Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers

[Azalin]

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

Yes, because regulating the Internet like a 1930 telecom monopoly makes a lot of sense to an administration that made fun of people who apparently didn't believe in science and progress.

 

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

Nope, this was not a new law.  The only way that Obama/Wheeler could get away with their gambit was to use the exact terms of the 1930's regulations.

 

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

 

Thank you. Well stated, and absolutely correct.

 

You have no idea how refreshing it is for me to see/hear/read anyone saying any of that.

 

Cheers!

 

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Our upcoming civil war is going to be one of massive ignorance.

 

 

ANY upcoming civil war will be one of massive ignorance. I'm a bit surprised we aren't already in the middle of one already.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

ANY upcoming civil war will be one of massive ignorance. I'm a bit surprised we aren't already in the middle of one already.

 

I've been arguing that we are in one already - it's just being done behind the scenes and largely without going "hot" - and that's one of the primary causes of the uptick of chaos we've seen. We're definitely in an information war, and one of the fronts of that information war is being waged internally between the NSA/Pentagon and CIA. The recent NYT piece (linked below) makes that quite clear. As do the recent leaks/"revelations"/scandals/utter detonation of certain establishments and establishment figures. This civil war is being waged simultaneously to the information war between the US and its traditional geopolitical foes. 

 

I know you don't subscribe to that, nor do most, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything... other than to keep an open mind. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html

*Mind you, some key facts in this article are demonstrably false (the leak in question did NOT come from NSA, it came about because the CIA put their cybertool kit on unclassified servers so private intelligence contractors could use them. The evidence for this claim is abundant and came out largely over the summer through the WikiLeak Vault 7 and 8 drops). The way this is spun in the article, and whom the target is painted upon, is significant.  

 

  

[DC Tom]

10 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

ANY upcoming civil war will be one of massive ignorance. I'm a bit surprised we aren't already in the middle of one already.

 

We are.

[row_33]

Kent State ended the last attempt at provoking a civil war. 

 

You think SJW's are going to continue if another unfortunate eruption results in them being shot down in the street?

 

 

[/dev/null]

44 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Kent State ended the last attempt at provoking a civil war. 

 

You think SJW's are going to continue if another unfortunate eruption results in them being shot down in the street?

 

 

Any traditional Civil War would be short lived.  Snowflakes have spent their lives in fear of guns.  Antifa would just scurry home to Mom's basement to tweet about their ordeal.  BLM could mobilize an armed force but they get confused as to which end of the gun is up

[row_33]

If someone I cared about was shot dead on the ground in front of me, I'd certainly recalculate the cause and the cost obviously coming.

 

I'm not sure what these people are angry over, getting drafted and forced to fight in Nam is a cause I fully could understand.

 

 

[/dev/null]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast

[row_33]

yes, it will be done and heaven will come down from the skies and everyone's wishes will be fulfilled immediately and beyond your best wishes..

 

[Azalin]

On 11/23/2017 at 11:04 AM, DC Tom said:

 

We are.

 

That must be why they want to maintain federal control of the web.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

That must be why they want to maintain federal control of the web.

 

Now you're getting it.

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now you're getting it.

 

I say that tongue-in-cheek, but oversight does lead to taxation, which leads to regulation of both availability and content, which opens the door to censorship, so it's not as radical a notion as some might believe.

[OCinBuffalo]

On 11/22/2017 at 7:57 PM, DC Tom said:

Our upcoming civil war is going to be one of massive ignorance.

Yeah, when one orders a charge, 1/3 of the "soldiers" will go, 1/3 won't understand, and just sit there dumbfounded, and the final 1/3 will pull out a credit card. With the same thing happening on the other side, unfortunately, only the smart people will actually fight and kill each other, leaving us even dumber than we were. 

 

Unless....the left side of the civil war keeps its current leaders in charge. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Howard Dean, and the rest of the clown school...would lose the war so quickly and so decisively, that we couldn't even call it a war. More like an "emergency". In fact, that would be part of their surrender terms: that we not call it a war.

 

Think about it: what if I organized about 100 semi truck drivers, and about 1000 infantry types, to cut off the highways/trains to NYC, Boston, Philly and DC? What would/could the leftists do? Pretty sure this siege/war would last about 24 hours before the surrender...conditional on not calling it a war. 

