Net neutrality
You probably heard the FCC voted thursday to move forward with the open Internet rule-making process. Big win for us internet users... but
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, introduced a bill late Thursday that would short-circuit the FCC's ability to enforce its proposed open Internet rules. In a press release, McCain said the new rules will "stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market." McCain is particularly opposed to extending net neutrality to the wireless space, and his bill, the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, comes as opponents of net neutrality launched a furious attack on the FCC and the Obama administration.
and
Glenn Beck, the popular TV and radio host with 3 million nightly viewers, has blasted net neutrality as a "Marxist" plot by the Obama administration to take over the Internet.
Who loves ya, baby? It sure ain't McCain and Beck. :headshake
linkWe don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!
You don't get it, do you. :headshake
[rant on]This is a clear indication that the GOP has become anti-individual, anti-small business, and most vociferous when working against their stated core values. Stifling innovation to protect corporate interests is the game plan. It makes me wish there were a sensible free market alternative to the Democrat's nonsense, but the Republicans have supported Corporate Capitalism to such an extent that they don't even recognize the power of individual action any more.[/rant]
We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!
No, we don't need big business running the Internet. From Bruce's link:
...net neutrality, the idea that broadband providers should not favor their own content over competing programming.
The examples of big business attempting to subvert the internet are numerous. Included in the previous discuss were Comcast intentionally blocking data packets (ie Bit Torrent), and software designed to identify and subvert Skype packets. How many times must they be caught and exposed subverting the internet before everyone acknowledges who threatens you and your freedom of information?
Numerous examples including the NY Times and IEEE Spectrum posted in
The internet is over!
Yes, after denying they were subverting Skype packets, Comcast later admitted to that and other 'traffic management'. It is this simple. They are only selling a bit transfer service. If they cannot provide sufficient bandwidth, well, most of the fiber optics laid in the ground in the 1990 still is not lit. The hardware to transfer data was laid and unused even 10 years ago.
Their job is to increase bandwidth as necessary to always meet the load. Their job is not 'traffic management'. Internet protocols address that. Protocols that work as long as they don't cut costs - stop increasing their cable bandwidth.
We have already seen how 'traffic management' was manipulated for their own financial advantages. The 'data transfer' companies cannot be trusted to 'manage traffic'. They already have a virtual monopoly (a duopoly) on the last mile. Why do they need power to manipulate which data you should and should not get? Why did Comcast have the right to skew Skype telephone conversations? Because they could. Because nobody told them their only job is a data transport company that must increase bandwidth as required.
tw! where ya been? i thought the cellar-wide daily word count felt like it was dropping. Shoulda known it was cause you weren't around - or have i just been missing you in passing?
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
tw! where ya been? i thought the cellar-wide daily word count felt like it was dropping. Shoulda known it was cause you weren't around - or have i just been missing you in passing?
A couple of our GOP operatives were harassing him every time he posted...
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!
You don't get it, do you. :headshake
I get what neutrality implies and what the word open is given to mean but what else are we missing?
I guess I don't get it either.
...and who is this Signfeld? For a Newb they have a good grasp of cellar society. I'm thinking sock-puppet.
tw! where ya been?
Been here all along. Little worthy of replies was being discussed.
...and who is this Signfeld? For a Newb they have a good grasp of cellar society. I'm thinking sock-puppet.
[COLOR="White"]cock[/COLOR]
You don't get it, do you. :headshake
I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.
I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.
I'm curious what you think net neutrality means and why you think it is a progressive idea?
I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.
Next thing you know they will be after control of radio waves and who gets to say what on a station broadcasting to those who care to listen.:rolleyes:
The initial net neutrality regulatory "principles" were issued by the Bush FCC several years ago:
[INDENT]To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:
* access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
* competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.[/INDENT]
The two new principles being proposed are, to quote FCC chair Genachowski:
[INDENT]“The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management,”
“The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The Chairman also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.”[/INDENT]
None of these principles are about the government "controlling" the internet.
