Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality

[ClosedCaption]

One more time, net neutrality is, by definition, a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks.

Thats not what Net Neutrality is.



And this is why you have a crazy opinion of it. How could a judge strike down something that never existed? He cant




Wrong. Read the definition of Net Neutrality. You are wrong.

Here, learn something:



Just like I said. You say trust that this wont happen but it has in the past

Just like I said. They are going to make internet like cell phone data packages

Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11] Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.[12]

The last bolded is your position. Your posistion doesnt cover or isnt available in many areas.

Now you think you are smarter than UC Berkley about the internet.

NET NEUTRALITY: definition

Great job.

I'm glad you included a link where you got your information. Thanks, the problem is that when you get past the first sentence you included at the top it continues with another sentence


From your link:

In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another. This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users.

Here is what I said:

net·work neu·tral·i·ty
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality
1.
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Now you can plainly see your link says exactly what I've been saying. While I match your link perfectly almost verbatim you keep insisting I dont know what I'm talking about.

Keep including links and eventually you'll discover that I've been right the entire time

 

[Plasmaball]

Korean carriers to launch broadband-shaming 300Mbps LTE-Advanced network this year

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let me get this straight, that title, and the first sentence of the opinion piece, says that there is no net neutrality, and that the federal government regulates the internet, both of which are the points I have made, and that somehow proves me wrong.

It then goes on to argue that the FCC is going to ruin everything, and that we need less government on the internet, which, once again, is my position.

One of us is really confused, and it ain't the windbag.

how motherfucking retarded are you.

See the underline is what you said, the larger print is what i Copied from the piece.

meaning NN does exist you fucking retard. Im done with you. You are literally too stupid for the internet.

And it goes on to say what, again?

But not for the reasons you think. Others are saying that the FCC just lost the battle but “can finally win the war” — if the agency formally “reclassifies” broadband as a heavily regulated “common carrier” (like traditional telephone services). Actually, the FCC lost the battle, but it just won the war over regulating the internet. It no longer needs to bother with reclassification, a process so difficult and drawn-out it was always a political fantasy anyway.
The FCC’s broad new powers should worry everyone, whatever they think of net neutrality. Because beneath the clever rallying cries of “net neutrality!” lurks a wide range of potential issues. Most concerns are imaginary or simply misplaced. The real concerns would be better addressed through other approaches — like focusing on abuses of market power that harm competition.

Damn, just what I said.

Want to keep making my point for me?

Wait just a fucking second here. The bolded says the "FCC new power should worry everyone" and you go AHA! Except the FCC just LOST!! It says so in the previous quote. How could the FCC gain new powers while losing powers that YOU SAY NEVER EXISTED!!!! That doesnt make sense.

Thats not the worst part of your analysis.

I'm quoting Plasma on this one

The FCC’s broad new powers should worry everyone, whatever they think of net neutrality. Because beneath the clever rallying cries of “net neutrality!” lurks a wide range of potential issues. Most concerns are imaginary or simply misplaced. The real concerns would be better addressed through other approaches — like focusing on abuses of market power that harm competition.

Your response was "Just what I said". No. Thats not what you said. The quote right here says there are a wide range of potential issues. MOST concerns are imaginary or misplaced. BUT the REAL CONCERNS should be focused on ABUSES OF MARKET POWER...THAT HARM...HARM COMPETITION!!

*Wipes Forehead*

We've been saying the whole time that they will shut down (the little that exists) the competition and FUCK YOU UP THE ASS! Or as they put it ABUSE THE MARKET POWER.

Thats what Plasma and I have been saying the whole time and YOU just agreed with it. Now could you shut the fuck up.

*Drops the Mic*

*grabs QM's bitch*

*leaves*

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats not what Net Neutrality is.



And this is why you have a crazy opinion of it. How could a judge strike down something that never existed? He cant




Wrong. Read the definition of Net Neutrality. You are wrong.

Here, learn something:



Just like I said. You say trust that this wont happen but it has in the past

Just like I said. They are going to make internet like cell phone data packages

The last bolded is your position. Your posistion doesnt cover or isnt available in many areas.

Now you think you are smarter than UC Berkley about the internet.

NET NEUTRALITY: definition

Great job.

I'm glad you included a link where you got your information. Thanks, the problem is that when you get past the first sentence you included at the top it continues with another sentence


From your link:

In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another. This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users.

Here is what I said:

net·work neu·tral·i·ty
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality
1.
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Now you can plainly see your link says exactly what I've been saying. While I match your link perfectly almost verbatim you keep insisting I dont know what I'm talking about.

