CENSORSHIP... AKA: NET NEUTRALITY!

OK if the FCC dosnt have power over the Internet that is a good thing. The IPS are not looking to censor it would be against their intrests to do so. liberals don't want the internet to be censored ether. The only ones who want internet censorship in the U.S. is the Religious right who keep trying to impose their religious beliefs on others through the FCC. Matter of fact the whole purpose for the FCC is to censor what we Americans get to see and say through the Media. With the V-chip in every T.V. I think its time to put and end to the FCC.
 
Bittermark said:
It's my product. They should have no say in the matter other than to give me what I pay for. They don't have a right to do anything to the internet. They need to stay the fuck out of the pipes or we should nationalize it and do away with the intrusive middle man.
Click to expand...

:palm:

did you architect, install, maintain, sell, and provide that internet access to people across the nation? let me help you with that answer.......NO!!!

It is NOT your product. It is theirs. If you do not like that they censor some info and content, feel free to switch to another that doesn't, or make your own. It's not that difficult to get a T1 line connected to your house, provided you have the cash to pay for it.
 
Cypress said:
Surprisingly, people with real jobs and real responsibility don't just think of the internet as a way to log onto the Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity websites, like you do.

I need unrestricted, reliable, unlimited, and fast internet access to do a myriad of things related to my job. You probably don't. You just surf rightwing blogs. Actual real professionals, and people who need to do research or access data and information need unfettered internet access, free from the whims of ComCast. Net neutrality is good for business, good for research, and just plain fair; aka, the internet was invented with public tax dollars. It wasn't invented by ComCast.

The FCC is going to ensure net neutrality whether you like it or not, my Sean hannity-worshipping Neoconfederate. The court left the door open to regulating the internet via another section of the law, the same legal statute that enables the government to regulate phone companies. ComCast will whine about it, but the next challenge from comcast will be shot down in court if the FCC plays its cards right.
Click to expand...

LOL little desk jockey might have to do more work. Boo hoo
 
WinterBorn said:
When the cable company can filter or control what information we can access, they control the information.

Yes, it is their cable. But would you allow the phone company to limit your access to only certain numbers?

The cable companies are a ruthless bunch of assholes. If you think they care about what you want then you haven't been paying attention. They divided up the nation into little fiefdoms so they would have little or no competition.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal, this "Net Neutrality" thing is being sold as the FCC regulating ISPs to ensure "fairness of content," as if the ISPs are somehow limiting or restricting access to content! That is simply NOT happening! It happens in China, where the Communist Chinese government restricts access to various websites! THAT is what the FCC wants the power to do!

In America, that is not the case because it we are a free country, with a free enterprise system, and we have the freedom to use any number of internet service providers who are all competing for our business. If even one ISP were blocking or restricting content to all customers, their competition would jump all over it, and run commercials about it 24/7.... hey, why settle for LESS of the Internet? Get FULL access with us! We don't see those commercials because ALL Internet Service Providers are going to provide complete and total access to anything that is on the Internet to all customers all the time!
 
It is NOT your product. It is theirs. If you do not like that they censor some info and content, feel free to switch to another that doesn't, or make your own.
Click to expand...

Don't get sucked in the argument by their rhetoric, there is no censorship happening on part of the ISPs! They are not restricting you from accessing ANYTHING on the Internet! You have the ability to filter content you don't want your kids to access with some ISPs, but that is the extent of censorship when it comes to the Internet in the US. What the FCC wants, is the ability to do as they do in China, and allow the Government to determine what is and isn't appropriate for you to access! It is a full-frontal assault on free speech, and it is done under the guise of "protecting" you from the mean old ISPs who may favor some content over other content... which has NEVER happened!
 
Dixie said:
Don't get sucked in the argument by their rhetoric, there is no censorship happening on part of the ISPs! They are not restricting you from accessing ANYTHING on the Internet! You have the ability to filter content you don't want your kids to access with some ISPs, but that is the extent of censorship when it comes to the Internet in the US. What the FCC wants, is the ability to do as they do in China, and allow the Government to determine what is and isn't appropriate for you to access! It is a full-frontal assault on free speech, and it is done under the guise of "protecting" you from the mean old ISPs who may favor some content over other content... which has NEVER happened!
Click to expand...


You're totally full of shit, as usual. Where do you get this shit? Are you on some sort of mailing list for corporatist tools?
 
Dixie said:
Give me some goddamn examples of ISPs blocking or restricting Internet content from the consumer! Can you?????? Didn't think so! ...My point stands!
Click to expand...

they should be resrtained from doing so preemptively. Just like we don't wait for car accidents to install traffic lights.
 
Dixie said:
Give me some goddamn examples of ISPs blocking or restricting Internet content from the consumer! Can you?????? Didn't think so! ...My point stands!
Click to expand...


[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=comcast+filtering+content&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai="]comcast filtering content - Google Search[/ame]
 
You neocons are making the mistake of believing that corporations are protecters of free speech.

They aren't. The minute some two bit site gets more play than a big corporate customers site, they will shut it down. They believe in monopoly, not free markets. reagan era republicans like myself were never exposed to the true corporate nature, because we lived after the labor reform of 20s and 30's. It took me a while to unlearn the neocon revisionist history.
 
net neutrality is the exact opposite of censorship you unbelievable idiots.