Net Neutrality is about the telecomm companies (ATT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TIme Warner Cable, etc) that control most of the pipelines, and internet service providers that use those pipelines, being agnostic about what's going through their network. They will still have legal obligations to report any fraud, identity theft, kiddie porn, or other illegal activity they notice on their network (to kill THAT strawman).
It is about ensuring that the telecomm companies and ISPs cannot manipulate access, availability, or throughput on their network based on the content or source or type of traffic-video, text, image, audio, etc....for example, that they dont limit or restrict streaming video, VOIP services, legal file sharing or other applications.
Think of the internet pipelines as analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about preventing the telecomm companies that control those pipelines and ISPs that provide services through those pipelines from restricting how consumers can use those roads.
It is about preserving and promoting the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.
added:
So.....spudcon.....what is wrong with that or how is that "the progressives invading your life"?
Thanks red. It's what I wanted to know.
"Reasonable network management?" By whose lights? Terminology like that is a red flag to people who actually take an interest in liberty.
The word "progressive" in a political context should always be used in quotes, in part to indicate that it does not mean what some say it means. "Progressive" in my several decades' experience is chiefly progressive of overweening centralized governmental power, and such a power structure is a dead hand, suppressing the economic power to make prosperity on every hand. It is necessarily less democratic too, as a moment's thought will show.
This is not a thing to be trusted, but only to be repelled. This repelling is really just a less -- reeking -- version of the Jeffersonian struggle that waters the tree of Liberty with you-know-whose blood. As long as you're exsanguinating tyrants, you're doing about as well as exsanguination could.
The Administration as usual is reckoning without free-market mechanisms. A telecomm company that decided to invidiously "manage" content can and could always be replaced by a more freedom-oriented company, which by marketing that point of their service would steal away market share, particularly in the libertarian 'Net culture. This present regrettable Administration does not believe in capitalism, not really, and all their actions may be fruitfully scrutinized in that light. The dopes Obama appoints seem all to believe that capitalism is the problem, and not the salvation.
Free market, my ass. Every one of these telcom giants, that are against it, have mostly exclusive franchises from local governments. There is very little overlap in their monopolies. They have most subscribers by the balls and have been squeezing regularly.
You gonna fight them? Bullshit, even small corporations have enough money and legal firepower to destroy you. If the guy at the local hardware store fucks you over, you bad mouth him around town, get some people on your side, switching to a different store, and hurt his business.
Do you think you can hurt Comcast, or walmart, when is most cases the alternatives are slim to none? How about the banks? Or the insurance companies? No fuckin' way.
The only protection you have is the government's rules, and with these giant corporations, the states aren't even big enough to reign them in.
The olde timey Robber Barons were saints compared to these clowns, although neither gave a shit about you, at least the Barons cared about the country.
So the only chance we got, it holding politicians accountable, if they sell out to big business, vote them out. Just because they're traded their souls for a big campaign chest, doesn't mean you have to sell them your vote.
Free market, my ass. Every one of these telcom giants, that are against it, have mostly exclusive franchises from local governments. There is very little overlap in their monopolies. They have most subscribers by the balls and have been squeezing regularly.
You gonna fight them? Bullshit, even small corporations have enough money and legal firepower to destroy you. If the guy at the local hardware store fucks you over, you bad mouth him around town, get some people on your side, switching to a different store, and hurt his business.
Do you think you can hurt Comcast, or walmart, when is most cases the alternatives are slim to none? How about the banks? Or the insurance companies? No fuckin' way.
The only protection you have is the government's rules, and with these giant corporations, the states aren't even big enough to reign them in.
The olde timey Robber Barons were saints compared to these clowns, although neither gave a shit about you, at least the Barons cared about the country.
:thumb:
So the only chance we got, it holding politicians accountable, if they sell out to big business, vote them out. Just because they're traded their souls for a big campaign chest, doesn't mean you have to sell them your vote.
