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

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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

Please explain these strange concepts to me.

Exactly.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

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?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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.

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

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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]

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.

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?

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

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?

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.