Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD...
    #21847490 - 06/23/15 08:01 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

FCC trying to impose a 100 million retroactive fine on ATT.  Good, bad or indifferent.  Please read the one FCC commisioners dissenting opinion.

ATT will fight, and this will go on for years.  Oh, by the way, the FCC didn't need the new NET Neutrality to fight this, there were already existing laws in place that could have been pursued.

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20150617/11444331379/fcc-moves-to-fine-att-100-million-throttling-unlimited-plan-users.shtml


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21847642 - 06/23/15 08:29 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

That article is very pro FCC and pro net neutrality.  Whose side are you on?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21847693 - 06/23/15 08:38 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Actually, the FCC had the ability to do this years ago.  But my point was read the dissenters opinion.  That's why I said 'Good, Bad, or Indifferent'


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21853782 - 06/25/15 04:50 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:
Actually, the FCC had the ability to do this years ago.  But my point was read the dissenters opinion.  That's why I said 'Good, Bad, or Indifferent'




What's your point regarding the dissenters opinion? I think he's off-base.

The point here is not really regarding net neutrality. ATT claimed that they were offering "unlimited" data, but we're in fact limiting the speed. They allegedly didn't do a good enough job of making the consumer aware of that. Unless I'm missing something, this is more about false advertising than it is about net neutrality.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 30 minutes
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21854144 - 06/25/15 08:31 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

^ exactly


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #21862538 - 06/27/15 02:48 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Thats the point.  The government could have clamped down on it LONG ago. Do you see where I am going with this?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLe_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21862566 - 06/27/15 03:11 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Okay. But this has nothing to do with Net neutrality laws......


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21862617 - 06/27/15 03:55 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:
Thats the point.  The government could have clamped down on it LONG ago. Do you see where I am going with this?




I'm not sure. Are you implying that ATT was lobbying the government to turn a blind eye?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21863712 - 06/27/15 10:46 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

No, I am saying really that the laws already existed to take care of this WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY.  This was a disguise for getting the camel's nose under the tent--'it will stop companies from ripping off consumers'  in reality, those laws existed--NET NEUTRALITY however, cements an UNELECTED FEDERAL Bureau into place that can now control the interent--good or bad, they are running the show now.  And if you still trust the government, well, I can't help you nor can anyone else.  You will get what's coming, like all the rest of us, unfortunately.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes] * 1
    #21863737 - 06/27/15 10:51 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

:confused: I still have no clue why you brought up that case. Once again, this case has NOTHING to do with the recent net neutrality discussion. That case was about false advertising, not net neutrality.

The recent FCC rules simply state that an ISP cannot offer preference to certain companies for extra money. They have allow access to all content equally. I am still baffled as to how anyone thinks this is a bad idea, and have yet to see a good argument against it. The government is not controlling the Internet, as you claim, but simply allowing everyone to be on a level playing field.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLe_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21863751 - 06/27/15 10:54 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

But you see, we've always had net neutrality laws in place. At least as long as I've been in the net (1995). I think they made it a public utility, like power or water/sewer, but beyond that, nothing has changed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Le_Canard]
    #21863775 - 06/27/15 10:59 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Yes, you are right.  What has changed is now they have total control.  No matter what they said their intentions are, they can fuck us royal on a whim.  See I don't mind going after shit like ATT did.  What I mind is now someone I DIDNT ELECT OR VOTE FOR can make the rules.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLe_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21863797 - 06/27/15 11:04 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Oh, I see. Well, it's become such an important part of life to so many, I don't think they'll try anything heinous (beyond this odious NSA thing).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Le_Canard]
    #21863844 - 06/27/15 11:15 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

C'mon duk you ain't that naive. :grin:

I trust those dick-licking shitbags in Washington about as far as I can throw a ten-ton truck.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Le_Canard]
    #21863894 - 06/27/15 11:25 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Le_Canard said:
But you see, we've always had net neutrality laws in place. At least as long as I've been in the net (1995). I think they made it a public utility, like power or water/sewer, but beyond that, nothing has changed.




The issue is that the rules weren't strong enough. Comcast was charging Netflix more and hampering connection to their site. Making the Internet a public utility, which it is, will prevent nonsense like this from happening again.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21863912 - 06/27/15 11:27 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:

Le_Canard said:
But you see, we've always had net neutrality laws in place. At least as long as I've been in the net (1995). I think they made it a public utility, like power or water/sewer, but beyond that, nothing has changed.




The issue is that the rules weren't strong enough. Comcast was charging Netflix more and hampering connection to their site. Making the Internet a public utility, which it is, will prevent nonsense like this from happening again.