I agree but the problem is that the general voting public does not know which politicians are in which big businesses back pocket. And the lobbyists are marching around the Capitol buying up votes and making deals on the part of special interests. The American public is generally quite ignorant when it comes to influence and policy making in Washington, D.C.
WHAT BRUCE SAID!!!
And Merc too. Which is why I hold that the right to access and publish information about the government is more important than the right to keep and bear arms, when it comes to preserving liberty.
:thumb:
I agree but the problem is that the general voting public does not know which politicians are in which big businesses back pocket. And the lobbyists are marching around the Capitol buying up votes and making deals on the part of special interests. The American public is generally quite ignorant when it comes to influence and policy making in Washington, D.C.
True, but what we can do is keep track of how our elected reps vote. That's public information, they even put it in the paper, here.
I can only bitch about how your rep votes, but I can sure as hell hold my rep accountable for his/her voting record. Admittedly, not all my neighbors will take the same view of my rep's voting record that I do.
Also,
my actions are of limited consequence to the rep, but if more people would do it, we'd all be better off... and considering the usual voter turn out, especially in off years, it wouldn't take all that many.
It is not always about "which politicians are in which big business back pocket."
IMO, that is a convenient and ignorant generalization. Access does not always buy influence.
It is. or should be, MORE about which candidate or elected official or political party represents YOUR ideological views to the greatest extent.
On the issue of net neutrality, which position best represents your position. Its simple, if you are pro-consumer and pro-open Internet (that the Internet should be a public resource), you should be supporting net neutrality.
....I can sure as hell hold my rep accountable for his/her voting record. Admittedly, not all my neighbors will take the same view of my rep's voting record that I do.
Also, my actions are of limited consequence to the rep, but if more people would do it, we'd all be better off... and considering the usual voter turn out, especially in off years, it wouldn't take all that many.
Absolutely!
But it is easier to blame lobbyists for all the ills of Congress rather than to accept personal responsibility.
You can participate in the process as much as possible or you can treat politics as a spectator sport and simply cheer or boo from the sidelines.
It is not always about "which politicians are in which big business back pocket."
IMO, that is a convenient and ignorant generalization. Access does not always buy influence.
Access is not mentioned. But people like you rely on the ignorance of others to not understand how politicians are influenced in Washington by lobbyists.
On the issue of net neutrality, which position best represents your position. Its simple, if you are pro-consumer and pro-open Internet (that the Internet should be a public resource), you should be supporting net neutrality.
Talk about ignorant generalizations, that is one if I ever read one.
You can participate in the process as much as possible or you can treat politics as a spectator sport and simply cheer or boo from the sidelines.
Or you can examine who they are being influence by and call attention to them. It is important to expose them for the back door deals and let everyone know. There are many ways to "participate in the process".
] But people like you rely on the ignorance of others to not understand how politicians are influenced in Washington by lobbyists.
I scare you, huh? :eek:
But then again, you never let facts get in the way.
I am impressed that you can read the minds of all of our elected officials to know what influences their votes. I guess you do have powers greater than mine to KNOW that they are influenced by money rather or more than ideology.
I scare you, huh?
:lol2: hardly...
I am impressed that you can read the minds of all of our elected officials to know what influences their votes. I guess you do have powers greater than mine to KNOW that they are influenced by money rather or more than ideology.
Actions speak louder than words.
Even the most politically naive should recognize that politicians (and political parties) are guided by ideology.
I dont dispute that money keeps politicians in power and power enables them to pursue their respective ideologies.
On this issue, there are simple ideological differences.
One party believes the government should regulate the Internet to the point that it secures an open, unbiased, accessible "public" system.....and the other party believes that it should be left to the big telcomms to provide those assurances.
Even the most politically naive and should recognize that politicians (and political parties) are guided by ideology.
I dont dispute that money keeps politicians in power and power enables them to pursue their respective ideologies.
Really? wow. how enlightening. not.
Now just replace ideology with power and you might be on to something.
Really? wow. how enlightening. not.
Now just replace ideology with power and you might be on to something.
People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.
Money (and power) is an enabler.
Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.
