FCC votes to enforce net neutrality by regulating ISPs, unleashes municipal broadband

1235719

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     



    And yet, not a single person has responded to my real arguments. Other real arguments made by others here have been equally ignored or gainsaid. (For example, the government's proven use of the IRS to suppress political enemies, NSA spying, etc.)

     

    Reverting to name calling indicates that there is no counter-argument.




    I'm sorry I must've missed the real arguments. Would you mind reposting with sources?

     

    It wasn't proven the government used the IRS to suppress political enemies. If it had been proven, people would've went to jail.

  • Reply 82 of 376
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member
    echosonic wrote: »
    Step 1: FCC takes control over internet
    Step 2: FCC enacts new internet access taxes to fund FCCs unlawful takeover and monitoring of the internet
    Step 3: FCC begins enacting regulations that control what you can and can not say on the internet.
    Step 4: FCC rules that you obtain an FCC permit to create websites
    Step 5: FCC shuts down any website that FCC does not approve of, to shift according to which political party is in power.

    Never, ever, ever trust your government.  If you do, you are a fool, and on the fast track to servitude.

    With that kind of dumb logic the only recourse is revolution. Then you just have a new government to battle.
  • Reply 83 of 376
    mrshow wrote: »
    <em style="color:rgb(24,24,24);line-height:1.4em;">Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.</em>

    <p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-top:8px;">As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.</p>

    Hey - don't post facts here!!!!

    I think it's funny that the Internet companies were charging content companies to give content over their network to the people who paid for them to deliver the content.
  • Reply 84 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mehran View Post

     



    I don't quite see it that way.  I believe this is more about ensuring ISPs cannot double charge content providers.  If I as a consumer pay for 50GB then I should be free to access the internet as I wish including (just for an example) say Netflix.  ISP's charing NetFlix more to use the bandwidth I have already paid for MEANS NetFlix will have to increase their prices to offset that cost (i.e. consumers will pay more) which means I end up paying twice for the same bandwidth.  It also means new businesses and startups will have a bigger barrier to get started.  Lastly, I don;t see why should ISP's want a share of the profit made by Netflix's (and all other successful internet service providers') success.




    Who pays for the cables, equipment, and manpower to install and maintain them necessary to carry that 50GB? Do they simply appear out of thin air? Do you think you paid the entire cost for that with your monthly bill? Do you suppose the cost to carry 50 petabytes is linear?

     

    Do you think video data should be transmitted at exactly the same speed as file downloads when both are running simultaneously? (Look up QoS—quality of service—in networking.) Do you contend there is never a legitimate reason for ISPs to throttle or manage data being transmitted? Can you define what those reasons are in legal detail? Can a company best meet customers' needs under changing conditions if they have to first run through the legal maze before they can adjust their data management practices?

  • Reply 85 of 376
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

     



    I'm sorry I must've missed the real arguments. Would you mind reposting with sources?

     

    It wasn't proven the government used the IRS to suppress political enemies. If it had been proven, people would've went to jail.




    They ADMITTED it!

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/

     

    As for the arguments, go back and read for comprehension.

  • Reply 86 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

     



    Wrong. Fines for the *** word only apply to publicly licensed airwaves, i.e. broadcast radio and TV. The same standards to not apply to cable networks or satellite TV. Turn off Fox sometime and get some really fair and balanced information. Not the O'Really factor stuff.




    Sure, sure Einstein, and you can guarantee that the FCC won't ever require a license to build a website or post a blog, right?  Yeah, thought so.  Geniuses, all of you. /sarcasm

  • Reply 87 of 376
    Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

    This is a great victory for the American people despite overwhelming odds against us.



    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

    The little guy, future tech startups, and freedom won today. 




    Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

    You can't push the American people too far, we fight back.




    Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

    Freedom on the internet remains a reality!


     

    The most depressing thing about this isn’t the ruling. It’s that people have been deluded into thinking the ruling is the opposite of what it is.

     

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

    ROFLOL - so we are supposed to listen to you because you are an attorney????

     

    No; you listen because he’s right.

     

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

    Then you just have a new government…

     

    Yeah, that has never, ever worked out in the past¡

     

    Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post


    …the founding fathers tried to create a country with too little govt and it backfired…


     

    And so your delusion is that control by the government of today is on par with control by the government of the founding?

     

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

    It wasn't proven the government used the IRS to suppress political enemies.

     

    Oh, good to know we can completely ignore everything you say now.

  • Reply 88 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     



    "I suspect that most of the opposition here is related to that last guy (or possibly, financial relationships to the folks in the middle paragraph)."

     

    This statement disallows principled objections leaving only "incapable of thinking," and "financial relationships" = paid shill.

     

    You absolutely said that. Now own it.


     

    I'm not sure why you consider this an invalid argument. On the one hand, many people I respect and have objective reasons for thinking are smart (like Tim-Berners-Lee, and Vint Cerf) support Net Neutrality, as well as a broad range of technology companies I respect and admire. On the other side, there are a handful of conservative think-tanks that oppose it, as well as the companies that stand to make bigger profits off of delivering and charging for internet service as they see fit.

     

    From this basis of support, I come to the conclusion that many of the people that are most strongly opposed to it are probably opposed on political grounds (or possibly, because their income is somehow related to it).