I find it hard to believe, as smart as you are, that you are that politically naive and actually trust government.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes] * 1
    #21863913 - 06/27/15 11:27 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:
Yes, you are right.  What has changed is now they have total control.  No matter what they said their intentions are, they can fuck us royal on a whim.  See I don't mind going after shit like ATT did.  What I mind is now someone I DIDNT ELECT OR VOTE FOR can make the rules.




Who has total control? How do you see them fucking us royal?

And people you didn't elect or vote for have always been making the rules. That's how the FDA, EPA, FCC, etc. work. The people you did vote for (Congress and the Executive branch) can override the rules if they want.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 2 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21863928 - 06/27/15 11:30 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:

starfire_xes said:
Yes, you are right.  What has changed is now they have total control.  No matter what they said their intentions are, they can fuck us royal on a whim.  See I don't mind going after shit like ATT did.  What I mind is now someone I DIDNT ELECT OR VOTE FOR can make the rules.




Who has total control? How do you see them fucking us royal?

And people you didn't elect or vote for have always been making the rules. That's how the FDA, EPA, FCC, etc. work. The people you did vote for (Congress and the Executive branch) can override the rules if they want.




That's exactly right.  And they don't override the rules do they?  Even when the people want them to.  Whose fault is that?  Think carefully about your answer.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21863973 - 06/27/15 11:44 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

People didn't want them to in this case. Making ISPs Title II common carriers was extremely popular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/wonkbook-polling-shows-even-republicans-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #21864180 - 06/27/15 12:38 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

>I find it hard to believe, as smart as you are, that you are that politically naive and actually trust government.

Damn near all extreme leftists are like that. I thought you knew.


--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)

Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Stonehenge]
    #21864833 - 06/27/15 03:40 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

starfire_xes said:
Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:

Le_Canard said:
But you see, we've always had net neutrality laws in place. At least as long as I've been in the net (1995). I think they made it a public utility, like power or water/sewer, but beyond that, nothing has changed.




The issue is that the rules weren't strong enough. Comcast was charging Netflix more and hampering connection to their site. Making the Internet a public utility, which it is, will prevent nonsense like this from happening again.





I find it hard to believe, as smart as you are, that you are that politically naive and actually trust government.




I didn't see this post earlier. Who said I trust the government? I don't trust them at all, but I trust the giant companies buying their favor even less.

Quote:

Stonehenge said:
>I find it hard to believe, as smart as you are, that you are that politically naive and actually trust government.

Damn near all extreme leftists are like that. I thought you knew.




There you go incorrectly calling me a leftist again. You clearly have no idea about my political leanings. Are you incapable of making a post without throwing veiled insults at people?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21866939 - 06/28/15 01:21 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:

Le_Canard said:
But you see, we've always had net neutrality laws in place. At least as long as I've been in the net (1995). I think they made it a public utility, like power or water/sewer, but beyond that, nothing has changed.




The issue is that the rules weren't strong enough. Comcast was charging Netflix more and hampering connection to their site. Making the Internet a public utility, which it is, will prevent nonsense like this from happening again.




Any bottlenecking that is unintentional caused by more of a supply or demand peering problem is not a net net neutrality issue.
  Netfix wanted to hook their servers directly to the Comcast's and other ISPs hub without a middle man, but they wouldn't do it without getting paid. The deal they worked out was for Netflix to pay per usage like a utility while routing through third party.
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-comcast-deal-explained-2014-2

To use a foodservice analogy. Imagine a restaurant has an incredibly popular dish that everyone wants to order. The kitchen has no problem meeting that demand, but orders aren’t getting to diners’ tables in time.

If that slowdown is because the waiters decide customers shouldn’t get that particular menu item, or that there are other menu items that should be delivered in a more timely manner — that’s a net neutrality issue.

But if that awesome food is slow to the table because there simply aren’t enough waiters and no off-work waiters are willing to come in for a few hours to help out because it’s their night off — that’s a peering issue.

Net neutrality was intended for one purpose besides making money, and that is to censor the internet for political reasons. I'm exaggerating a bit, but imagine if the only source for news was your TV. It would be an apocalyptic wasteland crawling with left wing liberal zombies. That's the vision of tptb.


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21867072 - 06/28/15 02:39 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

It is unclear whether the slow down was actually caused by a supply and demand issue. That's what Comcast claimed, but it doesn't make perfect sense to me. First of all, if the speeds began declining suddenly in September, but we're fine before that, it means Netflix had to change something for this to be supply and demand. But as far as I know, they didn't have a sudden influx of users or begin offering more HD content at that time. Also, if it was a supply and demand issue, why did Netflix speeds decrease on Comcast, ATT, and Verizon, but not on any other ISP? Speeds actually increased on the other ISPs.

