CENSORSHIP... AKA: NET NEUTRALITY!

Dixie said:
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!
Click to expand...


There was this poster named Dixie that posted this link to this article in this thread about net neutrality and the article said:

At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.
Click to expand...

Jackass.
 
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...
I'm sure they would like the CHANCE to do that but realistically they would lose some customers if they ever went ahead with it. The fact that this "problem" doesn't even yet exist when it easily could have since the dawn of the internet is a good sign that it will never come to pass.
This is imposing of regulations based on hypothetical fearmongering.

But let's pretend it did happen.
When you go to the local magazine shop do you object to some magazines (content) being more expensive than others?
Do you object to larger companies having more expensive and faster servers that can serve web pages faster to users than smaller companies?
Are you bothered by those who can afford Weblogic rather than rely on Apache?
We can root out some perceived injustice in the delivery of content in many places.

Enforcing net neutrality is right up there with those morons from New York who passed a law that said that barbers have to charge women and men the same rate for cutting hair (despite the fact that obviously one is going to demand more from the business than the other).
 
KingCondanomation said:
The fact that this "problem" doesn't even yet exist when it easily could have since the dawn of the internet is a good sign that it will never come to pass.).
Click to expand...

WOw. you're moronic right here. Fiat currency seemed like a good idea until it became used to create a upper fascist class incented to run bubble scheme, after bubble scheme against the american people.
 
AssHatZombie said:
WOw. you're moronic right here. Fiat currency seemed like a good idea until it became used to create a upper fascist class incented to run bubble scheme, after bubble scheme against the american people.
Click to expand...

You know the way we are spending, you are starting to make me a disbeliever of fiat currency - but this has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Service providers could have restricted content for the longest time, they never bothered with it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
like i said. you're moronic right there.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh, this coming from the guy who earlier said:
"I really don;t know the truth on this. both government and corporations are dicks.
I need leadership. "


You are frustrated because you cannot understand the issue so you fall back on deciding who is right based on who you feel like being combative with today.
Stick with the usual, you know calling something or someone: fascist, illuminati, neowhatever or whatever else that people can more quickly see the one line rant and not waste their time.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Uh-huh, this coming from the guy who earlier said:
"I really don;t know the truth on this. both government and corporations are dicks.
I need leadership. "


You are frustrated because you cannot understand the issue so you fall back on deciding who is right based on who you feel like being combative with today.
Stick with the usual, you know calling something or someone: fascist, illuminati, neowhatever or whatever else that people can more quickly see the one line rant and not waste their time.
Click to expand...

If it really is just to make sure they give equal bandwith opportunity to all sites and services then it's justifiable and good. If it is to block content, it's bad.

Your rationale of "it hasn't happened yet" is moronic regardless.
 
Service providers could have restricted content for the longest time, they never bothered with it.
Click to expand...

Dano is correct, but it's important to note WHY they haven't restricted content. If Pinhead ISP Service is blocking out certain content in order to present a more 'balanced' Internet experience, and Dixie ISP Service is offering FULL access at the same price... which one are you going with? Consumers ALWAYS want the most for their money, and will ALWAYS buy the product which best provides that. Nothing is being "filtered" by the ISP because they want to provide you with everything the competition can provide! IF you turn this over to the government, THEY will decide what ISPs can provide, and all ISPs will have to comply, regardless of what the consumer wants.
 
Dixie said:
Dano is correct, but it's important to note WHY they haven't restricted content. If Pinhead ISP Service is blocking out certain content in order to present a more 'balanced' Internet experience, and Dixie ISP Service is offering FULL access at the same price... which one are you going with? Consumers ALWAYS want the most for their money, and will ALWAYS buy the product which best provides that. Nothing is being "filtered" by the ISP because they want to provide you with everything the competition can provide! IF you turn this over to the government, THEY will decide what ISPs can provide, and all ISPs will have to comply, regardless of what the consumer wants.
Click to expand...

But maybe the real goal is to reduce internet functionality to corporate approved activities. like buying their products.

consider hulu. Its the big corporate answer to youtube, where individuals are entertaining other individuals and corporations are nowhere in the value chain.
 
AssHatZombie said:
If it really is just to make sure they give equal bandwith opportunity to all sites and services then it's justifiable and good. If it is to block content, it's bad.

Your rationale of "it hasn't happened yet" is moronic regardless.
Click to expand...
Are you fucking serious? What you think government should start regulating every single thing because of what COULD happen? Do you really think through what you write?

And again:
1. Companies have never gone as far as blocking requested content.
2. Companies almost never even restrict content delivery speed.
3. Even if they did do number 2, you have many other choices both in terms of other companies or in class of service.

There are millions of other ways other companies charge differently, why is the left acting like it's the end of the world if telcos decided to do it?
Do we need to beg the FCC to stop cell phone companies for their charging model as compared to landline?

This thing is retarded for so many reasons, you're smart enough to see the difference between censorshop and charging more for content (which we are really only talking about the possibility of them doing anyway).
 
KingCondanomation said:
Are you fucking serious? What you think government should start regulating every single thing because of what COULD happen? Do you really think through what you write?

And again:
1. Companies have never gone as far as blocking requested content.
2. Companies almost never even restrict content delivery speed.
3. Even if they did do number 2, you have many other choices both in terms of other companies or in class of service.

There are millions of other ways other companies charge differently, why is the left acting like it's the end of the world if telcos decided to do it?
Do we need to beg the FCC to stop cell phone companies for their charging model as compared to landline?

This thing is retarded for so many reasons, you're smart enough to see the difference between censorshop and charging more for content (which they we are only talking about the possibility of them doing anyway).
Click to expand...

Listen fucko. I heard some fascist on cnbc talking about how there's no money to be made in user generated content.

So save your desperate overly verbose bullshit.
 
KingCondanomation said:
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.
Click to expand...

My dad pays for the DSL (I will be moving out next semester). But I am pissed off in proxy by how much they rip him off. Standard rate is way lower than 35 dollars a month for a paltry 1.5 MBPS. The only way they can get away with that is monopoly.

Satellite internet sucks assballs, BTW. The DSL AT&T's monopoly provides is better than Satellite. Satellite is only for people who live truly in the absolute middle of nowhere.
 
I just checked out satellite internet. It's more expensive and has a maximum threshold. The only way it could possibly compete would be in the Sahara desert.
 
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...

LOL, Dix, it's going to happen, one way or the other.
 
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...

1000 encyclopedia's isn't that much bandwidth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Listen fucko. I heard some fascist on cnbc talking about how there's no money to be made in user generated content.

So save your desperate overly verbose bullshit.
Click to expand...
You know what we need Assman?
We need a law that says that restaurants need to charge water for free. I mean now sure they do give it out for free and always have, as much as you want, but man they COULD start charging for that water!!! :eek:

Clearly this crisis necessitates involvement by our beloved government to come in and protect us.
:good4u:

Point made I fucking hope.

You know this whole thing makes me wonder who even came up with this kooky idea that exists in just about no other business, I'm gonna look it up.
Ok just as I thought, net neutrality came not from any actual problem but from some Liberal professor, Tim Wu, who conceptualized what could happen and for some reason thought it needed to be stopped. Amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top