One party's ideology is to support a government regulatory role as being in the best public interest...the other's is to support a reliance on voluntary industry action as being in the best public interest. The McCain bill makes that pretty clear.
People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.
Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. It is false.
Money (and power) is an enabler.
Yea, all the more reason for me to contribute to the defeat of Harry Reid.
Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.
Pick up any HS history book. Don't let the facts get in the way of your excuses.
One party's ideology is to support a government regulatory role in the best public interest...the other's is to support a reliance on voluntary industry action in the best public interest.
Voluntary! What are you kidding me.
Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.
Prove to me their ideology was not changed.
Here are a few short lists:
http://politicalgraveyard.com/trouble/kickbacks.html
more recent:
Recent cases that have been investigated and politicians charged include:
Thomas Dale DeLay, Republican Representative from Texas 22nd District was indicted on criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
William Jennings Jefferson, Democratic Representative from Louisiana 2nd District, named as an unindicted co-conspirator by prosecutors in connection with the Brent Pfeffer’s guilty plea to bribery charges.
Randall Cunningham, Republican U.S. Representatives from California 50th District, pleaded guilty on Federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges.
Read more:
http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/abuse_of_political_power_in_america#ixzz0VBQMHXQg
Let's Go International!
http://ty.rannosaur.us/10-plundering-politicians/
How about that Larry Summers! What a piece of work:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090530_is_larry_summers_taking_kickbacks_from_the_banks_hes_bailing_out/
http://www.sextonreunion.com/profiles/blogs/the-top-25-most-financiallyProve to me their ideology was not changed.
I agree completely that money can (and does) corrupt.
But where did it change DeLay's ideology or Jefferson's....or any sitting elected official? Where/when did they vote against their ideology?
When did DeLay take money to vote FOR a strong government regulatory program as opposed to supporting the position of the business community? When did Jefferson vote against the Democratic position on a bill?
I agree completely that money can (and does) corrupt.
But where did it change DeLay's ideology or Jefferson's....or any sitting elected official? Where/when did they vote against their ideology?
Well if you believe that, "People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.", then you must believe that all those who have been convicted of the crimes of taking money actually went into politics specifically with an ideology to take money from the outset. So guys like Randall “Duke” Cunningham never really wanted to do anything but get money, right?
So who is the mind reader now?
Redux:
I am impressed that you can read the minds of all of our elected officials to know what influences their votes. I guess you do have powers greater than mine to KNOW that they are influenced by money rather or more than ideology.
But yet you can't really prove you know what their ideology is or is not. Like I said, I believe their actions speak louder than their words. The majority may have started out with "ideology" as a motivator but most are in it for power. And for a few who have been caught it is more obvious.
How about ole Mr Jefferson and his cash in the freezer? Damm you would have thought he could have come up with a better hiding place.
Okay, I'm back, and here's my answer. I don't trust ANY regulatory control over any private business by the government we've had in the last twenty years. They have proven themselves incompetant again and again. Say what you will about big business, but it's the small businesses that get bullied out by government fascism, while the big businesses that are in bed with politicians are rewarded for corruption. Remember the banks that were too big to let go under? Funny how government regulators bailed out the bank that handled their pensions, while small town banks and businesses were thrown to the wolves. If I start a small internet company, I don't want Big Brother regulating me out of business.
And just because the FCC under Bush started this idea, it is still a commission, and who are they accountable to? Not me and not you.
Keep the government out of the internet, or we'll be in the same boat as the Chinese.
I agree completely that money can (and does) corrupt.
But where did it change DeLay's ideology or Jefferson's....or any sitting elected official? Where/when did they vote against their ideology?
When did DeLay take money to vote FOR a strong government regulatory program as opposed to supporting the position of the business community? When did Jefferson vote against the Democratic position on a bill?
How do you know what their ideology is and was from the beginning? Can you tell me that you are reading their minds? It is not about voting for or against Demoncrats, it is about voting for and inserting favorable legislation which supports lobbyists and big business interests. You act like you don't know any of this.
