Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: GarMan on May 20, 2010, 10:01:43 PM
-
They call it "net neutrality"... What happened to the 1st Amendment? Apparently, Kagan has a hard-on for this.
http://www.blogherald.com/2010/05/20/political-blogs-regulated-fec/ (http://www.blogherald.com/2010/05/20/political-blogs-regulated-fec/)
Good News: Political Blogs May Be Regulated By The FEC
Filed as News on May 20, 2010 9:27 pm
by Darnell Clayton
It look like American bloggers could face a new threat that may make people think twice before criticizing their political leaders online.
Apparently the US government thinks bloggers are becoming a public hazard, and like a few other industries (i.e. airplanes, banks and nuclear power plants) need to be regulated by the government (in this case the Federal Election Commission).
The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.”
Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere. (Reason.com)
This law would probably extend to Twitter as well, not to mention Facebook too (the latter who is embroiled in another censorship case via Pakistan).
Although this law (or measure) will probably be struck down by the US Supreme Court (who seems to love the first amendment aka “freedom of speech” for you non-yanks), the fact that the US government would even consider this is troublesome.
Unless the government is dealing with slander, a terrorist threat or a pay per post scandal they shouldn’t bother regulating the blogosphere as that could result in a political backlash (not to mention an provide an incentive to host ones content over seas).
Hopefully common sense prevails regarding this issue, as the last thing bloggers need is to worry about is regulation from “Uncle Sam.”
-
What?! The Obama administration thinks more government control is needed?!?
Color me shocked.
-
Comprehension fail.
Taking after you heroes at completely misunderstanding what net neutrality is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q#)
-
Comprehension fail.
Taking after you heroes at completely misunderstanding what net neutrality is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q#)
So I assume you're for net neutrality?
-
So I assume you're for net neutrality?
You're goddamned right.
I don't understand how this is a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently Republicans can't wrap their brains around it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that unreasonably degrades other traffic.
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality
Definitions of network neutrality
At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[9] Net neutrality advocates have established three principal definitions of network neutrality:
Absolute non-discrimination
Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[2] According to Imprint Magazine, University of Michigan Law School professor Susan P. Crawford "believes that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for quality-of-service considerations."[10]
Limited discrimination without QoS tiering
United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would allow quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[11]
Limited discrimination and tiering
This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service."[1] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."[12]
In other words, it's the exact opposite of what this moron in this article and this bimbo on Fox News is suggesting it is.
It is actually ensuring that no one controls what is available on the internet.
Everything you just claimed big bad Obama is trying to do? That's actually what he's trying to prevent AT&T, Charter, Verizon, etc. from doing.
-
I've read the Wiki article before, and I agree that there is a lot of mis-information about what 'net neutrality' really is. However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant. Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.
-
Comprehension fail.
Taking after you heroes at completely misunderstanding what net neutrality is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eyTs-Idl_Q#)
You might want to do a little research on the topic before you run your mouf next time.
You can start by reading the article to understand how they're attempting to use the Federal Election Commission in this situation. Wait, I know... That must be a lie.
"Her Buckley principle is almost the opposite of the Obama statement that 'powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,'" Ammori wrote.
Huh... How's he gonna keep dem powerful interests back? Under the cloak of "net neutrality", I'm guessing...
-
I've read the Wiki article before, and I agree that there is a lot of mis-information about what 'net neutrality' really is. However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant. Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.
You're thinking right... Why else would the FEC be involved? Oh wait, I forgot. That's supposed to be a lie.
-
However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant. Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.
This.
-
By the way, most Republipukes are for the pure concept of net neutrality as posted by our resident Advocate. It's the bastardization with elements of the Fairness Doctrine the we're all concerned about.
-
You might want to do a little research on the topic before you run your mouf next time.
You can start by reading the article to understand how they're attempting to use the Federal Election Commission in this situation. Wait, I know... That must be a lie.
Huh... How's he gonna keep dem powerful interests back? Under the cloak of "net neutrality", I'm guessing...
(http://knoxius.com/media/image/b/picard-facepalm.jpg)
Ok, you're going to force me to talk to you like a child.
"Powerful Interests" = Telecom componies. They are attempting to "drown out the voices of ordinary citizens" by regulating the Internet.
The Government is NOT REGULATING THE INTERNET. They are REGULATING THE INTERNET PROVIDERS that ARE TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. It's that simple. You can be opposed to that if you prefer to be communist China, but for the love of God at least understand what you're talking about.
