CENSORSHIP... AKA: NET NEUTRALITY!

Bittermark said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow did I call it on my last post or what.
Boo fucking hoo, I live in a rural area as well, there are other more expensive choices like satellite that offer faster speed but I don't want to pay for them. And really that's the whole crux of this: neither do you.

That's life junior, you don't get to bitch about your regular car not being as fast as the more expensive ones. You are not stuck, you just need to work more to get more - or in your case you just need to work period.
 
NigelTufnel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Shut up idiot, I made my points and you have no answer to them. You want to try me lawyer boy, go ahead, I've programmed for telcos for the last 9 years.

The restrictions are on the provider, restricting how they do business instead of letting the traditional checks and balances of consumers deciding where they want to go do the job. The real hate reflex is coming from the left on any free market entity that they cannot just stand to let go unfettered.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Shut up idiot, I made my points and you have no answer to them. You want to try me lawyer boy, go ahead, I've programmed for telcos for the last 9 years.

The restrictions are on the provider, restricting how they do business instead of letting the traditional checks and balances of consumers deciding where they want to go do the job. The real hate reflex is coming from the left on any free market entity that they cannot just stand to let go unfettered.
Click to expand...


The Telcos want to set up tiers of access to content. That's the end game here. They want to charge consumers different rates to access different content. The FCC has rightly stepped in to prevent the Telcos from discriminating on the basis of content and, in the end, will prevail at doing so.
 
I just have to ask this of our pinhead friends.... WHAT IF... this were something being advocated by the Bush administration? What if Dick Cheney were telling you we need to let the FCC regulate the Internet for "fairness?" Would you all still be so gung-ho to allow this? Something tells me, if this were something the Bush administration was trying to do, you would all be standing on your ear with bricks shooting out your ass over it!
 
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...

dixie, sorry, you have it ass backwards. Imagine verizon offering you a search engine package, a top 20 news sites package, etc.... net neutrality is a protection of the freedom of the internet, preventing isps from filtering and throttling traffic to various sites.
 
NigelTufnel said:
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.
Click to expand...

THIS.
 
The FCC has rightly stepped in to prevent the Telcos from discriminating on the basis of content and, in the end, will prevail at doing so.
Click to expand...

The case has been decided by the court, nitwit! They FAILED to do this! The court ruled they didn't have the right to do this, and THAT is the end of the story! The SCOTUS is NOT going to overrule it, they won't even hear the case! It's OVER!
 
Dixie said:
I just have to ask this of our pinhead friends.... WHAT IF... this were something being advocated by the Bush administration? What if Dick Cheney were telling you we need to let the FCC regulate the Internet for "fairness?" Would you all still be so gung-ho to allow this? Something tells me, if this were something the Bush administration was trying to do, you would all be standing on your ear with bricks shooting out your ass over it!
Click to expand...


The challenged FCC actions are actions that occurred under Republican leadership at the FCC.

Hypothetical fail.
 
Dixie said:
The case has been decided by the court, nitwit! They FAILED to do this! The court ruled they didn't have the right to do this, and THAT is the end of the story! The SCOTUS is NOT going to overrule it, they won't even hear the case! It's OVER!
Click to expand...


I'll mark this post for future reference.
 
I'm calling this false outrage in the name of net nuetrality. Who's having certain content resticted. Now if you try to download 1,000 encyclopedia's worth sure they should be able to limit your amout of bandwith. It's not an unlimited resource.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The Telcos want to set up tiers of access to content. That's the end game here. They want to charge consumers different rates to access different content. The FCC has rightly stepped in to prevent the Telcos from discriminating on the basis of content and, in the end, will prevail at doing so.
Click to expand...

Correct. dixie is completely confused over what net neutrality is. Like many of his positions, he argues first and (maybe) learns later
 
INFINITETELEMORESE said:
dixie, sorry, you have it ass backwards. Imagine verizon offering you a search engine package, a top 20 news sites package, etc.... net neutrality is a protection of the freedom of the internet, preventing isps from filtering and throttling traffic to various sites.
Click to expand...

Imagine Dixie telling Verizon to kiss his redneck ass, and switching to an ISP that didn't restrict Dixie's choices, as the fucking FREE MARKET allows!

Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine taken to the Internet! It is ceding our freedom of speech to the goddamn government, and trusting they will ensure we have "FAIR" access to what they WANT us to see! DUMBASS!
 
Dixie said:
Imagine Dixie telling Verizon to kiss his redneck ass, and switching to an ISP that didn't restrict Dixie's choices, as the fucking FREE MARKET allows!

Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine taken to the Internet! It is ceding our freedom of speech to the goddamn government, and trusting they will ensure we have "FAIR" access to what they WANT us to see! DUMBASS!
Click to expand...

not really dixie.
 
Topspin said:
I'm calling this false outrage in the name of net nuetrality. Who's having certain content resticted. Now if you try to download 1,000 encyclopedia's worth sure they should be able to limit your amout of bandwith. It's not an unlimited resource.
Click to expand...


I was born at night, not last night. The goal of the Telcos is pretty clear and it has little to do with preventing bandwith-hoggers from clogging the tubes.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The challenged FCC actions are actions that occurred under Republican leadership at the FCC.

Hypothetical fail.
Click to expand...

The case was heard this week! The FCC hasn't taken actions, they can't, they are prohibited from doing so, it is illegal for them to do so. Republican leadership didn't initiate this, no republican politician has even mentioned it, and no Constitutional Conservative ever would mention it or suggest it. This is straight out of Chairman Mao's playbook!
 
Topspin said:
I'm calling this false outrage in the name of net nuetrality. Who's having certain content resticted. Now if you try to download 1,000 encyclopedia's worth sure they should be able to limit your amout of bandwith. It's not an unlimited resource.
Click to expand...

its something the telcos want to do in the future.

"Still, other companies have acted in contrast to these assertions of hands-off behavior and have begun to use Deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of Cellphone overage charges, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[7]"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top