Keep including links and eventually you'll discover that I've been right the entire time

I provided a link to it earlier, you didn't like it because it contradicted your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how motherfucking retarded are you.

See the underline is what you said, the larger print is what i Copied from the piece.

meaning NN does exist you fucking retard. Im done with you. You are literally too stupid for the internet.

And it goes on to say what, again?



Damn, just what I said.

Want to keep making my point for me?

Wait just a fucking second here. The bolded says the "FCC new power should worry everyone" and you go AHA! Except the FCC just LOST!! It says so in the previous quote. How could the FCC gain new powers while losing powers that YOU SAY NEVER EXISTED!!!! That doesnt make sense.

Thats not the worst part of your analysis.

I'm quoting Plasma on this one

The FCC’s broad new powers should worry everyone, whatever they think of net neutrality. Because beneath the clever rallying cries of “net neutrality!” lurks a wide range of potential issues. Most concerns are imaginary or simply misplaced. The real concerns would be better addressed through other approaches — like focusing on abuses of market power that harm competition.

Your response was "Just what I said". No. Thats not what you said. The quote right here says there are a wide range of potential issues. MOST concerns are imaginary or misplaced. BUT the REAL CONCERNS should be focused on ABUSES OF MARKET POWER...THAT HARM...HARM COMPETITION!!

*Wipes Forehead*

We've been saying the whole time that they will shut down (the little that exists) the competition and FUCK YOU UP THE ASS! Or as they put it ABUSE THE MARKET POWER.

Thats what Plasma and I have been saying the whole time and YOU just agreed with it. Now could you shut the fuck up.

*Drops the Mic*

*grabs QM's bitch*

*leaves*

Still can't read, what a surprise.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And it goes on to say what, again?



Damn, just what I said.

Want to keep making my point for me?

Wait just a fucking second here. The bolded says the "FCC new power should worry everyone" and you go AHA! Except the FCC just LOST!! It says so in the previous quote. How could the FCC gain new powers while losing powers that YOU SAY NEVER EXISTED!!!! That doesnt make sense.

Thats not the worst part of your analysis.

I'm quoting Plasma on this one

The FCC’s broad new powers should worry everyone, whatever they think of net neutrality. Because beneath the clever rallying cries of “net neutrality!” lurks a wide range of potential issues. Most concerns are imaginary or simply misplaced. The real concerns would be better addressed through other approaches — like focusing on abuses of market power that harm competition.

Your response was "Just what I said". No. Thats not what you said. The quote right here says there are a wide range of potential issues. MOST concerns are imaginary or misplaced. BUT the REAL CONCERNS should be focused on ABUSES OF MARKET POWER...THAT HARM...HARM COMPETITION!!

*Wipes Forehead*

We've been saying the whole time that they will shut down (the little that exists) the competition and FUCK YOU UP THE ASS! Or as they put it ABUSE THE MARKET POWER.

Thats what Plasma and I have been saying the whole time and YOU just agreed with it. Now could you shut the fuck up.

*Drops the Mic*

*grabs QM's bitch*

*leaves*

Still can't read, what a surprise.

This is what defeat looks like

 

[Contumacious]

The one thing that net neutrality advocates continually overlook is that bandwidth is scarce. It is scarce in America as it is scarce in both Asia and Europe. Furthermore, building and maintaining a network is a very capital-intensive endeavor with low return-on-investment. For example, earlier this year, Google and six other companies pooled together resources to fund a $300 million fiber optic link between the West coast and Japan. Constructing this line will take several years and won’t be complete until 2011.

Similarly, to build a new backbone on land, entrepreneurs must: pay for permits, conduct environmental studies, rent or buy property, recruit labor, apply for technology licenses, purchase construction materials, install fiber optics, manage network equipment, and even play the game of politics. All told breaking new ground in an urban environment like Dallas can cost up to $1 million per mile.

Yet, if net neutrality legislation is enacted, the federal government will essentially be telling ISPs that they no longer own their own networks (i.e., network operators can no longer do whatever they want with their own property). Thus, this has become a battle over property rights. And as a result, many entrepreneurs and capitalists will no longer invest in the capital resources necessary to maintain or upgrade the facilities.

Can you provide a link when you copy and paste someone elses opinion.

You must be blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

.

 

[American_Jihad]

13 Dems Propose Bill to Study Hate Speech on the Internet “Outside Zone of First Amendment Protection”​

January 21, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Nothing creepy about that. Can we also get a bill to study leftist advocacy to commit harassment, conduct illegal protests and engage in environmental crimes “outside the zone of first amendment protection”?