I've read the Wiki article before, and I agree that there is a lot of mis-information about what 'net neutrality' really is. However, this seems to me like the government trying to fix a problem that is basically non-existant. Anytime the government is looking to expand their role in our lives, I am automatically suspicious.
I'm with you on that. But what apparently no one here is getting, is that they are NOT EXPANDING THEIR ROLE IN OUR LIVES. They are preventing the INTERNET PROVIDERS from expanding their role in our lives. Your concerns would be valid if the government was doing what is being suggested in this thread, but they SIMPLY ARE NOT. They are protecting us against that happening.
I really don't get why that's hard to understand, and frankly it's frustrating that you people don't get it...
-
'Protect' us from what? Did I miss AT&T trying to shut down a bunch of liberal blogs?
Methinks you are too trusting of our federal government.
-
'Protect' us from what? Did I miss AT&T trying to shut down a bunch of liberal blogs?
Methinks you are too trusting of our federal government.
I've been aware of (and understood) Net Neutrality well before I'd ever heard of evil Barack Obama.
Methinks most of you here automatically oppose anything Obama favors without any thought towards what it is you claim to oppose. If Obama's for it, you're against it. Period. Politics over principle.
I would think that maybe this video would do a better job explaining than apparently I have been able to, but of course, Obama is explaining it, so it's obviously a bold faced lie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2nyA_TzI&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2nyA_TzI&feature=related#)
-
Ok, you're going to force me to talk to you like a child.
"Powerful Interests" = Telecom componies. They are attempting to "drown out the voices of ordinary citizens" by regulating the Internet.
The Government is NOT REGULATING THE INTERNET. They are REGULATING THE INTERNET PROVIDERS that ARE TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. It's that simple. You can be opposed to that if you prefer to be communist China, but for the love of God at least understand what you're talking about.
Even though it's right there in the article, you're not going to acknowledge it. What does the FEC have to do with what you're saying? Maybe, you should read the article again.
I know this is a rightwing blog, but just review some of this legislation and think about what we're talking about here. I think Ron Paul's position states it best for me.
Preserve Internet Freedom -- Beware Obama's Net Neutrality
Written by Larry Greenley
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 14:36
A few years ago I was momentarily fooled by the "net neutrality" campaign. At that time I was surprised to see a coalition for net neutrality featuring liberal MoveOn.org and conservative Gun Owners of America. I just checked and this coalition is still in effect.
More recently I haven't been paying attention to the net neutrality issue. I was surprised yesterday to learn that President Obama is a big backer of net neutrality. Here's a 50-second video of Obama speaking at Google back on November 14, 2007, where he said, "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."
In contrast, constitutionalist Congressman Ron Paul is opposed to net neutrality regulation of the Internet based on his opposition to government regulation and support for a free market economy, as you can see in this 56-second video:
<snip>
Here are some revealing excerpts from "Net Neutrality enforcement may reach into your computer," dated October 21, 2009:
The Net Neutrality policy proposed by the Obama White House is set for a vote by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Thursday....
The vote on Thursday, which is expected to pass, will set up a show down between providers and the government. Once the provision is passed it will give the FCC the ability to begin formulating rules and readying them for the legislative process.
The following are some of the FCC's proposed rules:
• Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content
• Consumers are entitled to use any Internet applications or services
• Consumers are entitled to connect to any devices that won't harm the network
• The same rules apply to cable/DSL and wireless Internet
• Internet providers can't block or slow competitors' online services
So, the FCC will vote on Obama's net neutrality policy tomorrow. Of course, the policy is expected to pass. The next step would be for the FCC to get congressional authorization to implement the net neutrality policy. And sure enough, a net neutrality bill has already been introduced in the House on July 31 as H.R. 3458. For detailed commentary on this bill read "Net Neutrality Regulation vs. Internet Freedom" by Adam de Angeli, posted on September 30.
The examples of the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules shown above don't seem immediately harmful to your Internet freedom until you realize that these rules would be enforced by the federal government. This would be the beginning of a government takeover of the Internet. As mentioned on the Beck TV show linked to above, it wouldn't be long until the government would be regulating content. We're already hearing repeatedly from Obama and his administration that the Internet and blogosphere are rampant with misleading information. We already know where this type of regulation would lead by looking at how China regulates the Internet over there.
It doesn't seem possible that the tens of millions of Americans that use the Internet daily would put up with a government takeover of the Internet. I sure hope they don't. It should be an epic struggle.
<snip>
We tease you about being a lefty, but can you blame us?