Okay, I'm back, and here's my answer. I don't trust ANY regulatory control over any private business by the government we've had in the last twenty years. They have proven themselves incompetant again and again. Say what you will about big business, but it's the small businesses that get bullied out by government fascism, while the big businesses that are in bed with politicians are rewarded for corruption. Remember the banks that were too big to let go under? Funny how government regulators bailed out the bank that handled their pensions, while small town banks and businesses were thrown to the wolves. If I start a small internet company, I don't want Big Brother regulating me out of business.
And just because the FCC under Bush started this idea, it is still a commission, and who are they accountable to? Not me and not you.
Keep the government out of the internet, or we'll be in the same boat as the Chinese.
Yea, read my link about Larry Summers above, it will make you want to puke on his desk.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090530_is_larry_summers_taking_kickbacks_from_the_banks_hes_bailing_out/How do you know what their ideology is and was from the beginning? Can you tell me that you are reading their minds?
If you are not willing to accept that there are significant ideology differences between the two major parties (and individual officials) on most (not all) policy issues based on platforms, campaigns, voting records, etc....there is little to discuss.
Carry on.
If you are not willing to accept that there are significant ideology differences between the two major parties (and individual officials) on most (not all) policy issues based on platforms, campaigns, voting records, etc....there is little to discuss.
I never said anything about "differences between the two major parties", that has nothing to do with this discusssion. You are the one who brought up the esoteric idea that a politicians "ideology" in someway had an effect on their basic and inherent coruptness. Don't let the facts get in the way of your defense of the Demoncrats or any politician in power for that matter. You asked me to provide you with examples and I did so, numerous.
Reading about scumbag Summers just validates what I said. And some want the internet to be influenced by these types of bureaucrats. Blech!
How do you know what their ideology is and was from the beginning? Can you tell me that you are reading their minds?.
Nope..no mind reading.
I can only say that I interacted with members of Congress for more than 10 years, both from within (Senate staff) and from the other side (public interest lobbyist).. and those interactions were with both those with whom I agreed and those with whom I didnt. And, I think it gives me more insight into what motivates them than many, including you.
For the last 10 years, my interactions have been more with state and local elected officials (governors and mayors), some of whom have gone on to higher office and others with those aspirations...not for the money, but to pursue an ideology.
How many elected officials have you actually spoken with in your lifetime to know what motivates them?
Or you can find a handful of examples of those who were corrupted and make sweeping generalizations without providing any evidence of how positions or ideology where changed by money.
Nope..no mind reading.
Or you can find a handful of examples of those who were corrupted and make sweeping generalizations without providing any evidence of how positions or ideology where changed by money.
But yet you admit you have no idea what their ideology really is, only what you believe them to believe. Not by their actions. I take it the other way. And if the behavior of the Current Congress is any measure it further validates that they are in it for power and not for some esoteric "ideology" you care care to hang your hat on. Their actions speak their ideology for them.
But then again you are a nameless faceless internet poster just like me and you expect me to trust you?
make sweeping generalizations without providing any evidence of how positions or ideology where changed by money.
If you believe that ideology drives them then what is the ideology of these, much more than a few, examples of corrupt politicians. If their ideology did not change due to money then they must have been corrupt from the very beginning of their entry into politics, right?
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=603803&postcount=33There are currently two bills related to the pending FCC regs and net neutrality.
The Markey (D) bill in the House, "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009":
....to set the policy of the United States regarding various aspects of the Internet, including access, consumer choice, competition, ability to use or offer content, applications, and services, discriminatory favoritism, and capacity.
Makes it the duty of each Internet access service provider to: [INDENT][(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service;
(2) not impose certain charges on any Internet content, service, or application provider;
(3) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any lawful device in conjunction with such service, provided the device does not harm the provider's network;
(4) offer Internet access service to any requesting person;
(5) not provide or sell to any content, application, or service provider any offering that prioritizes traffic over that of other such providers; and
(6) not install or use network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with these duties.[/INDENT]
Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate related rules.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3458&tab=summary
And the McCain (R) bill in the Senate, "‘Internet Freedom Act of 2009’":
The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services....
