Net Neutrality Survives
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
MarkCharles
Trustworthy Newbie
Much as I'd love to believe Net Neutrality is possible, I don't. It's against everything every type of government stands for - symmetrical information. Maybe I'm just cynical (and in a position to know) but those politicians that support Net Neutrality just posture for position and would fuck a pigeon if it flew through the window.
The best we can hope for is that governments composed of technically stupid people will (continue to) stall complete control of the 'tubes, for a while. I suspect George Orwell's vision of the future being a boot stamping on your face forever will become a reality.
Nice sig. Mark Twain and Bill Hicks expressed similar sentiments.
The best we can hope for is that governments composed of technically stupid people will (continue to) stall complete control of the 'tubes, for a while. I suspect George Orwell's vision of the future being a boot stamping on your face forever will become a reality.
Nice sig. Mark Twain and Bill Hicks expressed similar sentiments.
Fucking Whew.
Remind me sometime to go back through all the threads around here that we had drumming up support against that bill and see which right-wingers were shouting the loudest against it...
Sure hope Hellboy, Ar Scion, & REIMarketing piped up against it... Be funny as hell to know that Democrats saved their ass!
Remind me sometime to go back through all the threads around here that we had drumming up support against that bill and see which right-wingers were shouting the loudest against it...
Sure hope Hellboy, Ar Scion, & REIMarketing piped up against it... Be funny as hell to know that Democrats saved their ass!
All this does is show how fucking confusing the whole thing is. I was for it, against it, for it, against it.
I still have no idea what's going on, but I heard facebook/google/amazon/netflix supported the bill, and verizon/comcast were against it. Based on that lineup, i'm supporting it.
From what I hear, our best bet longterm is that WiFi stays unregulated. The government wants to auction off TV bands: Yochai Benkler: Selling Our Wireless Future
I still have no idea what's going on, but I heard facebook/google/amazon/netflix supported the bill, and verizon/comcast were against it. Based on that lineup, i'm supporting it.
From what I hear, our best bet longterm is that WiFi stays unregulated. The government wants to auction off TV bands: Yochai Benkler: Selling Our Wireless Future
net neutrality lets the government regulate the content that is provided, as opposed to the free market. I do trust Comcast more than Obama and if they censor/limit stuff I want to download, I have options.
"net neutrality" sounds as harmless and peaceful as "the patriot act"
lol@voters
"net neutrality" sounds as harmless and peaceful as "the patriot act"
lol@voters
And remind me sometime to find 4,000 posts where Luke pretends to be a Libertarian and stand for private entities making their own decisions as what to offer their customers, not the Democratic Party and the Federal Government. Its a trojan horse for regulating the internet and if you think that is going to end well for affiliate marketers, you are hopelessly ignorant about the history of government intervention.
When the last time i have looked at this whole "net neutrality" topic, i remember that essentially one side was claiming that they want to preserve "net neutrality" and the other that there never was a "net neutrality" in the first place. Obviously one side was lying. So, i did some research and concluded that there never really was a "net neutrality". In other words, the gov does not want the internet as it always was and they want enforce their own rules and regulations.
+1
If a private company decides to censor you, you can move your business elsewhere. If the government decides to censor you...
Lemme get this shit straight...
You three lemmings believe somehow that the defeat of this bill would have allowed the net to be MORE FREE overall????
:arcadefreak:
:throwup:
:censure:
I'd rather the free market prevail overall, but in the case of our CURRENT internet laws, which are reminiscent of the wild west and Anarchy despite some sneaky government interference under the surface, this bill failing would have allowed a whole new level of control, by the corps that have been so far held in check.
Yes, the guv is likely doing some sneaky shit right now, I have no doubt whatsoever. For all I know they are reading this thread in real time and putting some of you on their "list" for going against america...
But if the corps add their evil to the net too at this point, why do you think the government will remove theirs?
It won't. Both evils, Gov & Corp, will be controlling your internet connection at the same time. Double Whammy.