I'm with you on that. But what apparently no one here is getting, is that they are NOT EXPANDING THEIR ROLE IN OUR LIVES. They are preventing the INTERNET PROVIDERS from expanding their role in our lives. Your concerns would be valid if the government was doing what is being suggested in this thread, but they SIMPLY ARE NOT. They are protecting us against that happening.
I really don't get why that's hard to understand, and frankly it's frustrating that you people don't get it...
Perhaps, you should take your rose-colored glasses off... And, what's this "you people" schit?
-
'Protect' us from what? Did I miss AT&T trying to shut down a bunch of liberal blogs?
Yes. You did miss what ISP's are trying to do, apparently.
Broadband providers have expressed their desires to be free to design their networks as they see fit and have the ability to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others.
http://news.cnet.com/Verizon-says-Net-neutrality-is-overhyped/2008-1037_3-6056210.html (http://news.cnet.com/Verizon-says-Net-neutrality-is-overhyped/2008-1037_3-6056210.html)
-
I've been aware of (and understood) Net Neutrality well before I'd ever heard of evil Barack Obama.
Methinks most of you here automatically oppose anything Obama favors without any thought towards what it is you claim to oppose. If Obama's for it, you're against it. Period. Politics over principle.
I would think that maybe this video would do a better job explaining than apparently I have been able to, but of course, Obama is explaining it, so it's obviously a bold faced lie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2nyA_TzI&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2nyA_TzI&feature=related#)
My problem isn't specifically with Obama. My problem is with the federal government. Obama just happens to be "the man".
And I'll admit, the article Garman posted was the first article I've read regarding net neutrality. Ignorance on my part. But I'm still with Ogre. Anytime the federal government looks to expand it's role in ANYTHING, I'm suspicious.
-
Methinks you are too trusting of our federal government.
BINGO!!! He's actually supportive of more government regulation here. We see what government regulation has done with the financial industry. Now, he wants them play with the InterWebz. This blind trust and blatant ignorance drives me nuts!
-
BINGO!!! He's actually supportive of more government regulation here. We see what government regulation has done with the financial industry. Now, he wants them play with the InterWebz. This blind trust and blatant ignorance drives me nuts!
I am opposed to any regulation of individual rights. If the government was trying to prevent me from viewing the internet as I see fit, as you were suggesting earlier, then I would absolutely be opposed to that.
When AT&T and Verizon are trying to do the same thing, I'm opposed to that too.
It's not so much Government Regulation as it is Government PREVENTING regulation by ISPs.
I don't trust the government, but I sure as shit don't trust AT&T who stand to profit from rationing the Internet.
-
Yes. You did miss what ISP's are trying to do, apparently.
Broadband providers have expressed their desires to be free to design their networks as they see fit and have the ability to prioritize certain types of traffic--such as streaming video--over others.
You do realize that I'm actually in the industry of e-enabling applications and physically host an InterWebz server out of my home? You, of all people, talking down to me on this subject is humorous. By the way, those evil ISPs have been doing this for years, and nobody has figured it out primarily because it's usually of little consequence.
-
I am opposed to any regulation of individual rights. If the government was trying to prevent me from viewing the internet as I see fit, as you were suggesting earlier, then I would absolutely be opposed to that.
When AT&T and Verizon are trying to do the same thing, I'm opposed to that too.
It's not so much Government Regulation as it is Government PREVENTING regulation by ISPs.
I don't trust the government, but I sure as poop don't trust AT&T who stand to profit from rationing the Internet.
The FEC will make it all better for you, I suppose... :blink:
Down wiff those evil corporations! They control everything!
-
The original article referenced it, but let's try this again. Maybe, you can try reading it...
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/18/from-banning-books-to-banning (http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/18/from-banning-books-to-banning)
From Banning Books to Banning Blogs
How the DISCLOSE Act will restrict free speech
Bradley Smith & Jeff Patch | May 18, 2010
The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.”
Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.
The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.
The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected disparate treatment of media corporations and other corporations (including nonprofit groups) in campaign finance law. “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
No legitimate justification exists for excluding media corporations from regulations on political speech applicable to other corporations, unless the goal is to gain the support of editorial boards funded by the New York Times Co.
The DISCLOSE Act would ban U.S. subsidiaries from speaking if foreign nationals own 20 percent of a company’s voting shares. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim owns a 7 percent stake in The New York Times Co.—yet the New York Times would not be restricted if other non-citizens owned 13 percent of the company’s stock.
