Net neutrality

[classicman]

That was his Obama impersonation

[Shawnee123]

Redux uses just as many citations as the merc, he just doesn't cut and paste every sentence.

I have no reason to doubt red's work experience, he seems to be able to carry on as if he isn't lying about it (and frankly, wouldn't you say you were an astronaut or a cowboy or something if'n you were lookin' to impress?)

Of course, we could take it further: Redux? You are nothing but words on this forum. Therefore, I have no reason to believe you are not a robot. In fact, for all I know, most of y'all are robots.

Or merc and redux could just keep debating as if they are both real live boys, instead of pulling shit out of midair in order to create an environment of incredulity, for some kind of points (that fall flat in the minds of thinking individuals.)

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Redux uses just as many citations as the merc, he just doesn't cut and paste every sentence.

I have no reason to doubt red's work experience, he seems to be able to carry on as if he isn't lying about it

Redux is a he???

[TheMercenary]

I am a cowbouy astrosnaut.

[Shawnee123]

No, YOU SIR, is an asstroNOT!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

No, YOU SIR, is an asstroNOT!

Oh yes I am, didn't you just see me type it! It has to be tweu. I posted it on da Interwebz.

[Shawnee123]

It is his anon opinion against nationally known figures, he is right and they are all wrong.

Sigh, Mr Potkettle.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Sigh, Mr Potkettle.

I will debate with anyone purely on opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

[Shawnee123]

I have no idea! I made an assumption.

Nah, we're all robots.

[TheMercenary]

You are a cowgurlz on da interwebz.

[Radar]

Net Neutrality isn't about government control of the internet and anyone who claims this, is a liar and an idiot. They are repeating the lies told to them by the telecommunication companies. Net Neutrality is about freedom and equality for all people.

Net Neutrality means preventing companies from censoring your internet experience, or making the internet traffic of wealthy corporations more important than the internet traffic of regular every day people. It means preventing companies from blocking websites they might not want you to see, like perhaps their competitors, or political sites they happen to disagree with. It means keeping the internet free and equal for everyone. The Republicans always seem to come out against equality for people, and now they are against equality for internet data. What else do you expect from people who came out in support of gang rape?

TRUTH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester


Entertaining Truth:

Jon Stewart does a very good job at explaining net neutrality. The Republicans, like most issues, side with interests of wealthy campaign contributors rather than the American people.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...-to-neutrality

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...neutrality-act

[classicman]

Yeah democrats! Thanks for that one!

Originally Posted by classicman

Yeah democrats! Thanks for that one!

In all fairness, I think it was bi-partisan, although I'm pretty sure Republicans raised the "states rights" issue....that states should ultimately have the right to tax internet services in a manner similar to telephone (state sales/use taxes) and/or cable (local franchise fees and/or taxes).

But net neutrality has nothing to do with taxes....red herring.

While the big telecoms and ISPs might own the cables, servers, routers, ect. they don't own the airwaves and public land where those cables are located, and with the use of the public "right of way" comes the right of the public to stipulate conditions for access to that land and airwaves.

The government would not be mandating what these companies CAN or MUST do (or what type of content or services they can or must host)....another red herring.

They would be telling them what they CANNOT do..and that is restrict or limit access through the pipelines and air waves, built and operating on PUBLIC rights of way, based on (legal) content and/or type of services/applications.

[TheMercenary]

So far it is still to vague to support the FCC.

Looking for Reason in the Net Neutrality Debate

http://www.internetnews.com/governme...ity+Debate.htm

[TheMercenary]

An interesting snip on the issue:

Shoddy reporting aside, the “VoIP News” article does actually highlight an important point: the people who built the Internet are deeply split on the issue of regulating the Internet, with eminent computer scientists including Bob Kahn (co-inventor of the Internet’s TCP/IP protocols with Vint Cerf) and Dave Farber (another networking pioneer) on the anti-regulation side. And based on conversations I’ve had here at Princeton, Kahn and Farber are far from the only computer scientists who are skeptical that the FCC is up to the job of regulating the Internet.

In a vacuous appearance on Rachel Maddow last week, blogger Xeni Jardin cited Vint Cerf’s support of regulation and urged viewers to “side with the geeks who actually built the Internet.” She did not, of course, mention that Kahn and Farber, who fit that description as well as Cerf does, are on the other side. “The geeks” are as split on this issue as everyone else.

Update: Tim Carney has an excellent article making a similar point: Internet companies like Google and Amazon, who have lobbied hard for network neutrality, gave overwhelmingly to Obama over McCain in the 2008 election. This doesn’t prove Obama and Chairman Genachowski are insincere in their support for network neutrality. But it does mean we should take both side’s arguments with a grain of salt.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...rk-neutrality/