Republicans: Net Neutrality is an attack on our "basic freedoms"

Holy hell this guy is a moron. "Making sure anyone can visit any site they want on the internet is an attack on our freedom!" Yeah, got that Boner, you mook. Damned if that guy isn't either a complete liar or dumber even then Kirk.

Net neutrality is a very basic and good thing which says internet providers must treat all websites equally (just as the phone company must treat all phone numbers equally) and not slow down or block service to web sites they don't like. In short, we the people get to decide which websites we want to read and Cox Cable can't decide which sites they allow us to read.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-no-compromise-possible-on-net-neutrality.ars

That really was a speech by morons for morons and I'd be interested in finding out if most of you are smart enough to see through it or not. I already know some of you are dumb as rocks but others have displayed intelligence before so let's see.

The really funny part is his lie that "The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades." When in fact all the rules say is internet providers must not block any website nor may they deliberately slow down any website; in other words, they must treat all websites equally. Cox and Time-Warner would very much like to force people to only use their websites instead of competitors and they're spending tens of millions of dollars to pay off cock suckers like boner to get them that power. Hell, they ever paid off Glenn "Buy this gold for four times market value" Beck to sucker the idiots into this. Why on Earth would anyone agree to change existing law and vote to allow big internet providers to control what you see and read on the internet? Consumers should have choices and all net neutrality (which has been the law since the early 1990's) says is consumers get to decide instead of providers.

You don't think Kirk and Sokar are dumber then a horse turd?

I think you are certainly not one to talk. :diaf2:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has its doubts about the FCC as well. What do they know though right? Cnet's not that enthused either.

FCC's Net neutrality ruling: Misplaced nostalgia

I've followed quite a bit of this Net Neutrality debate over the years, and it's not really a simple issue of Net Neutrality = Good or Net Neutrality = Bad. Well, unless you are a simpleton.

The threat of ISPs blocking access to websites is a very clear threat, and in Canada, at least, it has happened before. One ISP here, I think it was Telus, blocked access to a union website when their workers were threatening to strike. I am not sure exactly what happened, but they were eventually forced to turn it back on by the government. Any sort of censorship in regards to the web is wrong, and companies that engage in such practices should be bent over and anally savaged by anti-trust lawsuits.

On the flip side of that, these corporations have to lay wire, fiber optics, and infrastructure, at great cost to themselves. Should they not get to dictate the price and agreements for access to their new-fangled baubles?

My mom and dad asked me about Netflix about half a year ago. 6 months later that is ALL my dad does anymore. He watches, according to my mother, probably close to 6 hours of Netflix per night. And my mom watches at least an hour of YouTube each night. My dad showed me his cable bill for last month to wonder how much he would save if he had less channels, since he watches very little TV anymore. Frankly, I don't know how they only still pay $50 a month, as the strain on the cable company's bandwidth they use must be humongous.

The worst thing that could happen is some government board doing a ham-fisted job of deciding this issue. People like my parents SHOULD be paying more, and a bill making it a law that all users should pay the same amount is retarded.

In many cases, this ends up being a matter of too much mixing of government and corporate interests. The government lets them have the land to dig up and put their wires inside, but the public does have a right to that land. But how much? Should they all get unbridled access to heavy bandwidth sites like Netflix? Should corporations be able to decide to slow down or completely turn off certain websites at certain times?

It's a mess,and the more government agencies who don't know shit about anything get involved, the worse it will probably get. But the alternative is for corporations to deal with it, which, if there is a lack of competition, will mean the little guy will be the ones taking it in the ass.

There is no easy solution.

What a load of horse shit. Mobile internet and social networking will make up for the lose of people being able to decide which websites they want to visit instead of being forced to not visit certain websites by providers? Does the dullard who wrote that opinion piece even know that the mobile phone market (and thus the mobile internet) doesn't even have net neutrality? Does he know that mobile providers can and already do block websites and try to force you to only use their proprietary websites?

So a blocked system will make up for the currently free system being blocked? That's dumber then kirk.

If you're going to insist that others are dumber THAN a horse turd, you might want to check your spelling.

What evidence do you want? It's been the common provider law since there was the internet. They're talking about changing the law to allow providers to limit or restrict access where as currently existing law requires them to treat every website the same. Do you honestly think not changing the law requires evidence? Come on, man. WTF do you think Republicans want to change the law?

Then and than. Maybe you should look it up because it is used correctly and interchangeably in that usage.

You already have a method to redress that: doing business with a different provider. And have no illusions about "we, the people;" once the door is open to the regulators, they'll find all sorts of new mischief to get into, and it probably won't be to your benefit.