The Times editorial board expressly advocates the election or defeat of candidates, acts of political speech worth thousands of dollars, yet it is exempted from similar regulations imposed on other companies wishing to speak out about candidates. The Times also writes unsigned, anonymous attacks, yet the DISCLOSE Act would compel the political speech and identification of nonprofit groups: a bulky, filmed disclaimer estimated to be 2-3 times longer than candidates’ disclaimers.
All this hasn’t stopped the Times and other dead-tree media outlets from enthusiastically endorsing the DISCLOSE Act. Perhaps the Times scribes wouldn’t be so rah-rah about these regulations if they realized they would give government the power to regulate political speech on the Web and determine which companies are “media”—meaning exempt from regulation—and which are “political”—meaning heavily regulated.
The House version of the DISCLOSE Act, expected to be marked-up next week, includes the definitions “communication” and “covered communication,” which differs from the term “public communication” adopted by the FEC in a 2006 rule exempting online speech from government control.
When McGinley and the Center for Competitive Politics pointed this out amid the Democrats’ rush to pass this poorly-written bill, “reformers” attacked the messengers. In a post called “Who would’ve known that the DISCLOSE Act calls for burning books, regulating the Internet—and even creates death panels?” Public Citizen lobbyist Craig Holman compared pointing out a serious consequence of sloppy statutory language in this campaign finance bill to “invent[ing] the myth that the [health care bill] would create the infamous ‘death panels.’”
The Brennan Center for Justice’s Ciara Torres-Spelliscy accused us of “a blatant attempt to kick sand in the eyes of lawmakers,” and attempted to deny the plain meaning of the statutory language. Nonetheless, she admitted that “the FEC is most likely to stand by the 2006 Internet rules and only reach PAID political banner ads; not bloggers.” (Emphasis added.)
The response of “reformers” to serious questions about a bill imposing civil and criminal penalties for engaging in political speech would be shocking if it wasn’t so typical. Most likely isn’t good enough for people who want to speak out in politics without threat of jail time and hefty fines.
There’s little reason to trust the “good government” crowd on this. When the issue of internet regulation first came up after passage of the McCain-Feingold law in 2002, the goo-goos denounced a deregulated Internet as a “loophole” in campaign finance law, a “poison pill,” “anti-reform,” and a “step backwards.” In court filings, they called the Internet “a favored conduit for special interests to fund soft money and stealth issue ads into federal campaigns.” While most pro-regulation groups eventually endorsed the FEC regulations exempting the Internet amidst a public backlash, this was simply a tactical consideration to head off passage of the Online Freedom of Speech Act of 2006, which would have codified a broad exemption for political speech online (“reformers” unanimously opposed the bill).
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who President Barack Obama nominated to the Supreme Court last week, argued at the rehearing of Citizens United that “the FEC has never applied this statute to a book,” referring to the now-abolished corporate source prohibition on independent speech. The FEC, though, launched an investigation into a book George Soros wrote in 2004 advocating the defeat of President George W. Bush.
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t find Kagan’s argument convincing: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats; and if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?” Kagan responded that political pamphlets could be banned.
Last Thursday, after meeting with the newly-minted nominee, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) told reporters that he felt more comfortable about Kagan’s views because “we talked about the Citizens United case and she said she thought the court was not sufficiently deferential to Congress.”
Now that Democrats in Congress seek to ram through an expansive regulatory regime for regulating political speech by Independence Day (no joke), it seems Kagan would defer to Congress’s wisdom on such restrictions rather than the plain text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
If Congress can ban political TV ads and pamphlets, why not blogs?
Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, heads the Center for Competitive Politics. Jeff Patch is the Center’s communications director.
-
Like most things if the gubment stays completely out of it the free market takes care of it. If there is a demand for anything and the current providers do not address that demand people will go elsewhere.
-
Like most things if the gubment stays completely out of it the free market takes care of it. If there is a demand for anything and the current providers do not address that demand people will go elsewhere.
This.
-
Like most things if the gubment stays completely out of it the free market takes care of it. If there is a demand for anything and the current providers do not address that demand people will go elsewhere.
Well, that's a typical Neanderthal response... Don't you understand that it's the gubme't's job to protect us and ensure fairness and equality for all? Wiffout the mighty arm of gubme't, we'd all die. Besides, don't you understand that those bad old corporations would just take advantage of us, powerless and helpless, consumers?
-
Well, that's a typical Neanderthal response... Don't you understand that it's the gubme't's job to protect us and ensure fairness and equality for all? Wiffout the mighty arm of gubme't, we'd all die. Besides, don't you understand that those bad old corporations would just take advantage of us, powerless and helpless, consumers?