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating on the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic"
 
Net neutrality is fucking retarded. I remember first hearing about it years ago when a co-worker asked me my opinion about it and when I read up on it I could not believe that such a wacky idea would ever try and be put in place by the left. Yet here we are.

I mean setting aside the fact that virtually no ISPs would ever dare to actually outright restrict content as it would be blatant to the end user and they would lose business, the "problem" is really a handful that slow down content they don't like.
Whooped-de-shit, if you don't like it this is not fucking government, you have choice and can go elsewhere. There are tv companies who obviously outright restrict content from their competitors, if we can easily tolerate that, well the telcos are doing much less than that.
Another example, if you shop for food at a certain supermarket, should you be able to force that company to stock store brand products of it's competitors? AND expect that they sell it to you at the same price?

As well there are many valid cases where ISPs restriction of content helps its users, like slowing spam.
"I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... attacks" - Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent

This is just one of those things where Liberals feel they see an area that is largely government free and think they MUST do something more. It is an absolutely retarded idea based far more on the potential of a problem rather than the actual existence of one.
 
I think it's more about letting a service provider stop someone from overly clogging up capacity.
 
If it did come into effect, it's also largely impossible to find violations (ie: did the company restrict the content or was their some technical problem?).
Just let the consumer decide and if for WHATEVER reason they are not happy (and let's be honest here, who the fucking hell on here knows a single person alive who actually switched providers because of content restriction as opposed to shitty service) then they are free to switch.
 
Comparing it to the fairness doctrine is really a stupid thing to do though. The fairness doctrine mandated content be provided at the expense of other content. Net neutrality does not operate at the expense of other content.
 
KingCondanomation said:
If it did come into effect, it's also largely impossible to find violations (ie: did the company restrict the content or was their some technical problem?).
Just let the consumer decide and if for WHATEVER reason they are not happy (and let's be honest here, who the fucking hell on here knows a single person alive who actually switched providers because of content restriction as opposed to shitty service) then they are free to switch.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are free to switch to another network that does the exact same thing. If they're lucky enough to live in a rural area, their service is probably provided by a monopoly, like shitty fucking AT&T that provides shitty shitty 1.5 MBPS for 35 fucking dollars a month at my house, because they know they can get away with it.
 
Topspin said:
I think it's more about letting a service provider stop someone from overly clogging up capacity.
Click to expand...
Yup that's true as well, which can be better for others and no different than say the local library that restricts the number of books you can take out.
Though in this case just about anyone can buy a better class of service and not face those restrictions.
The problem is some pimply teenagers like the Waterdork want to torrent as much shit as they can and not pay anything more than what the stardard rate gives them.
 
INFINITETELEMORESE said:
net neutrality is the exact opposite of censorship you unbelievable idiots.

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating on the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic"
Click to expand...

No, that is the CLAIM being made by the FCC. Let US take control of ISPs and dictate what they can and can't provide, and we'll make sure it is fair! I don't trust the government to be the arbiter of what is fair or what I may access. SORRY---NO THANKS---NOT INTERESTED!

I can't believe you liberal lefties are on the side of the FCC here, I know you love government controlling everything in our lives, but really... the Internet? You want to give them the authority to restrict us from certain sites because it's just not "fair?" I think there are far more left-wing blogs and sites online than right-wing, so when they block you from going to MoveOn.org, are you going to be alright with that, in the name of being "fair?" That's exactly what they WANT to do! Of course, they will probably make MoveOn a "credible and balanced news source" and FoxNews.com will be restricted because it is "extreme right wing."

Here is MY position... Leave the Internet and Internet providers the fuck alone! Let them continue to give us 100% of the content and let US make up our own minds on what is "fair!"
 
KingCondanomation said:
Yup that's true as well, which can be better for others and no different than say the local library that restricts the number of books you can take out.
Though in this case just about anyone can buy a better class of service and not face those restrictions.
The problem is some pimply teenagers like the Waterdork want to torrent as much shit as they can and not pay anything more than what the stardard rate gives them.
Click to expand...

I'm glad they ruled in favor of the providers, I don't own a ton but I bought $40,000 of T when I bought apple.
 
Dixie said:
No, that is the CLAIM being made by the FCC. Let US take control of ISPs and dictate what they can and can't provide, and we'll make sure it is fair! I don't trust the government to be the arbiter of what is fair or what I may access. SORRY---NO THANKS---NOT INTERESTED!

I can't believe you liberal lefties are on the side of the FCC here, I know you love government controlling everything in our lives, but really... the Internet? You want to give them the authority to restrict us from certain sites because it's just not "fair?" I think there are far more left-wing blogs and sites online than right-wing, so when they block you from going to MoveOn.org, are you going to be alright with that, in the name of being "fair?" That's exactly what they WANT to do! Of course, they will probably make MoveOn a "credible and balanced news source" and FoxNews.com will be restricted because it is "extreme right wing."

Here is MY position... Leave the Internet and Internet providers the fuck alone! Let them continue to give us 100% of the content and let US make up our own minds on what is "fair!"
Click to expand...


You really don't know what you are talking about. The FCC isn't trying to restrict any user from anything. It is trying to prevent ISPs from restricting user access to content.

You, like Dano, just reflexively hate anything the government does or attempts to do that does not involve blowing shit up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top