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1836
IMO, both are ideologically driven.
One recognizes a government regulatory role to ensure openness and one doesnt.
Ideology makes wonderful campaign promises, and might even be their guideline, although it's usually clear as mud... but it covers the ground.
That said, they don't vote ideologies, they vote bills (laws), which are complicated, long(thousands of pages), and usually have far reaching unintended consequences nobody thought of. No Congressman could possibly have time to Google all the subjects covered, no less know them.
The purpose of lobbyists was to point out all the ramifications and nuances of the legislation, so the Congressman could understand exactly what he was applying his ideology to. When a bill would help the Railroads at the expense of the coal mines, they would both send lobbyists to plead their case.
Then they decided lobbyists who were wining and dining Congressmen, and their staffers, in order to get their attention would up the ante with campaign contributions and perks like corporate jet transportation.
So when a Congressman has to vote on something that doesn't directly affect his constituents in a noticeable way, how does he balance huge campaign contributions against ideology? By trading his vote to someone that is affected by the bill, in trade for their vote on something that affects him?
Or, whoever paid best.;)
Markey's top contributor in the current campaign cylce is Time Warner...opposed to net neutrality.
Among his top industry contributors are the telephone utilities....also generally opposed to net neutrality, at least the big guys - ATT, Verizon, Bell South.... (and a little farther down on the list, music tv/movie/music industry that are generally more supportive of limiting legal fire sharing than they are net neutrality.)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000270&cycle=2010
Sorry guys, I understand your cynicism, but based on personal experience, I just dont agree with it.
Oh..and I thought we de-bunked the myth of "thousand page" bills.
In this case, the McCain bill is less than one page and the Markey bill is maybe 5 pages.
That's because in this case, McCain's and Markey's are simple statements rather than major legislation.
That's because in this case, McCain's and Markey's are simple statements rather than major legislation.
Simple statements with significant potential impact on the future of the Internet.
And they are representative, in terms of "pages" of most bills in Congress.
Like the defense appropriation bill?
I knew a guy that wrote bills for the PA legislature. Not an elected official or staff, just an electrical engineer/ lawyer they hired to write what they wanted to accomplish, in legalese. They were fucking books.
I suspect most congressmen never see more than a synopsis.
Like the defense appropriation bill?
I knew a guy that wrote bills for the PA legislature. Not an elected official or staff, just an electrical engineer/ lawyer they hired to write what they wanted to accomplish, in legalese. They were fucking books.
I suspect most congressmen never see more than a synopsis.
Granted, the 12 appropriation bills are longer than most.
The Defense Approp. bill is
400+ page ...that could be printed in 200 pages if they printed on more than half the page across.
Members of Congress are provided with a reasonable (IMO) comprehensive summary (w/o the legalese) on every piece of legislation.
In any case, Undertoad would have accused me of diverting the discussion (again!) as he often does :) .. if I drifted off from the main topic of discussion.
How about sticking to net neutrality.
How about sticking to net neutrality.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your inability to defend yourself. :rolleyes:
Don't let the facts get in the way of your inability to defend yourself. :rolleyes:
The description I posted on the
net neutrality principles is factual.
As are the
descriptions of the two pending bills and the source of
Markey's campaign contributions.
If you want to take the discussion off point with generalizations about the influence of money, so be it....even though you evidently have no direct experience in the political process or little, if any interaction, with elected officials.
But you are the best cut and paster around!
Pussy. :lol2:
We can be whatever we want to be...thats what makes this country great. :)
And who gives a fuck what strangers think.
As for me, I knew at a young age. ;)
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Now I am just a "former"...
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
... and a "fat cat" east coast liberal elitist Democrat passing the time here til I retire!
:lol2:
Anyway, preserving Net Neutrality is important, to keep a few mega-telcoms from strangling thousands of other businesses, and poking you in the pooper.