Besides, I'm still not understanding the arguments against net neutrality. How do you think it will be used to censor the Internet for political reasons? I just don't follow that logic.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21867308 - 06/28/15 06:07 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I don't know where to start or end as far as why a government takeover of the internet is bad news for everyone, and I;m tired as hell but I must post something before I sleep. The administration's push for net neutrality was under the guise of making it "Free, Fair, and Open" which I hope we have all learned at this point that these sorts of claims(as well as the name given to the act) result in the exact opposite results.

The media is owned and operated my only a handful of companies one of which happens to be NBC which is now owned by Comcast. That merger was allowed by the government under a great deal of scrutiny, and in doing so created a monster which would need to be regulated to level the playing field.

Perhaps creating this monster along with the Netflix nosedive was orchestrated to push net neutrality. Casting the ISPs as the villain and the government playing the savior while wielding net neutrality as the weapon to slay the evil monster who is responsible for everyone's Netflix buffering.

Lets not forget how net neutrality became law by keeping the details secret to the public and with the FCC having the final say doing the voting. This clandestine tactic was also used in Obamacare as well as the recent TPP. I'm interested to hear what others can add or perhaps refute on my thoughts regarding this matter. Good night, or good morning...


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21867318 - 06/28/15 06:14 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

You still haven't answered my question. That's just a bunch of language meant to conjure fear. Claims of secrecy, orchestrated slow downs, and the like don't explain why net neutrality is bad. Why is it bad that ISPs cannot slow traffic to certain content? How is the government going to use this to censor the Internet? I don't understand how you are making that leap.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21867437 - 06/28/15 07:25 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

The 300+ page document has been released, and the language used within it clearly shows there is going to be a great deal of regulation as far as content is concerned. Everything the government takes control of turns to shit, and If you think they are at all concerned about making citizens happy with their netflix connection you would be greatly mistaken.

This is clearly an attempt to grab more power and control imo, and what you describe as my fear conjuring is the way I see things playing out from what I have seen go down in the past. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt considering I haven't read much of what you have posted, but I'm starting to believe stonehenge's claims that you're a hardcore liberal.

Why do you think net neutrality is a good idea? What do you have to benefit from it personally? I'm assuming you hate the ISPs like most have become accustomed to doing, but you have to look at a bigger picture of all this. It's the principle of the matter which shouldn't be overlooked by minimizing the issue to a personal netflix problem.

http://lifelibertytech.com/2015/02/08/net-neutrality-legal-content/


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Edited by Astral Pain (06/28/15 07:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21867546 - 06/28/15 08:06 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

The 300+ page document has been released, and the language used within it clearly shows there is going to be a great deal of regulation as far as content is concerned.




Can you provide a specific example to support your claim of a "great deal of regulation"? The wording in the article you provided is hardly conclusive. It says ISPs cannot ban certain content, and uses this to say that somehow the government is allowed to? This is a huge logical leap.

If that's the best you have to show, then the government clearly hasn't been afforded any new powers with these rules in regards to censorship.

Quote:

This is clearly an attempt to grab more power and control imo, and what you describe as my fear conjuring is the way I see things playing out from what I have seen go down in the past. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt considering I haven't read much of what you have posted, but I'm starting to believe stonehenge's claims that you're a hardcore liberal.





So you read my opinion on one topic and assume I'm a hardcore liberal? Jesus, this forum is judgemental. By the way, net neutrality is overwhelmingly supported by both conservatives and liberals.

Besides, why are my political leanings at all relevant to this discussion? The topic at hand is net neutrality and nothing else.

Quote:

Why do you think net neutrality is a good idea? What do you have to benefit from it personally? I'm assuming you hate the ISPs like most have become accustomed to doing, but you have to look at a bigger picture of all this. It's the principle of the matter which shouldn't be overlooked by minimizing the issue to a personal netflix problem.




I support net neutrality because I think the Internet is a vital resource and access to it should not be based on money. Large companies should not be able to buy "fast lanes" making it even harder for small businesses to get recognized and compete. ISPs should not be able to slow traffic to sites that they disagree with or are competitors. The gatekeepers to the greatest repository of knowledge known to man, should not be allowed to discriminate and direct traffic. They need to be unbiased.