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades.

“The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship,” he said. “But it can also be used as a platform to promote hate and target vulnerable individuals.

“This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.”

While acts of violence are obviously illegal, various incitement provisions can be and are used to muzzle speech that offends someone on the loosest theory that such speech is linked to violence.

Some of the most tenuous forms of this argument have come into play in Europe where critics of Islam have been charged with crimes for acts of violence committed by Muslims or that might have been committed by Muslims outraged by their speech.

...

13 Dems Propose Bill to Study Hate Speech on the Internet ?Outside Zone of First Amendment Protection? | FrontPage Magazine

 

[KissMy]

USMB will deliver slower speed to fucking idiots and Liberals, so Plasma will be double slow!

Oh nose!

In reality the rural white republicans are now totally screwed. Your one rural service provider is likely using AT&T as backbone. They allow companies they own like Yahoo & DirecTV, but are now restricting packets from all Google owned companies like YouTube, Gmail, DoubleClick, etc.

City Democrats are enjoying all internet sites at full throttle.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are deranged fucking twits. You stupid fucking morons.

 

[KissMy]

Stupid Repubtards are clueless

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

 

[ErikViking]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Good point! Just imagine if the government suddenly interfered - creating unnecessary regulations? Suddenly there would be stupid things like “Food and Drugs administration”!
If people don’t like some food they buy some other food.

 

[Theowl32]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Oh, that is the next step. They won't stop until the government controls EVERYTHING. All of it. Every aspect of our lives. They use cliches and the same stupid pathetic democrat talking points to seduce the morons.

In this case....EVIL CORPORATIONS. In other words, capitalism. More to the point, white Christian Americans.

That is it and they will not stop with ALL of their lies until the constitution is burned or flushed into a toilet. In the meantime when the internet is not crawling a snails pace and everything works out, they will forget about ALL of these false claims.

Just like they ignore how things in black neighborhoods and how every democrat run city run by socialist policies are toilet bowls. Much how they ignore black on black crimes and hype cops killing blacks. K

Just like that. We will have plasmadick sticking to the vast left wing cliches as he lives in his gated community.

 

[Norman]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Oh, that is the next step. They won't stop until the government controls EVERYTHING. All of it. Every aspect of our lives. They use cliches and the same stupid pathetic democrat talking points to seduce the morons.

In this case....EVIL CORPORATIONS. In other words, capitalism. More to the point, white Christian Americans.

That is it and they will not stop with ALL of their lies until the constitution is burned or flushed into a toilet. In the meantime when the internet is not crawling a snails pace and everything works out, they will forget about ALL of these false claims.

Just like they ignore how things in black neighborhoods and how every democrat run city run by socialist policies are toilet bowls. Much how they ignore black on black crimes and hype cops killing blacks. K

Just like that. We will have plasmadick sticking to the vast left wing cliches as he lives in his gated community.

It's stupid how many people the dems have managed to convince that coercion is better than freedom, because... some cool sounding slogans.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lol,

the feds have been doing it for decades.

Someone lives a life of fiction I see.

 

[ErikViking]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Oh, that is the next step. They won't stop until the government controls EVERYTHING. All of it. Every aspect of our lives. They use cliches and the same stupid pathetic democrat talking points to seduce the morons.

In this case....EVIL CORPORATIONS. In other words, capitalism. More to the point, white Christian Americans.

That is it and they will not stop with ALL of their lies until the constitution is burned or flushed into a toilet. In the meantime when the internet is not crawling a snails pace and everything works out, they will forget about ALL of these false claims.

Just like they ignore how things in black neighborhoods and how every democrat run city run by socialist policies are toilet bowls. Much how they ignore black on black crimes and hype cops killing blacks. K

Just like that. We will have plasmadick sticking to the vast left wing cliches as he lives in his gated community.

It's stupid how many people the dems have managed to convince that coercion is better than freedom, because... some cool sounding slogans.

Just like that bull shit about Crop Rotation they tried to pull. Slash and Burn have always worked! Stop the interfering!

 

[Theowl32]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Oh, that is the next step. They won't stop until the government controls EVERYTHING. All of it. Every aspect of our lives. They use cliches and the same stupid pathetic democrat talking points to seduce the morons.

In this case....EVIL CORPORATIONS. In other words, capitalism. More to the point, white Christian Americans.

That is it and they will not stop with ALL of their lies until the constitution is burned or flushed into a toilet. In the meantime when the internet is not crawling a snails pace and everything works out, they will forget about ALL of these false claims.