Have most people under the age of 30 been so indoctrinated by the government education system that they no longer fear government control? Or maybe it just a product of being an uneducated redneck that makes me and those like me cringe every time I hear the feds are trying to create a new law to "make things equal" or "neutral"?
-
Like most things if the gubment stays completely out of it the free market takes care of it. If there is a demand for anything and the current providers do not address that demand people will go elsewhere.
THIS again. This is where I think Chad fails to see the BIG picture. Let the free market determine these things. These guys think they can micro analyze everything to a science. That is not so. The Govt has NO business being involved here. Whether you like them or not Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh are in business and doing well because there is a market for them. Same thing with Olbermann - even though I despise his ass. I - unlike Chizad - agree with Ron Paul. Hey Chad - you wanted that example of you not agreeing with Ron Paul.........I present this thread. Not picking at you, just saying.
Have most people under the age of 30 been so indoctrinated by the government education system that they no longer fear government control?
I think you are right. It's sad. But they will tell you its in the name of thinking outside the box. As Kaos said once - trying to be different JUST for the sake of being different is just stupid.
-
You do realize that I'm actually in the industry of e-enabling applications and physically host an InterWebz server out of my home? You, of all people, talking down to me on this subject is humorous. By the way, those evil ISPs have been doing this for years, and nobody has figured it out primarily because it's usually of little consequence.
Me "of all people"?
As if I'm ignorant to the subject. Apparently you "of all people" just learned about Net Neutrality nearly 5 years after it first became an issue, and still didn't understand it, until I apparently educated you in this thread.
By the way, I too work for a Fortune 500 tech company, and I'm not talking about Best Buy. I know can't fathom that I have an "adult job", since you've stated many times that I'm an "inexperienced kid", but I am here on client site in NY as we speak teaching a course to old fucks such as yourself on our product.
THIS again. This is where I think Chad fails to see the BIG picture. Let the free market determine these things. These guys think they can micro analyze everything to a science. That is not so. The Govt has NO business being involved here. Whether you like them or not Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh are in business and doing well because there is a market for them. Same thing with Olbermann - even though I despise his ass. I - unlike Chizad - agree with Ron Paul. Hey Chad - you wanted that example of you not agreeing with Ron Paul.........I present this thread. Not picking at you, just saying/
You got me on this gray area. Network neutrality is another term for freedom to access all content and services. Ron Paul supports businesses regulating and restricting access to the Internet. Basically, he believes that if the government prevented them from regulating the Internet, it would be unfairly jeopardizing their freedom to do so. This viewpoint aligns with the Libertarian Party beliefs, and I can understand that point. The way I see it, though, as citizens and consumers, we have the right to access the entire network fairly and equally, and it is the mega corporations that are encroaching on our freedom to do so. This still conforms to the party beliefs and ultimately gives us more freedom. And no, I'm not some hippie that just hates corporations by default. However, in a case such as this, I feel that ISPs are trying to unfairly regulate the Internet. Anyone with an iPhone (and/or is at least knowledgeable of the restrictions AT&T have put on it, should know that they are very capable of limiting freedoms and squandering technological progress.
-
Me "of all people"?
As if I'm ignorant to the subject. Apparently you "of all people" just learned about Net Neutrality nearly 5 years after it first became an issue, and still didn't understand it, until I apparently educated you in this thread.
By the way, I too work for a Fortune 500 tech company, and I'm not talking about Best Buy. I know can't fathom that I have an "adult job", since you've stated many times that I'm an "inexperienced kid", but I am here on client site in NY as we speak teaching a course to old phuks such as yourself on our product.
You got me on this gray area. Network neutrality is another term for freedom to access all content and services. Ron Paul supports businesses regulating and restricting access to the Internet. Basically, he believes that if the government prevented them from regulating the Internet, it would be unfairly jeopardizing their freedom to do so. This viewpoint aligns with the Libertarian Party beliefs, and I can understand that point. The way I see it, though, as citizens and consumers, we have the right to access the entire network fairly and equally, and it is the mega corporations that are encroaching on our freedom to do so. This still conforms to the party beliefs and ultimately gives us more freedom. And no, I'm not some hippie that just hates corporations by default. However, in a case such as this, I feel that ISPs are trying to unfairly regulate the Internet. Anyone with an iPhone (and/or is at least knowledgeable of the restrictions AT&T have put on it, should know that they are very capable of limiting freedoms and squandering technological progress.