Remember: the same people who wrote the new health care law will be crafting the rules under which the Internet operates...

Jesus, without net neutrality it is fully legal for Cox to degrade traffic to netflix to try to force people to buy their video on demand service instead of renting a movie to netflix. There are literally hundreds of such examples.

Survey says? BUZZ! 1/3 to 1/2 of the American population lives in an area with only one internet provider. Please try again.

Are you certain? I admit that English isn't my first language, but it seems that then is used as an indication of time, i.e. "Back then, she was fat" but than is used as a comparative, i.e. "There are more onions than scallions in your fridge.

Link: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Than-and-Then

Your sentence would indicate you are using then as a comparison, (incorrectly) so my correction stands.

Yeah, and usage rates of THOSE Americans are probably far less than everywhere else. In any event, that problem is temporary; it will eventually take care of itself if there is demand.

Government regulation is forever.

No, thanks.

You're assuming that people have another provider with which they can do business with. That's not always the case. Where I live, for example, if I want high speed internet, my only choice is Comcast. I can't get DSL here. (Nor can I get Clearwire, which may not be in business much longer, anyway.)

If the government would do something to actively encourage competition in ISPs (like say temporary tax breaks/subsidies, or the government runs fiber to everyone's house, and then leases it to ISPs in a manner similar to what they do in the UK) so that everybody had a choice in who their ISP was, it would do a lot to ensure network neutrality without having to specifically regulate the matter.

:tantrum:

Hey now, being able to access netflix is probably very important to someone like Turdin. It's not like he would ever be able to get a date with a woman, let alone have sex with a woman. Something has to fill all that extra time he has on his hands.

You may be a moron, but you're a ballsy moron. Unfortunately, bluster won't help you here.

The Republicans want to maintain the status quo by preventing the FCC from writing any new regulations.

No "net neutrality law" exists. None. The current status quo is maintained by peering contracts and settlements. The market. The Comcast Bittorrent RST case proved that the framework is good enough for now and for now is what matters, because networking is not mature. Regulations will just tie down the market. Networking is a young field, even theoretically. There are more unsolved problems in networking than any other computer science field. 10 or 12 years ago, net neutrality would have prevented CDNs. Without CDNs, no video streaming services, high latency to websites, half of Facebook would be impossible, YouTube would be unbearable to use. 8 years ago, VOIP would have been prevented.

Yes, yes, all these would have exceptions NOW, but networking and internetworking are being improved at a ridiculous pace in comparison to just about every other facet of computing. There's no question that there are are networking architectures and business possibilities that WOULD improve communications services, that will never see the light of day if net neutrality regulations are adopted.

Who's fault is that again? (hint: they issue monopolies)

It is likely that the number of patrons on this board who are also patrons of internet pornography approaches 100 percent.

I say the claim is patently false to begin with. In addition to your local cable and telephone providers, I know of two companies that offer "broadband" satellite internet connections, and Sprint and Verizon are offering MiFi personal broadband solutions.

Oh, but it's not fast enough, the latency is to high, or there's not enough bandwidth for you?

Now it's become an argument about service, not delivery. You want the government to force a company to give you the service you want at the price you want. That's not the way it works.

No, actually, they're not. Then and than are not interchangeable -- ever. And if you think they are, then it is you who is dumber than a horse turd.

And by the way, vis a vis net neutrality: fuck you. Internet service is a private sector service, provided by corporations who lay down the infrastructure to provide a service for a profit. They have every right to dictate, in any way they fucking choose, what you may or may not do or access on their fucking networks. Don't like it? Go to the competition. That's how it works.

There is a bit of a difference though. The broadband you purchase from your cable provider, or phone company is more or less at a wholesale price. The broadband that you purchase from Verizon Wireless in their mifi is at a premium price, because under their plan you are limited to 5 gig's of data transfer. Once you hit that 5 gigs, you are penalized.

I guess his two degrees or whatever that he likes to brag about aren't really worth anything more than dog shit. :flow2:

I covered that, Sparky. Read it again really...slowly. Here, I'll bold some portions for you.

If that doesn't do the trick, let me put it in plain english. That's just to fuckin' bad. You may not want to pay for it. You may not like it. But, there are options.

I'm fine with both my internet connection at home, my mifi and my Motorola Xoom. How's that iphone working for you? Are you feeling the love you need from AT&T?

If he's not, he can now switch to Verizon. Or to a different brand of phone. Thing is, if neutrality is something the people want, it's something the people will punish corporations for not giving them. But "net neutrality" legislation is the last thing any of us who are for smaller government should want. They've got their grubby, greedy fucking mitts on enough. They can keep 'em off the internet, in any form, for any reason.