:lol2:
Anyway, preserving Net Neutrality is important, to keep a few mega-telcoms from strangling thousands of other businesses, and poking you in the pooper.
Be careful now, some people seem to want that.
anyone in particular there MTP?
anyone in particular there MTP?
I'm assuming you would know better than I do.
Does that mean someone would have to pay for a service that someone else provides? How long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?
Does that mean someone would have to pay for a service that someone else provides? How long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?
Don't worry. It's coming.
If you want to take the discussion off point with generalizations about the influence of money, so be it....even though you evidently have no direct experience in the political process or little, if any interaction, with elected officials.
I am sorry but a nameless faceless person like you has no credibility.
But you are the best cut and paster around!
And the majority are from subject matter experts who have credibility.
I am sorry but a nameless faceless person like you has no credibility.
~snip~
OK, I'll say it: HUH? :headshake
You! You! show your face, you 1's and 0's you...
Does that mean someone would have to pay for a service that someone else provides? How long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?
No...it means that companies that were given the right to build their telephone and cable networks (Internet pipelines) on PUBLIC lands, through PUBLIC rights of way (or the PUBLIC spectrum with regard to wireless) should be regulated in the PUBLIC interest.
Sooo... that really means yes.
That was his Obama impersonation :3eye:
OK, I'll say it: HUH? :headshake
I think he's saying that if someone wants to use their identity and work history as their argument and proof of their credibility, they kinda need to post their resume or something... because anyone can say anything if they're anon.
Sooo... that really means yes.
Hardly.
It means that the major telecomms that control the Internet pipelines, and to a lesser extenst, ISPs, should be subject to some form of telecommunications "common carrier" regulations with a goal of assuring that the Internet will be "open and public" rather than a private domain controlled by the whims of the major telecomms.
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.)
I think he's saying that if someone wants to use their identity and work history as their argument and proof of their credibility, they kinda need to post their resume or something... because anyone can say anything if they're anon.
Right!
Merc is credible to speak with certainty about what motivates elected offcials--- money rather than ideology -- cuz Merc is the "man of the people"
He told us so!
I am a cowbouy astrosnaut.
:lol:
No, YOU SIR, is an asstroNOT!
Right!
Merc is credible to speak with certainty about what motivates elected offcials--- money rather than ideology -- cuz Merc is the "man of the people"
He told us so!
:notworthy
Merc knowz him some motivationz.
I think he's saying that if someone wants to use their identity and work history as their argument and proof of their credibility, they kinda need to post their resume or something... because anyone can say anything if they're anon.
Basically if you are going to state that you know better than everyone else and evidence posted by nationally known, non-anon, subject matter experts you ought to put your credentials on the table so we can compare and contrast where you state your expertise is coming from as compared to some public figure. Redux is more like the guy who said he use to work for a guy who made bagles so he knows all about how the business industry of making bagles works. It is his anon opinion against nationally known figures, he is right and they are all wrong. I don't buy it.
It is his anon opinion against nationally known figures, he is right and they are all wrong.
Sigh, Mr Potkettle.
:lol:
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.
Sigh, Mr Potkettle.
I will debate with anyone purely on opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
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???
I have no idea! I made an assumption.
Nah, we're all robots.
You are a cowgurlz on da interwebz.
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/mon-october-26-2009/from-here-to-neutrality
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-19-2006/net-neutrality-actHow long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?
Another one of those baseless arguments from opponents.
In fact, it was the Democrat-led Congress that extended a moratorium on taxing Internet services/connections through at least 2014.
Yeah democrats! Thanks for that one!
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.
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/2009/10/29/siding-with-the-geeks-on-network-neutrality/CATO....now that's a "neutral" unbiased source. :eek:
So far it is still to vague to support the FCC.
It is not too early to oppose the McCain bill:
The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1836
Eh, may not be unbiased as a souce but the article was pretty fair. Esp since it pointed out that the players who support it most gave overwhelmingly to Obama and the Demoncrats. So I guess anyone who didn't want the people to know who is pouring money into the pockets of the party in charge wouldn't like that to be known.