I think that's exactly what these rules do, and I've yet to see any convincing evidence to the contrary.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21867611 - 06/28/15 08:36 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

When the term "Legal Content" is in the document, that means they are going to make certain things illegal. They will have the ability to add and change what they please to the bill over time, but it's only just begun.  I'm assuming your liberal because you didn't see any problem with the government taking over the internet. I think it's crazy to think that's a good idea with what we have seen in the past.


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21867662 - 06/28/15 08:54 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Legal content refers to things that are already legal. Things like child pornography are not included in that definition. The government has, and has always had the power to make things illegal. Nothing has changed. So I'm still confused as to what parts of these rules allow the government to censor the Internet. Can you please quote them here?

This isn't a government take over of Internet. A government take over would be buying the ISPs. If you were able to show evidence that this was indeed what you say it is, then I would be against it. So far, you haven't provided convincing evidence of anything.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21867994 - 06/28/15 10:50 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

They have not yet defined legal content or legal devices. But the fact that they have the ability to define these to suit whatever needs they feel like is alarming. I told you I suspected their goal was to regulate and censor, but nothing is set in stone yet. You're not understanding my point of view and suspicions of the government, and this leads me to believe you are all in on trusting the government. I found an article that might explain to you what it is I'm talking about in regards to those terms in the bill.

http://lifelibertytech.com/2015/02/08/net-neutrality-legal-content/

I need to get back to my podcast but will check back later.


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21868071 - 06/28/15 11:15 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I already read that article, and I think it's wrong, and here's why. First, legal content is defined by current federal laws. Things like child porn, purchasing illegal drugs, and similar activities are illegal. Reading the news, watching TV shows, and browsing the Shroomery are legal. The new rules are not changing any definitions of legal and illegal activities and the power to make things illegal is still only in the hands of elected officials.

Second, the new rules aren't affording the government powers that they do not currently have. For example, if I made a law that says libraries have no right to censor books about legal activities, it does not suddenly give them the right to censor books about illegal activities. For that, I would have to right the law explicitly giving libraries that right. The same thing is here, the government has not been explicitly given any power to censor content, therefore, they don't have that power. This is where your article is making a huge logical leap that I think falls well short of reality.

You really are quick to judge. I have very little trust of the government, but these rules don't change anything as far as I can see. They don't give government the right to censor content, nor do they allow some special new ability to make content legal or illegal that the government didn't have before. If congress was going to give themselves that power it was just as likely to happen before these new rules passed.

As far as I can tell, these new rules do a lot of good for the Internet, and don't allow the government any more meddling than they've always had the power to do. It's not a government takeover or the government applying massive and unreasonable regulations.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21868989 - 06/28/15 03:10 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

OK, now the article I posted that you say is wrong is just the authors opinion(as well as mine) based off of the language used in the bill. I understand that child porn, selling drugs, and all the other usual suspects of internet shenanigans are regulated and censored, but the point I was trying to make was in regards to the terms "Legal Content" and "Legal Devices" not being defined. This would suggest that perhaps at any point down the road certain content, devices, or activities may not fall into those two categories. This is what I predict will happen.

  At this point nothing has happened yet, but it has only been in effect since last week. I don't see anything major happening anytime soon and some may take years to be fully implemented. When I say regulated and censored I;m not suggesting they're going to just start eliminating entire websites, but more along the lines of a tedious process that in the long run will suit their needs.

One thing's for sure, and that's the fact of cable prices being higher due to additional taxes and fees. There are also two things I believe will end up on the chopping block, and that is P2P file sharing as well as encryption.

Do you now see what it is I am talking about with the language leaving the door wide open for potential new regulations and censorship? Do you think the government would use that as an opportunity to achieve more power and control, or do you have trust in them to continue to regulate and censor only what they are as of now? Don't get me wrong, I hope to hell you're right about them only regulating what they are as of now, but I just can't see them holding back on an open invitation to grab more power and control over this nation.

So at this point it's all a waiting game to see how things develop, and the second I catch wind of something going down this thread will be bumped. I was about to go to sleep after my first post in this thread and it's about 17 hours past my bed time


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21869046 - 06/28/15 03:24 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

AP, you will never get any sense out of this one. Hopefully others reading will benefit. They keep all that crap secret for a reason.


--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)

Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Astral Pain]
    #21869070 - 06/28/15 03:29 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I totally understand your point, but what I'm saying is that legal content is very well defined. It's defined by the federal statutes of the U.S. The FCC does not have the authority to make something illegal, and these new rules do not give them that authority. That power has always belonged to our elected officials alone and nothing has changed. So what I'm saying is that if the government is intending to censor things, in whatever form that may be, then these new rules don't make it any easier or more likely.