Agree - somewhat. So what would you do in protest? Go to another phone and network...right? No one is making us use the internet or a PDA. We choose to. If we don't like it, we can not buy their services. Its a service, not a MUST have. If the market doesn't like it, it won't buy it. Wouldn't you agree? Still in the end, the GOV'T has no say in this matter. Such as the case with any other service provided that is not something required. Whether we like it or not, the internet or a blackberry/iphone is merely a luxury we all like.
-
Agree - somewhat. So what would you do in protest? Go to another phone and network...right? No one is making us use the internet or a PDA. We choose to. If we don't like it, we can not buy their services. Its a service, not a MUST have. If the market doesn't like it, it won't buy it. Wouldn't you agree? Still in the end, the GOV'T has no say in this matter. Such as the case with any other service provided that is not something required. Whether we like it or not, the internet or a blackberry/iphone is merely a luxury we all like.
I don't think the Internet by its nature should be a limited proprietary "service".
Earlier in this thread, when everyone thought Obama was the one trying to control the Internet, it was an outrage. Now that you know that it's the providers doing it, and Obama is trying to protect against this control, it's cool.
-
I don't think the Internet by its nature should be a limited proprietary "service".
Earlier in this thread, when everyone thought Obama was the one trying to control the Internet, it was an outrage. Now that you know that it's the providers doing it, and Obama is trying to protect against this control, it's cool.
I don't need his fucking protection.
I need him and every other bureaucrat out of my life. i don't care if Al Gore did invent it. Shit costs money.
I am not for subsidizing something that if left alone will be a nominal amount anyway.
-
So, basically you guys are agreeing on principles in this thread but just arguing over definitions?
-
Me "of all people"?
As if I'm ignorant to the subject. Apparently you "of all people" just learned about Net Neutrality nearly 5 years after it first became an issue, and still didn't understand it, until I apparently educated you in this thread.
By the way, I too work for a Fortune 500 tech company, and I'm not talking about Best Buy. I know can't fathom that I have an "adult job", since you've stated many times that I'm an "inexperienced kid", but I am here on client site in NY as we speak teaching a course to old phuks such as yourself on our product.
Yeah YOU, of all people, with your typically arrogant, condescending, know-it-all tone about everything posted in all threads and forums on this board. I too have known about net neutrality for years, but I don't need to brag about it or pretend others are stupid for not hearing about it. You don't impress me. You think you've got a handle on this, but you're continually missing the point here. My sarcastic remark was regarding Barry's flavor of net neutrality. Under the cloak of passing net neutrality to protect everyone's beloved access, Barry and the Dems are trying to weasle in other controls, the types of controls that we SHOULD be concerned about. READ THE FUGGIN' ARTICLE REGARDING THE FEC FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! WTF does the FEC and the Disclose Act have to do with it? Seriously??? THEY call it net neutrality, but if you're paying attention, there's a lot more to this than your simplistic WIKI-understanding of it. If anyone is keeping up with everything, you're looking like a total moron here.
By the way, with all of the hype about net neutrality, you should realize that in most cases this is really just a router configuration at the ISP that uses the QoS protocol. By reprioritizing certain types of traffic that flows on different TCP/IP ports, you can improve the overall quality of data communications. In certain scenarios, those bad awful ISP companies are prioritizing subnets in their network architecture. Joe HomeUser might be established on a lower priority subnet than Fortune Company. Joe HomeUser pays $19.95 a month, while Fortune Company pays $5,000 per month. Your simpleton definition of net neutrality would give Joe HomeUser the same level of performance and service as Fortune Company. I don't believe that the government should have a say in that. It's not their place, and if you think it is, you're just supporting another Socialist policy. Done...
-
I don't think the Internet by its nature should be a limited proprietary "service".
So, what about other forms of communications? Should all cell phone services be the same from provider-to-provider? Should texting be free? Should data services on cell phones be free? I mean, if you're going to regulate ISP services that way, why not extend this same form of regulation to other industries?
Earlier in this thread, when everyone thought Obama was the one trying to control the Internet, it was an outrage. Now that you know that it's the providers doing it, and Obama is trying to protect against this control, it's cool.
Do you think before you type this crap?
-
I've been aware of (and understood) Net Neutrality well before I'd ever heard of evil Barack Obama.
Methinks most of you here automatically oppose anything Obama favors without any thought towards what it is you claim to oppose. If Obama's for it, you're against it. Period. Politics over principle.