Even the experts cannot agree on the issue.
McCain's bill would never be passed in this Demoncratically controlled Congress.
From the CATO article:
But it does mean we should take both side’s arguments with a grain of salt.
So what is the argument for not beginning a regulatory process.
Or perhaps, that is more of a question for spudcon....and please not the "government control" and "taxes" red herrings.
Well for one thing much of what I have read to date state the problems seem to be more about the vagueness of the FFC oversight, which opens them up to greater control of the internet content, including wireless, which feeds back into the telecoms. And as telecoms and big internet corps become more intertwined through mergers it could create real problems if we don't have something to ensure that comercial business does not control the potential monopolies. The easier thing to do would be for the feds to not allow the mergers which they can already do. Either way the process could be a double edge sword. I still don't trust the Feds to do the right thing if they get all the power.
Another great reason to support Net Neutrality...
Sadly, I don't qualify but spudcon, UG, and Merc might.
http://dontstayvirgin.movielol.org/main3.php
Maybe if they can change their tiny minds, they can have sex....with a partner this time.
Another great reason to support Net Neutrality...
Sadly, I don't qualify but spudcon, UG, and Merc might.
http://dontstayvirgin.movielol.org/main3.php
Maybe if they can change their tiny minds, they can have sex....with a partner this time.
:lol2: typical of your narcissistic personality disorder.
A lot of dishonest people are claiming this is about government control of the internet, and they are trying to cloud the issue with discussions of taxes, and other things. It's simple and doesn't have to be vague at all.
As an ISP, all internet traffic on your equipment must be treated equally regardless of the types of packets, services, customer, etc.
Google and others have already been working on creating applications that can detect whether someone is violating this directive.
If Virgin, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, AOL, etc. get caught blocking any type of legal internet traffic or purposely slowing it down, they get slapped down with fines.
End of story. Email traffic, VOIP, Streaming Audio or Video, websites, or anything else should be nothing more than bits and no ISP should prioritize or provision that traffic other than to make sure their own equipment doesn't shut down.
People are paying for a direct pipe to the internet at the speed they paid for. They aren't paying for whatever the ISP thinks they should have or to have big companies bribe ISPs to keep them from visiting their competitors.
ISPs are making plenty of money. The bogus claim that they can't increase their infrastructure without doing this are ridiculous.
In addition to having this kind of network neutrality protected by government, I'd also like to see all anti-competitive arrangements between ISPs in municipalities be voided by the Federal Government. This would mean we could choose our cable, DSL, or other broadband provider like we choose our long distance company. It would increase competition, lower prices, and improve service for consumers.
:lol2: typical of your narcissistic personality disorder.
Typical pathological lying disorder. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it won't become true and you're the only one who buys it sparky.
Typical pathological lying disorder. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it won't become true and you're the only one who buys it sparky.
:lol2:
With companies such as Comcast vying to control the interent (ie control information providers) and limit customer bandwidth - a threat to net nuetrality; Google is (and probably must) get into the data transport business. From ABC News of 10 Feb 2010,
Google to Build Ultra-Fast Broadband Networks
Google's announcement Wednesday also came as welcome news to public interest groups that have warned that broadband connections in the U.S. are far slower and more expensive than those available in many countries in Europe and Asia. Ultra-fast networks now available in the U.S., such as the university-backed Internet2 project, aren't available to consumers, as Google's systems would be.
Top management is to blame.
Oye. And Bush.
I almost forgot.
wait - you have to add Reagan to that (as per PierceHawkeye)
Top management is to blame.
Oye. And Bush.
I almost forgot.
Why do the wacko extremist take cheap shots in every thread? Is the reality that George Jr even subverted every effort to get bin Laden so painful? Apparently.
Bottom line, the extremists are now posting their wacko extremist hate in every discussion - on every board. Posting hate is what Rush Limbaugh tells wackos neocons to do. Apparently even in The Cellar.
![What happens without Net Neutrality.]("http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png"){kind=link}