 

EDIT: as far as the thread, this has been beaten to death here, and GG has already stated what needs to stated. Next topic.

Edited November 27, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[row_33]

war is a little more than than mouthing off on the internet.

 

 

[B-Man]

To summarize Net Neutrality:

 

A bunch of people invented a fake problem to justify greater gov’t regulation of the Internet in 2015.

 

Now the same people are throwing an insane tantrum because those regulations are being reversed in the same exact way they were imposed.

 

And the demands that everyone prove the benefits of removing the regulations are ridiculous.

 

The default should be less regulation.

 

It’s up to proponents to prove regulations are necessary. Clearly hasn’t happened with NN.

 

.

Edited November 27, 2017 by B-Man

[row_33]

It’s up to proponents to prove regulations are necessary. Clearly hasn’t happened with NN. .

 

 

I agree but you are writing a letter to Santa Claus with that sentence....

 

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

And the demands that everyone prove the benefits of removing the regulations are ridiculous.

 

 

Not only ridiculous, but obvious. All anyone needs to do is look at the relative lack of progress in telecom up to January 8th, 1982 compared with the explosion of innovation between then and 2015 to see exactly what government regulation of the telecom industry did versus what deregulation did.

 

People need to stop making this a political issue, and should always support keeping federal regulators out of it.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

It’s up to proponents to prove regulations are necessary. Clearly hasn’t happened with NN. .

 

 

I agree but you are writing a letter to Santa Claus with that sentence....

 

 

 

And since when has government ever needed to prove anything before seizing regulatory power over something?

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

To summarize Net Neutrality:

 

A bunch of people invented a fake problem to justify greater gov’t regulation of the Internet in 2015.

 

Now the same people are throwing an insane tantrum because those regulations are being reversed in the same exact way they were imposed.

 

And the demands that everyone prove the benefits of removing the regulations are ridiculous.

 

The default should be less regulation.

 

It’s up to proponents to prove regulations are necessary. Clearly hasn’t happened with NN.

 

.

 

Oh, but they have proven it, by screaming "Internet access is a civil right!"

 

That's proof in their minds...

[GG]

Stay classy snowflakes.

Quote

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said his family has been harassed at his home following his proposal to repeal many of the agency’s net neutrality rules.

“Internet regulation activists have crossed the line by threatening and harassing my family. They should leave my family out of this and focus on debating the merits of the issue,” Pai said in a statement.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GG said:

Stay classy snowflakes.

 

 

"snowflakes"

[DC Tom]

45 minutes ago, GG said:

Stay classy snowflakes.

 

 

There is no line when combatting Nazis.  [/resistance]

[B-Man]

Man accused of threatening to kill congressman over net neutrality

 

A Syracuse man is accused of threatening to kill a congressman and his family if he didn't support net neutrality, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced Wednesday.

 

Patrick D. Angelo, 28, of Syracuse was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with interstate communication of a threat and threatening a federal official, authorities announced.

[westerndecline]

This is like letting corporations owning and buying freeways and putting ridiculous toll booth fees in heavy traffic areas, then claiming but " we built the original roads" ( even though tax payers played a major role in its development) and " this is a lost opportunity to make money".

 

 

I'm sorry but corporate power and influence needs to stay the hell away from the internet. The government isn't perfect but we have voting power. 

 

The internet is a public community /space

 

 

Leave it alone

Edited December 1, 2017 by westerndecline

[TakeYouToTasker]

...

[westerndecline]

If you want to go back to CNN nbc, and the new York times controlling all comms, just admit it

[TakeYouToTasker]

...

[GG]

An idiot masquerading as a libertarian?

 

That's never happened on this site before.  

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, westerndecline said:

This is like letting corporations owning and buying freeways and putting ridiculous toll booth fees in heavy traffic areas, then claiming but " we built the original roads" ( even though tax payers played a major role in its development) and " this is a lost opportunity to make money".

 

 

I'm sorry but corporate power and influence needs to stay the hell away from the internet. The government isn't perfect but we have voting power. 

 

The internet is a public community /space

 

 

Leave it alone

 

Newsflash - corporations BUILT the internet, and they did it WITHOUT the government and DESPITE their regulatory power.

 

Without the telecoms, the internet is nothing.