These rules have nothing to do with government censorship, and while I can understand the distrust of government, I think the reality is much scarier. If the government intends to censor things, it will happen in a much less apparent way than a set of rules that had millions in a fury on the Internet. It will happen covertly, with no one drawing attention to it.

As for P2P, that's been on the chopping block for ages, and these rules make it even harder for them to take it down, because again, ISPs cannot discriminate web traffic.

Finally, pursuant to rising costs, I expect nothing of the sort. These regulations are not some business stifling giant. They don't require very many additional costs on the business end, and for what it's worth, Verizon has been using Title II status off and on to dip into tax-payer money and get regulated lower prices for infrastructure for years.

Quote:

Verizon uses Title II to gain common carrier benefits, such as regulated lower prices, for when it wants to push out infrastructure and dip its hands into tax dollars for the build-outs, but shams Title II for when it wants to throttle broadband speeds so that it can siphon money from content providers--all after the Verizon customer has already paid for the access.

How exactly can Verizon claim Title II? Easy: Verizon also has a landline telephone business. Telephone carriers are classified and regulated under Title II of the communications Act. This regulation controls costs, and allows telephone carriers to use backbones of other utilities, to ease the build-out of networks by piggybacking on existing infrastructure. Since landline businesses are dying, Verizon and others keep this part of its business around as a very powerful tool .





--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Stonehenge]
    #21869080 - 06/28/15 03:32 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Stonehenge said:
AP, you will never get any sense out of this one. Hopefully others reading will benefit. They keep all that crap secret for a reason.




As opposed to taking indirect shots at me as you've been doing in most of your recent posts, why not join the debate with something productive? Why do you think my interpretation is wrong?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAstral Pain
Strange

Registered: 11/10/14
Posts: 2,923
Loc: Chicago
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Stonehenge]
    #21869100 - 06/28/15 03:36 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I was looking forward to congratulating him on his 2000th post. :sad:


--------------------
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"               
                -Bill Hicks-

__


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21871728 - 06/29/15 01:48 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:

Stonehenge said:
Quote:

starfire_xes said:
I find it hard to believe, as smart as you are, that you are that politically naive and actually trust government.



Damn near all extreme leftists are like that. I thought you knew.



Who said I trust the government? I don't trust them at all, but I trust the giant companies buying their favor even less.



Exactly.  Government is being taken over by Wall Street.  So having at least a few rules in place to protect the internet is certainly better than none.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21871743 - 06/29/15 01:52 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:

Stonehenge said:
AP, you will never get any sense out of this one. Hopefully others reading will benefit. They keep all that crap secret for a reason.




As opposed to taking indirect shots at me as you've been doing in most of your recent posts, why not join the debate with something productive? Why do you think my interpretation is wrong?



I was about to say the same.

BoldAsLove is correct in that this doesn't give the Government any new power to regulate the Internet, but it does prevent ISPs from limiting content.  Those are good things.

And I WILL congratulate BoldAsLove for his 2000th post!  :toast:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21871802 - 06/29/15 02:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Cheers Fal! You're getting pretty close to 5,000 yourself. :toast:


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21872104 - 06/29/15 06:20 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Holy shit!  I haven't looked in a while.  I thought I was in the 2-3k range.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 30 minutes
Re: NET NEUTRALITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD... [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21872364 - 06/29/15 08:24 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Intentionally throttling a competitor's streaming service has nothing to do with bottlenecking because of demand.

Comcast owns NBC, which owns Hulu. They run Netflix slowly, it helps them.

What is so difficult to understand about that?


It's like if you had Google Fiber and couldn't access your yahoo email. Bullshit, it's borderline extortion.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Sensational Memos Lift the Lid on News Control
( 1 2 all )
LearyfanS 2,418 37 08/06/03 11:57 PM
by Xlea321
* gun control
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )
Anonymous 15,355 223 10/08/03 12:45 AM
by Rose
* "breaking americas grip on the net" kilgore_trout 878 12 10/11/05 06:00 PM
by Catalysis
* Citizens Sue President
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Strumpling 4,220 85 05/13/03 03:13 PM
by hongomon
* Its not comcast is shit-tastic YidakiMan 1,539 15 11/26/07 02:56 PM
by afoaf
* 2 Senators want con. hearing following comcast traffic shaping disclosure johnm214 262 0 10/29/07 09:39 AM
by johnm214
* some thoughts on neutrality and national security wilshire 382 0 07/02/06 02:32 PM
by wilshire
* Test your knowledge of gun control:
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 5,582 45 09/14/01 06:14 PM
by wingnutx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,050 topic views. 5 members, 6 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.