Just like they ignore how things in black neighborhoods and how every democrat run city run by socialist policies are toilet bowls. Much how they ignore black on black crimes and hype cops killing blacks. K

Just like that. We will have plasmadick sticking to the vast left wing cliches as he lives in his gated community.

It's stupid how many people the dems have managed to convince that coercion is better than freedom, because... some cool sounding slogans.

They cannot cite one single example where the government runs things better or more efficiently than the free market.

The true fear behind these leftists (not the ones that post here cause they are too stupid to get it) is when all of these things work under Trump, it will be hard for them to justify their stance.

However, let us not underestimate how pathetic and how powerful the MSM is. Right now the economy is thriving. I seem to remember (and was told by left wing losers in my life) that they said the economy is going to tank. A member at my club yelled at me last year and created a big giant scene on how the market was going to implode.

I asked him just yesterday how that market is doing. In typical left wing fashion he ignored me, and pretty much acted like he never claimed it. My friend had him on video, but he is not effected by that at all.

He simply ignores how he was wrong and moves on to his next false claim.

Notice how they give all of the credit to obama for the thriving economy. They of course ignore the economic fall under the democrats when they took over power in 2007 under Pelosi. They had control of the House and Senate from 2007 to 2010. You see what the economy did under them?

Then the democrats started losing power in 2010 and lost control of both the House and Senate in 2014. Ahhh, but it was the obama economy as reported by the msm and believed by the losers on the left on this site.

I have asked them several times over the years about who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which exempted credit default swaps from regulation. Their stupid asses always ignore that, cause they are ignorant as all fuck. I ask them who rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act which put pressure on banks to lend to low income neighborhoods. They ignore ALL of that.

I own them. They have nothing. They are losers.

 

[Norman]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Oh, that is the next step. They won't stop until the government controls EVERYTHING. All of it. Every aspect of our lives. They use cliches and the same stupid pathetic democrat talking points to seduce the morons.

In this case....EVIL CORPORATIONS. In other words, capitalism. More to the point, white Christian Americans.

That is it and they will not stop with ALL of their lies until the constitution is burned or flushed into a toilet. In the meantime when the internet is not crawling a snails pace and everything works out, they will forget about ALL of these false claims.

Just like they ignore how things in black neighborhoods and how every democrat run city run by socialist policies are toilet bowls. Much how they ignore black on black crimes and hype cops killing blacks. K

Just like that. We will have plasmadick sticking to the vast left wing cliches as he lives in his gated community.

It's stupid how many people the dems have managed to convince that coercion is better than freedom, because... some cool sounding slogans.

The true fear behind these leftists (not the ones that post here cause they are too stupid to get it) is when all of these things work under Trump, it will be hard for them to justify their stance.
.

That is why they hate Trump so much. He actually pursues policies that work for the people, which means the leftist claim about the world ending if they don't get to have other people's money/control other people's lives is called.

If all goes well, these brilliant leftist ideas will be viewed like slavery is viewed today. Utterly irresponsible, wrong... and of course in no way working.

 

[ErikViking]

Why stop at net neutrality, why not food neutrality, housing ?

Oh, that is the next step. They won't stop until the government controls EVERYTHING. All of it. Every aspect of our lives. They use cliches and the same stupid pathetic democrat talking points to seduce the morons.

In this case....EVIL CORPORATIONS. In other words, capitalism. More to the point, white Christian Americans.

That is it and they will not stop with ALL of their lies until the constitution is burned or flushed into a toilet. In the meantime when the internet is not crawling a snails pace and everything works out, they will forget about ALL of these false claims.

Just like they ignore how things in black neighborhoods and how every democrat run city run by socialist policies are toilet bowls. Much how they ignore black on black crimes and hype cops killing blacks. K

Just like that. We will have plasmadick sticking to the vast left wing cliches as he lives in his gated community.

It's stupid how many people the dems have managed to convince that coercion is better than freedom, because... some cool sounding slogans.

The true fear behind these leftists (not the ones that post here cause they are too stupid to get it) is when all of these things work under Trump, it will be hard for them to justify their stance.
.

That is why they hate Trump so much. He actually pursues policies that work for the people, which means the leftist claim about the world ending if they don't get to have other people's money/control other people's lives is called.

If all goes well, these brilliant leftist ideas will be viewed like slavery is viewed today. Utterly irresponsible, wrong... and of course in no way working.

I just hope it’s not too late to go back to how it was before the lefties started the government.