 

Read a damned book.

 

 

 

 

[westerndecline]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

Newsflash - corporations BUILT the internet, and they did it WITHOUT the government and DESPITE their regulatory power.

 

Without the telecoms, the internet is nothing.

 

Read a damned book.

 

Quote

 

This is like me as a sk in the navy giving a solar company a electricity contract for a year to provide research in cheaper energy.  Fast forward 30 years and solar panels are all over every single house. Free energy basically

 

 

Now x green corporation jerks want the government to let eminent domain take place and let these green corporations regulate how many solar panels u can have, when you can use it, adding fees and regulations to register each panel as in proper safety regs, that u can only use a certain amount of solar energy and the electric utility corporate jerks must supply a certain % of your energy.

 

 

All the while it was taxpayers who funded the damn research lol.

 

 

It's a red herring anyway, many private corporations build roads, BUT THEY DONT OWN IT...it was funded PUBLICLY. U know why, because traveling on a road is not feasible in private hands.... For a million different reasons. U REALLY want class determining, politics determining who drives on roads lol

 

 

The internet was funded by taxpayers through dod contracts to various corporations ( so many that a few corporations claiming ownership is psychotic)...

 

 

Yes, u need to read a book

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

U can't claim to be a libertarian and ignore monopolies, or how government can protect corporations or claim libertarian means all space is private.

 

There are reasons why we have private and public space

 

 

Don't get me started on health care

 

We don't write checks to the cops before we are getting robbed genius

 

 

Christ I can't stand RAND Paul/ ayn rand DELUSIONAL thinking

 

 

 

 

 

and I will guarantee you this they get rid of net neutrality in a couple weeks you're going to see massive riots and possible Revolution that day ....

 

Go ahead and try it. U want one thing to unite the impoverished on the left and right, and create a civil war. 

 

U have no idea.

 

 

Hackers in the deep net would cause a cluster !@#$ just to start with....revolution will start in the streets

Edited December 1, 2017 by westerndecline

[Ol Dirty B]

On 11/26/2017 at 11:44 PM, OCinBuffalo said:

Yeah, when one orders a charge, 1/3 of the "soldiers" will go, 1/3 won't understand, and just sit there dumbfounded, and the final 1/3 will pull out a credit card. With the same thing happening on the other side, unfortunately, only the smart people will actually fight and kill each other, leaving us even dumber than we were. 

 

Unless....the left side of the civil war keeps its current leaders in charge. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Howard Dean, and the rest of the clown school...would lose the war so quickly and so decisively, that we couldn't even call it a war. More like an "emergency". In fact, that would be part of their surrender terms: that we not call it a war.

 

Think about it: what if I organized about 100 semi truck drivers, and about 1000 infantry types, to cut off the highways/trains to NYC, Boston, Philly and DC? What would/could the leftists do? Pretty sure this siege/war would last about 24 hours before the surrender...conditional on not calling it a war. 

 

EDIT: as far as the thread, this has been beaten to death here, and GG has already stated what needs to stated. Next topic.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Ol Dirty B
Just not worth it

[westerndecline]

https://youtu.be/_e168pJVkYo

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 hours ago, westerndecline said:

 

This is like me as a sk in the navy giving a solar company a electricity contract for a year to provide research in cheaper energy.  Fast forward 30 years and solar panels are all over every single house. Free energy basically

 

 

Now x green corporation jerks want the government to let eminent domain take place and let these green corporations regulate how many solar panels u can have, when you can use it, adding fees and regulations to register each panel as in proper safety regs, that u can only use a certain amount of solar energy and the electric utility corporate jerks must supply a certain % of your energy.

 

 

All the while it was taxpayers who funded the damn research lol.

 

 

It's a red herring anyway, many private corporations build roads, BUT THEY DONT OWN IT...it was funded PUBLICLY. U know why, because traveling on a road is not feasible in private hands.... For a million different reasons. U REALLY want class determining, politics determining who drives on roads lol

 

 

The internet was funded by taxpayers through dod contracts to various corporations ( so many that a few corporations claiming ownership is psychotic)...

 

 

Yes, u need to read a book

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

 

 

 

 

U can't claim to be a libertarian and ignore monopolies, or how government can protect corporations or claim libertarian means all space is private.

