assets.

Oh and you won't be going up against the auditor the IRS sent work your case, you're going up against some of the best attorneys the IRS has.  That's what happens when the government makes the rules and then participates in the process.  They almost always win, one way or another.  So in this case a provider has the ability to petition a government bureaucrat, but the deck is stacked it the FCC's favor.

As I pointed out previously, this proposal gives the FCC absolute authority to decide interpretation and implementation.  Also pointed out above, the reason Skype even exists is because it was not a telecommunications provider when it launched.  It was an unregulated Internet service.

Also alluded above, is the phenomenon that we now know as "free long distance" on cell phones.  That was not a government action that caused this, it was that cell phones didn't fall under landline rules and therefore were not required by regulation to charge for long distance.

Do we really want to stop the next Skype?  Do we really want to stop the next Roku or Netflix?

Government regulation did not create these services and lack of government regulation hasn't stopped them.


----------



## asterism

I'm not even close to half way through this document.  Here's another:



> 83. As proposed in the Open Internet NPRM, we will further develop the scope of
> reasonable network management on a case-by-case basis, as complaints about broadband
> providers&#8217; actual practices arise.
> 259



That's nearly identical to a letter I received from the FBI in 2002 when someone ordered a bunch of products from my website using a fraudulent credit card.  The problem was, it was below a certain threshhold (which was $50,000) so they would not get involved.  I was out $2000 and I wanted the people that stole from me to be prosecuted.  I agree (and stated at the time) that this is not an FBI matter, but the government regulations prohibited any other activity.  The state government said their hands were tied, the crime occurred on my server.  The state where my server was said that the actual crime was committed at the computer in another state.  The bank upon which the funds were drawn said that the FBI was the only entity they could refer the case to.

I say this because in this proposal, content providers who feel they have been incorrectly blocked have this as their only option, some government agency in charge of regulating this.  Relying on a government agency for enforcement of standards they themselves define and prioritize does not do anyone any good.

Think about this.  If you are going to send a priceless (to you) piece of costume jewelry to your daughter, would you really use the USPS?  We're still trying to find out what happened to a piece my grandmother sent to my daughter.  The declared value was $5 and that was accurate.  There's no provision to put $20,000 because that would be mail fraud.  But now it's gone and I have no recourse because we only lost $5.  That was the same treatment when my business lost $2000.


----------



## RDD_1210

Thanks for calling out those sections Asterism. I will read them tomorrow in more detail. I do appreciate the effort.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue. Impressive. Hey, at least your consistent! You're right though, this is just about getting access to the internet for free! Solid analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a specific reason, other than your complete inability to deal with reality, why you have not addressed the fact that I actually posted a link that shows that AT&T wrote the net neutrality regulations the FCC is trying to impose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I learned long ago that you don't know how to have a rational conversation.
> 
> But just to humor you, yes, I am aware of the bastardization of the Net Neutrality legislation, which proposed keeping wired networking neutral while allowing wireless communication to be manipulated. It certainly isn't ideal, but it's still better than letting big ISPs run rampant across everything.
Click to expand...


Right now we have nothing, and you think letting AT&T dictate the rules is better than nothing. And you claim that I am the one that cannot have a rational conversation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which is it? The federal government should protect us, or leave us alone? You do know that if you want protection, that there has to be some rules and regulation that they have to pass in order to be successful. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government should protect our unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights.  And that's it.  It should not be who smooths out every bump in the road, solves every problem, fixes everything that breaks, eliminates every hazard, prevents us from being frustrated or angry or offended or getting our feelings hurt.
> 
> Do you know what an unalienable right is?  Can you define it as the Founders intended it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure do. Sure can.
> 
> I guess then it boils down to what value you place on the internet, technology and the way we get information in this day and age. If you are ok with information being restricted and controlled then that's your choice. If you don't consider the internet to be of enough importance to protect its use by all, then that's where we'll just have to disagree.
Click to expand...


I do not see the government protecting access to information. Governments always work to restrict access to information in order to maintain power and control. Putting them in charge of guaranteeing access is like letting the fox guard the hen house.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RDD_1210 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if what you like is not a preferred site by your ISP and you can't reach that site, but instead you are only able to get to the ISP's preferred site. You're cool with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get a new ISP and that old ISP loses me and any other customers who like whatever websites they screw with.
> 
> Thats the beauty of american capitalism, well what is still left of it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is such competition simply does not exist, and it isnt likely to exist in the foreseeable future. Most Americans have access to two broadband providers  cable and DSL. Thats it. These two systems dominate, holding over 98 percent of the broadband market.
> 
> A significant chunk of the country has only one broadband provider, and around 10 percent of households have none at all. This is hardly a competitive market. Certainly there is insufficient competition between different technologies to produce any kind of deterrent. If both the local cable and telephone companies are using their networks to discriminate, the consumer is trapped. There is nowhere else to go.
> 
> Thats why nondiscrimination through Network Neutrality is so critical for the content and
> application layer of the Internet. Without Network Neutrality, the telephone and cable duopoly will leverage its market power over the network to gain control over the content and application markets, establishing a handful of wireline companies as the gatekeepers of the Internet.
Click to expand...


That is a flat out lie.

The only people that have limited competitive access are those who live in rural areas. Last time I checked the maps most Americans live in cities or suburbs, not rural areas. By the way, as I have pointed out multiple times, the reason that cable suppliers have monopolies is that governments gave it to them, not because they managed to drive other companies out of business.


----------



## Oddball

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get a new ISP and that old ISP loses me and any other customers who like whatever websites they screw with.
> 
> Thats the beauty of american capitalism, well what is still left of it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is such competition simply does not exist, and it isn&#8217;t likely to exist in the foreseeable future. Most Americans have access to two broadband providers &#8212; cable and DSL. That&#8217;s it. These two systems dominate, holding over 98 percent of the broadband market.
> 
> A significant chunk of the country has only one broadband provider, and around 10 percent of households have none at all. This is hardly a competitive market. Certainly there is insufficient competition between different technologies to produce any kind of deterrent. If both the local cable and telephone companies are using their networks to discriminate, the consumer is trapped. There is nowhere else to go.
> 
> That&#8217;s why nondiscrimination through Network Neutrality is so critical for the content and
> application layer of the Internet. Without Network Neutrality, the telephone and cable duopoly will leverage its market power over the network to gain control over the content and application markets, establishing a handful of wireline companies as the gatekeepers of the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a flat out lie.
> 
> *The only people that have limited competitive access are those who live in rural areas.* Last time I checked the maps most Americans live in cities or suburbs, not rural areas. By the way, as I have pointed out multiple times, the reason that cable suppliers have monopolies is that governments gave it to them, not because they managed to drive other companies out of business.
Click to expand...

I'm posting from one of those rural areas right now.

We have the choice between dial-up, DSL and satellite.

RDD has absolutely NFI what he's talking about, and he's the only one on this tread who hasn't figured that out.


----------



## asterism

RDD_1210 said:


> Thanks for calling out those sections Asterism. I will read them tomorrow in more detail. I do appreciate the effort.



I hope so.  There are good reasons for net neutrality controls, but not this IMO.


----------