     

    If that's an ad hominem argument, I guess I'm guilty. But I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going on, and I find it...amusing, I guess...that conservatives, in my experience, tend toward frequent name-calling (and/or false characterizations) online, but are the first to raise a hoary "ad hominem" complaint when folks disagree with them, even if for entirely logical reasons.

  • Reply 89 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     



    They ADMITTED it!

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/read-the-inspector-general-report-on-the-irs-scandal/

     

    As for the arguments, go back and read for comprehension.


     

    The evidence available so far indicates IRS employees behaved poorly but did so in a silo; it was not reflective of corruption from the White House or external forces.

     

    http://goo.gl/sovDWf

  • Reply 90 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

     

    If that's an ad hominem argument, I guess I'm guilty. But I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going on, and I find it...amusing, I guess...that conservatives, in my experience, tend toward frequent name-calling (and/or false characterizations) online, but are the first to raise a hoary "ad hominem" complaint when folks disagree with them, even if for entirely logical reasons.


     

    So instead of going back and dealing with the specific arguments, you just keep the ad hominem fallacy going.

     

    Here's a hint: demonizing the "other side" is not a valid argument.

  • Reply 91 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    The most depressing thing about this isn’t the ruling. It’s that people have been deluded into thinking the ruling is the opposite of what it is.

     

     

    No; you listen because he’s right.

     

     

    Yeah, that has never, ever worked out in the past¡

     

     

    And so your delusion is that control by the government of today is on par with control by the government of the founding?

     

     

    Oh, good to know we can completely ignore everything you say now.




    No evidence or arguments. Just flippant responses.

  • Reply 92 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    Just like how they control what you can and can't say over the telephone?





    Why not just try it and see what happens and if everyone ends up better off, what's the worst that would happen? People would just have to say 'thanks Obama' and actually mean it. That can't be too hard. 

     

    The telephone isn't a public forum, its a private communication.  



    Sure, "just try it and see", because if it doesn't work out Government always gives power back once its been taken.  Like they stop collecting tolls and taxes once they have the money they need.  Your ignorance truly astounds.  I would expect an argument like this from a 3rd grader.

  • Reply 93 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     

     

    So instead of going back and dealing with the specific arguments, you just keep the ad hominem fallacy going.

     

    Here's a hint: demonizing the "other side" is not a valid argument.




    But demonizing democracy and our way of government is? 

  • Reply 94 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post





    ROFLOL - so we are supposed to listen to you because you are an attorney????



    clearly you do not even understand what he actually said.  You are knee-jerking to the fact that you sense he does not share your viewpoint. "listen to him?"  what did he instruct you to do?  What about his post wasn't spot-on?  

  • Reply 95 of 376
    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

    No evidence or arguments. Just flippant responses.



    Yeah, that’s you.

     

    Care to actually refute anything I’ve presented, then?

  • Reply 96 of 376


    The most depressing thing about this isn’t the ruling. It’s that people have been deluded into thinking the ruling is the opposite of what it is.


    No; you listen because he’s right.


    Yeah, that has never, ever worked out in the past¡


    And so your delusion is that control by the government of today is on par with control by the government of the founding?

    What is your point of being on this site? I see your comments on other tech sites, too. You seem to try to annoy people that disagree with you... all day. And if someone does agree with you, like me on occasion, i get so annoyed with your tactics that i feel like taking the opposite side. If your point is to change people's minds than you're doing it the wrong way. If you're trying to get people back for what they write, you've got a big job ahead of you.

    Anyways, I wasn't saying "control by the government of today is on par with control by the government of the founding". I was saying that we need a little government. What I gave was an example.
  • Reply 97 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Yeah, that’s you.

     

    Care to actually refute anything I’ve presented, then?




    You haven't presented anything but hot air.

  • Reply 98 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    The most depressing thing about this isn’t the ruling. It’s that people have been deluded into thinking the ruling is the opposite of what it is.

     

     


    If Hitler had promoted his new Jewish Community Centers, and offered free train rides for the whole family, he would have been about as intellectually and verbally honest as the filthy communist pigs who coined the term "Net Neutrality".

  • Reply 99 of 376
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

     
    I think it's funny that the Internet companies were charging content companies to give content over their network to the people who paid for them to deliver the content.


    The cable companies can rightfully charge twice. Once for sending and once for receiving. Everyone has to pay for bandwidth. What they should not be allowed to do is throttle the bandwidth based on the type of content. For example let's say that a movie streaming company pays their internet provider a billion dollars for the fastest speed that is technically available. All that guarantees is, that it will make it to the first peering point at that speed. Once the packets switch to another network the original sender has no more control of it.

     

    If the second network peer decides that the content offered by the movie streaming company is in competition with their own content such as on demand movies, they might decide to throttle the packets of the streaming movie company to the point that it is unwatchable, thus harming the business of the competitor. And there is no way to prove that they are doing it.

     

    For this reason I think the government should go even further and make the cable companies spin off both their internet provider services as well as their movie creative content. They can lease out their fiber to these newly spun off entities, but there needs to be a way to prevent such anti-competitive behavior. Forcing third parties to pay more for not slowing them down is like the mafia shaking down store owners for protection money to not break their knee caps and smash their merchandise. 

  • Reply 100 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

     

    If Hitler had promoted his new Jewish Community Centers, and offered free train rides for the whole family, he would have been about as intellectually and verbally honest as the filthy communist pigs who coined the term "Net Neutrality".


     

    I await EWTHeckman's inevitable rebuke to your style of argument, sir.

Sign In or Register to comment.