I would think that maybe this video would do a better job explaining than apparently I have been able to, but of course, Obama is explaining it, so it's obviously a bold faced lie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2nyA_TzI&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqt2nyA_TzI&feature=related#)
Does the name Cass Sustein ring a bell?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884 (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884)
Now Comcast is trying to buy NBC. Consolidation for the communist take over.
-
Yeah YOU, of all people, with your typically arrogant, condescending, know-it-all tone about everything posted in all threads and forums on this board. I too have known about net neutrality for years, but I don't need to brag about it or pretend others are stupid for not hearing about it. You don't impress me. You think you've got a handle on this, but you're continually missing the point here. My sarcastic remark was regarding Barry's flavor of net neutrality. Under the cloak of passing net neutrality to protect everyone's beloved access, Barry and the Dems are trying to weasle in other controls, the types of controls that we SHOULD be concerned about. READ THE FUGGIN' ARTICLE REGARDING THE FEC FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! WTF does the FEC and the Disclose Act have to do with it? Seriously??? THEY call it net neutrality, but if you're paying attention, there's a lot more to this than your simplistic WIKI-understanding of it. If anyone is keeping up with everything, you're looking like a total moron here.
The article you posted to begin this thread, was completely suggesting that Net neutrality means that Obama is trying to censor the internet. No actually, it's not suggesting, it flat out said it.
Apparently the US government thinks bloggers are becoming a public hazard, and like a few other industries (i.e. airplanes, banks and nuclear power plants) need to be regulated by the government
Unless the government is dealing with slander, a terrorist threat or a pay per post scandal they shouldn’t bother regulating the blogosphere as that could result in a political backlash (not to mention an provide an incentive to host ones content over seas).
By the way, with all of the hype about net neutrality, you should realize that in most cases this is really just a router configuration at the ISP that uses the QoS protocol. By reprioritizing certain types of traffic that flows on different TCP/IP ports, you can improve the overall quality of data communications. In certain scenarios, those bad awful ISP companies are prioritizing subnets in their network architecture. Joe HomeUser might be established on a lower priority subnet than Fortune Company. Joe HomeUser pays $19.95 a month, while Fortune Company pays $5,000 per month. Your simpleton definition of net neutrality would give Joe HomeUser the same level of performance and service as Fortune Company. I don't believe that the government should have a say in that. It's not their place, and if you think it is, you're just supporting another Socialist policy. Done...
That's simply not correct. At this point I'm beating a dead horse, but Net Neutrality exists to prevent exactly the behavior described here, not to be guilty of it. These blogs and Fox News correspondents, and you yourself in this thread are intentionally (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) misinforming the public on what this is all about.
As for your obsession over the FEC's involvement in this: I really don't even understand what that article is suggesting. The FEC is some big brother 1984 Government agency that is trying to regulate the Internet? Actually, their sole existence is to prevent major corporations from funding politicians and to enforce campaign finance laws. For example, if an ISP decides they want to allot more bandwidth to moveon.org than they do foxnews.com -- which by the way, you being the conspiracy theorist you are should certainly realize that this is the more likely scenario than the opposite -- , there are currently no laws to prevent this. The FEC, and certainly the policy of Net Neutrality wants to prevent this from happening.
One more attempt at getting you, or anyone else, to understand...
This is site is owned by an author who has written many books on the subject referenced in the link. I won't post the whole thing, but seriously, read it all. Not just GarMan, but anyone who still may agree with him.
http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html (http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html)
-
So, what about other forms of communications? Should all cell phone services be the same from provider-to-provider? Should texting be free? Should data services on cell phones be free? I mean, if you're going to regulate ISP services that way, why not extend this same form of regulation to other industries?
Do you think before you type this crap?
If you want my true opinion, yeah, texting should be free with a data plan. It's another example of these companies like AT&T & Verizon squeezing blood from the turnip that is their customer's wallets.
They can charge a half a cent per kb for a data plan, yet text messages cost $.99? In other words, they're price gouging by 200%.
But I wouldn't suggest that this be regulated by a government agency. It just irritates me.
Allow me to evoke the Fox News chick from the clip I posted, when she thought net neutrality meant the exact opposite of what it does, but just knew that Obama was in favor of it, so it must be bad.
"The internet was born of this, sort of, free thinking, unregulated mindset".
-
The article you posted to begin this thread, was completely suggesting that Net neutrality means that Obama is trying to censor the internet. No actually, it's not suggesting, it flat out said it.
That's right. It did.
Unless the government is dealing with slander, a terrorist threat or a pay per post scandal they shouldn’t bother regulating the blogosphere as that could result in a political backlash (not to mention an provide an incentive to host ones content over seas).