Chinese citizens will start laughing at us at that point... They've only got Gov control...
The OPs Link said:
Bottom line: Read about the bill. It is HOLDING OUR FREEDOMS IN PLACE. -It stops ISPs like Comcast from doing unfair things like slowing down the internet connection to reporters around a particular event on purpose.
I haven't read it all and if anyone knows what extra power it grants the government; I'd love to hear about it. But so far, it's been nothing short of the first and only extension of the first amendment onto the net.
The first amendment is still a good thing, don't you guys agree? True, if we had full anarchy we wouldn't need any first amendment, but since full anarchy is as likely to happen as free unicorns then I'm going to keep appreciating our freedom of speech.
Nothing like a solution in search of a hypothetical problem.
You might want to read the first amendment sometime it really has no bearing on this case except as an argument for more Govt control and if you really think that is going to end well then well you are delusional at best.
Look at the companies backing this, do you really think they give a rats ass about any kind of political speech? They are all in the business of selling content (do a search for how much US bandwidth netflix sucks up) and forcing other companies to pay for the roads they deliver on. Here is another area of research for you. This type of thing was tried before (back in the 90's I believe) The Govt decided that the companies that were building infrastructure had to share what they were building. Those companies were basically told that after spending/risking billions of dollars that they were going to be forced to share with anybody and everybody. Freedom and fairness for all. Except for one point, why would anybody risk all that capital under those circumstances? Result a big slowdown in infrastructure investment.
This has nothing to do with free speech or any other high minded ideals other than a selling point by politicians that want more control over your life which you have obviously swallowed hook line and sinker. This is nothing more than one set of businesses getting something free from another set of businesses by using the Govt to steal it for them.
The real lemmings are people like you that buy this crap from people who lie to us every single day for the single purpose of adding more control over our lives.
My prediction is in a few years when this get ugly and goes in a bad direction people like you will be crying "but it was not suppose to be used like that" and you will conveniently forget that you were warned. This is how it always works, every single time.......Give the Govt the power over something and it always gets warped from the original "good" intent. EVERY SINGLE TIME.................
You might want to read the first amendment sometime it really has no bearing on this case except as an argument for more Govt control and if you really think that is going to end well then well you are delusional at best.
Look at the companies backing this, do you really think they give a rats ass about any kind of political speech? They are all in the business of selling content (do a search for how much US bandwidth netflix sucks up) and forcing other companies to pay for the roads they deliver on. Here is another area of research for you. This type of thing was tried before (back in the 90's I believe) The Govt decided that the companies that were building infrastructure had to share what they were building. Those companies were basically told that after spending/risking billions of dollars that they were going to be forced to share with anybody and everybody. Freedom and fairness for all. Except for one point, why would anybody risk all that capital under those circumstances? Result a big slowdown in infrastructure investment.
This has nothing to do with free speech or any other high minded ideals other than a selling point by politicians that want more control over your life which you have obviously swallowed hook line and sinker. This is nothing more than one set of businesses getting something free from another set of businesses by using the Govt to steal it for them.
The real lemmings are people like you that buy this crap from people who lie to us every single day for the single purpose of adding more control over our lives.
My prediction is in a few years when this get ugly and goes in a bad direction people like you will be crying "but it was not suppose to be used like that" and you will conveniently forget that you were warned. This is how it always works, every single time.......Give the Govt the power over something and it always gets warped from the original "good" intent. EVERY SINGLE TIME.................
WRONG, with your analogy, these people already paid for the privilige of being "on" the road, the road owners should not have the ability to dictate where people can and cannot go by blocking a particular intersection, even if the road they choose lead to a whorehouse.
They'll just sneak it in with some other bill.
It's a tricky issue, but even RP has softened his stance on net neutrality. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I tend to agree that less govt intervention and more free market solutions are better, especially since these laws are developed at the hands of lobbyists who have their own interests.
You might want to improve that whole reading comprehension thing. The 90's law had nothing to do with paying customers the infrastructure law was designed to give equal access to competitors.....