 

There are reasons why we have private and public space

 

 

Don't get me started on health care

 

We don't write checks to the cops before we are getting robbed genius

 

 

Christ I can't stand RAND Paul/ ayn rand DELUSIONAL thinking

 

 

 

 

 

and I will guarantee you this they get rid of net neutrality in a couple weeks you're going to see massive riots and possible Revolution that day ....

 

Go ahead and try it. U want one thing to unite the impoverished on the left and right, and create a civil war. 

 

U have no idea.

 

 

Hackers in the deep net would cause a cluster !@#$ just to start with....revolution will start in the streets

Is there anything that you actually understand?

 

I'm starting to think that there isn't.

[westerndecline]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Is there anything that you actually understand?

 

I'm starting to think that there isn't.

Ad hominem...

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Ad hominem...

That's not an attack on your person, it's an observation based on your posting history.

 

Being new here, your first move was to post a series of drunken youtube hot take rants which are light on actual information, but highly charged with emotion; and to post a list of misinformed fiat declarations.

 

You haven't done well so far, and are beginning to look like an idiot.

 

I've got a hot take for you:  no one whose opinion is worth considering is at all interested in the drunken youtube rants of someone who comes across as somewhat less than reasonable or intelligent.

 

You might wish to try a different tack.

[westerndecline]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That's not an attack on your person, it's an observation based on your posting history.

 

Being new here, your first move was to post a series of drunken youtube hot take rants which are light on actual information, but highly charged with emotion; and to post a list of misinformed fiat declarations.

 

You haven't done well so far, and are beginning to look like an idiot.

 

I've got a hot take for you:  no one whose opinion is worth considering is at all interested in the drunken youtube rants of someone who comes across as somewhat less than reasonable or intelligent.

 

You might wish to try a different tack.

But I don't care about your opinion....

 

 

If u think I'm an idiot, ok..... 

 

Bye?

And yes, you just did a longer drawn out ad hominem

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

But I don't care about your opinion....

 

 

If u think I'm an idiot, ok..... 

 

Bye?

And yes, you just did a longer drawn out ad hominem

 

You're a ****ty poster.  Not in the shitposting sense, but just a bad effort overall.  I get away with shitposting because...well I don't actually know why but the point is you suck haha

[GG]

5 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

But I don't care about your opinion....

 

 

If u think I'm an idiot, ok..... 

 

Bye?

And yes, you just did a longer drawn out ad hominem

 

Then for a change, try posting something coherent.

 

The rule of this land is that you're an idiot unless proven otherwise.     You're not off to a good start.

[westerndecline]

3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

You're a ****ty poster.  Not in the shitposting sense, but just a bad effort overall.  I get away with shitposting because...well I don't actually know why but the point is you suck haha

 

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Then for a change, try posting something coherent.

 

The rule of this land is that you're an idiot unless proven otherwise.     You're not off to a good start.

?

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

But I don't care about your opinion....

 

 

If u think I'm an idiot, ok..... 

 

Bye?

And yes, you just did a longer drawn out ad hominem

Oh good.

 

So not only are you loud in your proclamations of your ignorance, but you also aren't interested in learning anything, being convinced of your own righteousness for no reason other than your opinion being your opinion.

 

Just what the world needed.

 

/golfclap

[westerndecline]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Oh good.

 

So not only are you loud in your proclamations of your ignorance, but you also aren't interested in learning anything, being convinced of your own righteousness for no reason other than your opinion being your opinion.

 

Just what the world needed.

 

/golfclap

Lol wrong again. Just not interested in the opinion of someone who disagrees with something but hides behind smart ass comments...

 

U offer nothing in conversation

[TakeYouToTasker]

19 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Lol wrong again. Just not interested in the opinion of someone who disagrees with something but hides behind smart ass comments...

 

U offer nothing in conversation

OK...  I'll play...

 

What do you feel is the appropriate response to a new comer whose entire posting history consists of a series of self-aggrandizing youtube ranting hot takes which are short on facts and high on "feels", a malinformed Hugo Chavez-esque attack on the merits of private sector innovation and private ownership all while staking claims of a libertarian belief system, and petulant "lalala I can't hear youuuuuuuu" type responses to critiques of the first two articles?

Edited December 1, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker