Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[Vanquish]

I already did, sir. yes, the question was to him..but your argument has already been addressed. By me.

 

[RDD_1210]

And Obama needs to provide it to us free of charge???

Where does it say that? Are we making things up again?

Simply a question.
Do you have an answer?

No, Obama DOESN'T need to provide the internet Free of Charge, nor is anyone asking for that, NOR is that in this bill.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Jarhead]

You've never heard the argument that the internet is a public utility? Keep up, man.

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

 

[RDD_1210]

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Are you in favor of these corporations deciding what content their users can see and what content they can't get access to?

 

[Jarhead]

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Are you in favor of these corporations deciding what content their users can see and what content they can't get access to?

Not at all.
My question has to do with the "free access" part of the debate.
I am 100% in favor of coporations being told "if you want to make money furnishing access to the internet, please feel free and let the market dictate what you can charge. However, you are not permitted to alter anything as it pertains to searches and site access. Only the individual conusmer can set such parameters."

Likewise, I would not want the government (FCC) to have any say whatsoever as it pertains to deviation from such a mandate.

 

[Vanquish]

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Nope. Just like I can't get TV without corporations...water without corporations...gas, power, ...etc etc.

You've sidestepped the main point of what we're talking about. We're talking about keeping the internet the way it fucking is. how can ANYONE be against that?

 

[Jarhead]

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Nope. Just like I can't get TV without corporations...water without corporations...gas, power, ...etc etc.

You've sidestepped the main point of what we're talking about. We're talking about keeping the internet the way it fucking is. how can ANYONE be against that?

Sorry...did not intentionally sidestep the point being made. I latched onto the debate over "free internnet access"...something I do not believe in.

ANd I am 100% against corporate OR FCC intervention as it petains to my use of the internet.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Are you in favor of these corporations deciding what content their users can see and what content they can't get access to?

Not at all.
My question has to do with the "free access" part of the debate.
I am 100% in favor of coporations being told "if you want to make money furnishing access to the internet, please feel free and let the market dictate what you can charge. However, you are not permitted to alter anything as it pertains to searches and site access. Only the individual conusmer can set such parameters."

Likewise, I would not want the government (FCC) to have any say whatsoever as it pertains to deviation from such a mandate.

Just so we're clear, "free access" doesn't entail free monetary access. We're on the same page with that right?

Otherwise we seem to be in agreement for the most part. I don't think Corporations OR government should be able to stop anyone from accessing any information that other people can access and it should never come down to a only the rich/privileged/preferred can access information. I want "free access" for everyone which is freedom of information access that neither corporate or government entities can deny.

 

[Jarhead]

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Nope. Just like I can't get TV without corporations...water without corporations...gas, power, ...etc etc.

You've sidestepped the main point of what we're talking about. We're talking about keeping the internet the way it fucking is. how can ANYONE be against that?

And actually, you CAN get TV, water, gas and power without corporations. You just opt for the more convenient way to get it...through the corporations.

TV...airwaves and a convereter.
Water.....lake and a bucket
Gas...start digging
Power...a generator using the gas you found digging.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Nope. Just like I can't get TV without corporations...water without corporations...gas, power, ...etc etc.

You've sidestepped the main point of what we're talking about. We're talking about keeping the internet the way it fucking is. how can ANYONE be against that?

Sorry...did not intentionally sidestep the point being made. I latched onto the debate over "free internnet access"...something I do not believe in.

ANd I am 100% against corporate OR FCC intervention as it petains to my use of the internet.

And that's just the thing, the FCC is basically saying that they will have no authority over network access outside of preventing anyone else from being able to restrict information to Americans.

 

[Jarhead]

Are you in favor of these corporations deciding what content their users can see and what content they can't get access to?

Not at all.
My question has to do with the "free access" part of the debate.
I am 100% in favor of coporations being told "if you want to make money furnishing access to the internet, please feel free and let the market dictate what you can charge. However, you are not permitted to alter anything as it pertains to searches and site access. Only the individual conusmer can set such parameters."

Likewise, I would not want the government (FCC) to have any say whatsoever as it pertains to deviation from such a mandate.

Just so we're clear, "free access" doesn't entail free monetary access. We're on the same page with that right?

Otherwise we seem to be in agreement for the most part. I don't think Corporations OR government should be able to stop anyone from accessing any information that other people can access and it should never come down to a only the rich/privileged/preferred can access information. I want "free access" for everyone which is freedom of information access that neither corporate or government entities can deny.

Curious about your thoughts on this scenario....

ABC industries opens up as a full service research company. It compiles a database of a wealth of information it collects over hours and hours of intense research, verification, etc.

It markets its site to companies and individual consumers as a site that will fine tune the free search engine results...saving time and energy to find and verify..

ANd there is a charge for this convenience.

Are you OK with that?

 

[Vanquish]

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Nope. Just like I can't get TV without corporations...water without corporations...gas, power, ...etc etc.

You've sidestepped the main point of what we're talking about. We're talking about keeping the internet the way it fucking is. how can ANYONE be against that?

And actually, you CAN get TV, water, gas and power without corporations. You just opt for the more convenient way to get it...through the corporations.

TV...airwaves and a convereter. even though I get it free, it's still controlled by laws
Water.....lake and a bucket even though I get it free there are laws about what I can take, where I can take it from, and what can get dumped in it
Gas...start digging same
Power...a generator using the gas you found digging.I think you get the point.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

Nope. Just like I can't get TV without corporations...water without corporations...gas, power, ...etc etc.

You've sidestepped the main point of what we're talking about. We're talking about keeping the internet the way it fucking is. how can ANYONE be against that?

Sorry...did not intentionally sidestep the point being made. I latched onto the debate over "free internnet access"...something I do not believe in.

ANd I am 100% against corporate OR FCC intervention as it petains to my use of the internet.

Looks like we're on the same page here. I don't expect free internet for anyone...just don't want companies with leverage to ruin the internet.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not at all.
My question has to do with the "free access" part of the debate.
I am 100% in favor of coporations being told "if you want to make money furnishing access to the internet, please feel free and let the market dictate what you can charge. However, you are not permitted to alter anything as it pertains to searches and site access. Only the individual conusmer can set such parameters."

Likewise, I would not want the government (FCC) to have any say whatsoever as it pertains to deviation from such a mandate.

Just so we're clear, "free access" doesn't entail free monetary access. We're on the same page with that right?

Otherwise we seem to be in agreement for the most part. I don't think Corporations OR government should be able to stop anyone from accessing any information that other people can access and it should never come down to a only the rich/privileged/preferred can access information. I want "free access" for everyone which is freedom of information access that neither corporate or government entities can deny.

Curious about your thoughts on this scenario....

ABC industries opens up as a full service research company. It compiles a database of a wealth of information it collects over hours and hours of intense research, verification, etc.

It markets its site to companies and individual consumers as a site that will fine tune the free search engine results...saving time and energy to find and verify..

ANd there is a charge for this convenience.

Are you OK with that?

Absolutely, there are companies who do this very thing right now. In fact, it's what I do for a living. But they(we) do not impact the Search Engine directly, we modify the websites we work on to show up higher in search results. However what we are offering is a service that in no way prevents Google from showing another website, or from someone directly accessing a competitors website. What some of the big ISP's want to do is actually degrade the connection that users can get to access sites directly and THAT goes against the concept of Net Neutrality.

 

[Vanquish]

You do SEO? I could use yourservices. And you're right that's not a big deal at all. Changing meta tags and other ways of working within the software that are accepted and agreed upon are fine.

It's when you have gigantic, sweeping, unilateral decisions about content based on profit and over-control by a few select that the problem begins. Again, I'm not against profit, just dictatorial control.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good.

It's good for politicians to put riders into unrelated bills to avoid an honest vote on something?


We'll remember that the next time the Dems do it and you bitch about it.

The alternative is torches and pitchforks

 

[RDD_1210]

You do SEO? I could use yourservices. And you're right that's not a big deal at all. Changing meta tags and other ways of working within the software that are accepted and agreed upon are fine.

It's when you have gigantic, sweeping, unilateral decisions about content based on profit and over-control by a few select that the problem begins. Again, I'm not against profit, just dictatorial control.

I do. Feel free to drop me a message and I'll help try to help you out.

 

[Contumacious]

You've never heard the argument that the internet is a public utility? Keep up, man.

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

 

[Revere]

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

They can, and they have. 75 or so "file swapping" sites were taken down by the US government with no court order.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

They can, and they have. 75 or so "file swapping" sites were taken down by the US government with no court order.

Link?

 

[Revere]

Seriously? You have not heard about this?

How can you come here and discuss it?