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

145791019

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 376
    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".


     

    Isn't the thread supposed to be locked after a Godwin?

  • Reply 122 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member

    "FCC approves tough net neutrality rules amid sharp partisan debate"

     

    I can't believe that the LA Times editor would allow such an ad hominem headline! Clearly, they are implying that the FCC members opposed to the decision cannot think for themselves...

  • Reply 123 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    LOL. You realize who makes up the FCC, right? Comcast and Verizon employees. Their resistance is a farce.

     

    The internet was open prior to this afternoon. You lived in some kind of dreamworld of your own making if you thought otherwise.


     

    A) You would think, following your logic, that former Comcast and Verizon employees wouldn't have let this particular issue get this far.

     

    and

     

    B) I'm not sure why this is being implied, but I don't think anyone disagrees that the internet was "open" prior to this ruling, only that the ruling was to ensure that it stays that way. You can thank Verizon for suing the FCC (you know, their 'former employees'), and forcing it to get this far.

  • Reply 124 of 376
    mrshow wrote: »
    Here come the astroturfing trolls and Obama haters.

    Here come the anti-free market big government apologists.
  • Reply 125 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 648member
    echosonic wrote: »

    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

    Really? You are that paranoid? I can guarantee it from a practical standpoint. If a license were ever required people would just have their site hosted overseas. Any more nutty theories that you care to share?
  • Reply 126 of 376
    So, again, you have no reply whatsoever to what I have presented already.

    Good to know. Now why should anyone listen to you?

    This ruling is the opposite of a little government

    You said again, but this was my first response. You said I had no reply, but I answered your only question. Now I'm convinced that you're not here for a reason. You just want to annoy people that don't agree with you. I will make a bet that you'll be doing this the rest of your life. :(

    Your last sentence said this was the opposite of a little government. I think it has the potential to let the government have more control, but this ruling alone won't change much. And also, the government already had control of the Internet before this, and they were already censoring it. By censoring it, I mean censoring it A LOT. The only difference here is that the government can tell people besides them self to stop censoring it. So, less censorship.
  • Reply 127 of 376
    mrshow wrote: »

    Funny how the guy who thinks we live in a dictatorship doesn't want to hear dissenting opinions.

    TheWhiteFalcon isn't the government. Blocking someone isn't the same as censorship.
  • Reply 128 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    Your proof is to post a government talking point...are you Tom Wheeler?




    Umm it's not a government talking point.

     

    Cable communications are regulated under Title VI  and radio and television are regulated under Title III. Todays ruling was about placing ISPs under Title II.

  • Reply 129 of 376
    Here come the anti-free market big government apologists.

    How do you have free markets when the only players in the market can be a handful of conglomerations? Without a level field of regulation where municipalities and private entities can compete for my money will I ever maximize my bargaining at the table.
  • Reply 130 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Here come the anti-free market big government apologists.



    Point to one truly "free market" on the planet.

  • Reply 131 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member

    Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations more credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

     

    Just so everyone's clear as to what is likely going on in this forum and many others across the internet in response to todays ruling.

  • Reply 132 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

     

    Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations more credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

     

    Just so everyone's clear as to what is likely going on in this forum and many others across the internet in response to todays ruling.




    Thanks for letting us know what we'd already figured out about you. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

    Because clearly, little old me with nearly 2000 posts over almost a year is here to astroturf, vs little old you with less than 100 posts who seems remarkably dedicated about repeating talking points.

  • Reply 133 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 648member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    Thanks for letting us know what we'd already figured out about you. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

    Because clearly, little old me with nearly 2000 posts over almost a year is here to astroturf, vs little old you with less than 100 posts who seems remarkably dedicated about repeating talking points.




    Actually you, with nearly 2000 posts in almost a year, would be the more likely astroturfing candidate. With so many posts in so little time, posting must be a full-time job for you.

  • Reply 134 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    Thanks for letting us know what we'd already figured out about you. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

    Because clearly, little old me with nearly 2000 posts over almost a year is here to astroturf, vs little old you with less than 100 posts who seems remarkably dedicated about repeating talking points.




    Your ilk doesn't do any research before posting. You can clearly see that I've been a member since 2002. Just because I haven't posted much in the past doesn't mean my opinion now matters less. The public at large is clearly behind net neutrality, so the term astrofurfing wouldn't apply. I also didn't mean to insinuate that all anti-net neutrality posters are astroturfers. Clearly you are just an anti-Obama loon.

  • Reply 135 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Well, this.

     

     I find a certain degree of irony in entrusting the FCC to uphold freedom of speech on the internet.



    The same FCC that fines radio stations $100,000 every time someone utters a curse word.

    The same FCC that censors television.

    The same FCC that has been slapped down OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER again by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.

    The same FCC that is refusing to allow the public to even SEE these regulations - that are so good for you and I - until AFTER they have been passed

    The same FCC that is staffed by a laundry list of former Comcast and media execs.

    What could possibly go wrong?




    It's the big font again ... ... oh no!!

  • Reply 136 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

     

    Astroturfing...


     

    Nah - I think it's just mainly about people's politics (although that's an awful, awful, ad hominem-y thing to say).

     

    Fortunately, I think common sense is winning out, though (- oh shoot, there I go again!)

  • Reply 137 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member


    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

    Nah - I think it's just mainly about people's politics (although that's an awful, awful, ad hominem-y thing to say).

     


     

    Yeah I think you're right.

     

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

    Fortunately, I think common sense is winning out, though (- oh shoot, there I go again!)


     

    I don't know, the ignorance is relentless.

  • Reply 138 of 376
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post



    Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.

    Of course, there will be, Mr. Smart Guy.

     

    Why don't you, as "an attorney who practices administrative law for a living" tell us what that "cacophony of unexpected consequences" will be, instead of making a platitudinous statement?

     

    Or is it just a "beware of the boogeyman" comment?

  • Reply 139 of 376

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

    I've posted this several times already.

     

    Good for ’this’. Posting it a bunch of times doesn’t make it true.

     

    Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

    You said again, but this was my first response.

     

    Sorry; the other guy, then.

     

    You said I had no reply, but I answered your only question. Now I'm convinced that you're not here for a reason. You just want to annoy people that don't agree with you. I will make a bet that you'll be doing this the rest of your life. image


     

    Okay, enjoy your delusions.

     

    I think it has the potential to let the government have more control, but this ruling alone won't change much. 


     

    Changes everything. Otherwise why would it have been so “crucial” to push?

     

    And also, the government already had control of the Internet before this, and they were already censoring it. By censoring it, I mean censoring it A LOT.


     

    And so you’re okay with doing it more?

     

    The only difference here is that the government can tell people besides them self to stop censoring it.


     

    That’s the opposite of what they just got the power to do.

     

    So, less censorship.


     

    Definitionally more.

     

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

    Just so everyone's clear as to what is likely going on in this forum and many others across the internet in response to todays ruling.


     

    Namely you.

     

    Originally Posted by Sociable Weaver View Post

    It's the big font again ... ... oh no!!

     

    Good to know you disagree with reality.

  • Reply 140 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Good for ’this’. Posting it a bunch of times doesn’t make it true.

     

     

    Sorry; the other guy, then.

     

    Okay, enjoy your delusions.

     

    Changes everything. Otherwise why would it have been so “crucial” to push?

     

    And so you’re okay with doing it more?

     

    That’s the opposite of what they just got the power to do.

     

    Definitionally more.

     

     

    Namely you.

     

     

    Good to know you disagree with reality.




    Ha ha good to know you can balance many chips on your shoulder.  You really do post utter tripe.

Sign In or Register to comment.