Really? Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine?
That's simply not correct. At this point I'm beating a dead horse, but Net Neutrality exists to prevent exactly the behavior described here, not to be guilty of it. These blogs and Fox News correspondents, and you yourself in this thread are intentionally (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) misinforming the public on what this is all about.
This is amazing. You're just not going to accept the fact that you're wrong here. Do you not even realize that one of the authors of the second article is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission? He's warning us of what's coming. You're trying to say that he's wrong. You're so arrogant, you actually believe that you know better than him. Unbelievable...
As for your obsession over the FEC's involvement in this: I really don't even understand what that article is suggesting. The FEC is some big brother 1984 Government agency that is trying to regulate the Internet? Actually, their sole existence is to prevent major corporations from funding politicians and to enforce campaign finance laws. For example, if an ISP decides they want to allot more bandwidth to moveon.org than they do foxnews.com -- which by the way, you being the conspiracy theorist you are should certainly realize that this is the more likely scenario than the opposite -- , there are currently no laws to prevent this. The FEC, and certainly the policy of Net Neutrality wants to prevent this from happening.
You had it right for a second, but then, you got all kooky on us.
One more attempt at getting you, or anyone else, to understand...
This is site is owned by an author who has written many books on the subject referenced in the link. I won't post the whole thing, but seriously, read it all. Not just GarMan, but anyone who still may agree with him.
http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html (http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html)
So, you're still trying to say that I'm wrong. You can tell that the explanations have been dumbed down and simplified for non-technical people to understand. Note the following explanation...
Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally. This allows the network to carry every form of information and support every kind of application. The principle suggests that information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized – when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and future. (For people who know more about network design, what is just described is similar to the "end-to-end" design principle).
How is that ANY different from...
...in most cases this is really just a router configuration at the ISP that uses the QoS protocol. By reprioritizing certain types of traffic that flows on different TCP/IP ports, you can improve the overall quality of data communications. In certain scenarios, those bad awful ISP companies are prioritizing subnets in their network architecture. Joe HomeUser might be established on a lower priority subnet than Fortune Company. Joe HomeUser pays $19.95 a month, while Fortune Company pays $5,000 per month. Your simpleton definition of net neutrality would give Joe HomeUser the same level of performance and service as Fortune Company. I don't believe that the government should have a say in that.
I know that you're still going to argue this because you're never wrong and you always know better than everybody else, but I explained it correctly. You're more a part of the conspiracy fringe thinking that those bad awful ISPs are gonna unfairly control the InterWebz. In reality, they're just trying to provide specialized services for their customers.
Just to clarify again... If a company pays $3k per month for their Internet connectivity and you only pay $50 per month for your connectivity, should you both really be entitled to the same level of service?
-
If you want my true opinion, yeah, texting should be free with a data plan. It's another example of these companies like AT&T & Verizon squeezing blood from the turnip that is their customer's wallets.
They can charge a half a cent per kb for a data plan, yet text messages cost $.99? In other words, they're price gouging by 200%.
But I wouldn't suggest that this be regulated by a government agency. It just irritates me.
Oh... My bad... I didn't realize that you also had an advanced degree in telecommunications. You must have something like 15 PhDs now, and you're only 29. Truly amazing... By the way, I'm sure that you already know this too, but text messages and data are managed differently, require different hardware and even have different data requirements. It's not like open IRC over teh InterWebz. (I used another acronym there, but since you're omnipotent, there's no need to explain further.) Of course, different products, different services, different support requirements, different support costs... That's probably why they don't cost the same, but I understand the anti-capitalist agenda here. Those evil corporations are ripping you off, because you say so. Talk about conspiracy freaks...
Allow me to evoke the Fox News chick from the clip I posted, when she thought net neutrality meant the exact opposite of what it does, but just knew that Obama was in favor of it, so it must be bad.
"The internet was born of this, sort of, free thinking, unregulated mindset".
I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone drinks the Kool-Aid accepting everything that our White Masters tell us. But hey, whatever blows your skirt up...
-
Oh... My bad... I didn't realize that you also had an advanced degree in telecommunications. You must have something like 15 PhDs now, and you're only 29. Truly amazing...
You're confusing me with someone else that doesn't post here any more.
I've got one degree. Management of Information Systems from Auburn University.
And I'm 27.
-
You're confusing me with someone else that doesn't post here any more.
I've got one degree. Management of Information Systems from Auburn University.
And I'm 27.
People are scared of me!!!