So if I was a phone company and invested millions or even billions in investing in a nice fat pipeline so that I can give my customers better dsl I would have been required to let all the other companies sell dsl on my lines at a very low cost. Companies invest money to get a return, why would any of them invest in an expensive undertaking if all their competitors could sell what they built. Most said no and it set back infrastructure investment years.
Would you bother buying a bunch of tools like xrumer and scrapebox and setting up a nice server if you had to give all the other link sellers on the forum equal access? Why bother when you could just wait for someone else to spend the money?
What you are going to see with this new ruling if it stands up in court is internet providers will move from billing for pipe size to billing for bandwidth usage. Take a look at satellite internet pricing for a glimpse of what is to come. If you really think this will help consumers in any way your are extremely misguided. Want to download or stream movies? No problem just be prepared for your bill to go way up.
If the internet providers are not allowed to manage the flow of traffic on their systems they will either need to raise money to upgrade (see higher prices) or reduce demand for high bandwidth applications (again see higher prices). Either way the days of cheap streaming of movies and music will go away.
Any of you that really think the Govt is looking out for you with any of these new internet rules, bills and laws should do some serious reading.
Here are a few places to start.
DOJ want to make breaking a sites TOS a felony Now is this really the direction you think your Govt should be going? Lie to a website or break the TOS and you are committing a felony.
Lets tax new sites to rescue newspapers
Having the Govt control Internet Content PDF
The third way proposal by the FCC PDF
I found the above in a couple of minutes and I have not even mentioned any of the "tinfoil hat" conspiracy stuff.
Sorry but I do not want the Govt trying to save me from those big bad evil internet companies. The real one to fear here is the Govt.
Ron and I don't see eye to eye on a few things so I'm not worried about conflicting views at all. Here's his record
I don't see forcing companies to charge equally for different levels of consumption as a good thing. This is government regulation, plain and simple.
do you find yourself agreeing with Noam Chomsky regularly?
The only thing Hypothetical about these problems is that hypothetically people like you aren't smart enough to see them happening around you on a daily basis!
Take OWS for instance... This shit with Mayor Bloomberg limiting the 3G/4G wifi service today as they cleaned out Zucatti park is a perfect example.
If NYC can do it, then the ISPs could have done it too had they had reason to do so, such as in times of an Anti-ISP merger protest, for instance.
No other law allows a freedom of speech without persecution.
If you feel that you might somehow "speak" on the internet, then the 1st amendment is what we have to work with, period.
Yes. Big companies who can afford to buy off politicians usually prefer for you to vote for their guy to keep him/her in office.
If you don't think big corps own all of our lawmakers then it is you friend that are delusional at best.
I see that happen all the time, but I feel more free with the gov interference on this particular issue... Because it is the government (Ironically) requiring a freedom, and that's not done often.
Had to look that one up... Interesting figure; considering yourself a "liberal Anarchist" is kinda hard for me to wrap my head around... You'd think the love of state law would interfere fundamentally with the want of the states' demolition; but of course that was your point here, wasn't it?
No, as far as I know I only would agree with this on the major constitutional freedom rights such as freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion, all of which I feel Ron Paul would 100% agree with me on.
As I said above, I haven't read the bill in its' entirety and there of course could be some sneaky shit in there, but so far all I have found is very pro-free-speech and constitutional.
Please point me to a part where it interferes with the constitution and I'm all ears and happy to change my viewpoint.
I know nobody can be totally labeled or painted with the same brush, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your viewpoints because if you can't see the below is a gov't abuse of power and not private entities I'm not sure I can help you.
make sense?
I've not read it the whole thing either and am more of a hard nosed common sense guy than a constitutionalist (For instance: I think it should self dissolve every generation .. a "forced revolution"). I see this as a government regulating something that's not broken, and due to frequent the unforeseen consequences of gov't meddling, they end up creating the same problem they hoped to have fixed. I've got examples of this for days
I'm really going to be a stubborn ass about them getting into the only true free market left on the planet. bank on it