Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Net Neutrality is Dead
#36
Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 


Any restrictions on any part of the net for any reason?  Not for nothing, but this makes it sound like you want to be sure Big Brother isn't going to take away your kiddie porn.



Wow, ok that escalated quickly don't you think?



Surely you understand the danger and the slippery slope that comes from an organization that makes decisions on what is considered "decent" or not?



I mean, I'm not being irrationally paranoid, that is a big part of what the FCC is about.

Reply
#37

The 'free market' has been shown to sorta be good idea....but we've all been witness to what happens when it becomes unregulated.


 

Personally, if I have to choose between the government run FCC or some monolithic, privately owned corporation like Comcast to determine what I have access to over the internet, I'm going with the FCC.


Does no one remember the recent Netflix/Comcast contract disputes where Comcast purposefully slowed Netflix connectivity?



At least with the FCC, I can get in touch with my democratically elected representatives and voice my opinion....if Comcast is your only local option for high-speed internet access, do you think some Comcast board member will give a shit about "that one customer who can't download a video"?

Reply
#38
Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 


Any restrictions on any part of the net for any reason?  Not for nothing, but this makes it sound like you want to be sure Big Brother isn't going to take away your kiddie porn.


Yeah this attack might have been a little much.

Reply
#39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 


Forgive my ignorance on this, but having the FCC in charge concerns me with respect to censorship. I'm very suspicious of the reference to "legal content." Maybe it's because I've been listening to Howard Stern for almost 20 years, but I don't trust that they won't eventually try to expand their authority to "regulate content"



I would want to see it specifically stated that they are forbidden from ever trying to impose any decency or content restrictions on any part of the net for any reason. Can anyone tell me if that's being talked about or not?



It's not an unreasonable question.  The FCC's regulatory action has nothing to do with content in terms of the "content of the content," as it were.  This is about treating all data packets the same.  So that Comcast can't give preference to its Xfinity VOD service vis-a-vis Netflix or Redtube if you happen to get your internet service from Comcast.



FCC also regulates POTS (plain-old telephone service), cellular telephones, handheld radios, etc.  The reason that broadcast television and AM/FM radio have decency standards is complicated from a legal standpoint, but it primarily stems from the fact that these operators are essentially renting the airwaves from the American people and have to operate them in a manner consistent with prevailing social mores.



You'll still be able to download your porn, kiddie or otherwise.

Reply
#40
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spook View Post


You'll still be able to download your porn, kiddie or otherwise.



Everyone is so concerned with porn when all I'm really worried about is that Stormfront will remain active

Reply
#41
Quote:

Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 


Everyone is so concerned with porn when all I'm really worried about is that Stormfront will remain active



Reply
#42
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

The 'free market' has been shown to sorta be good idea....but we've all been witness to what happens when it becomes unregulated.



Personally, if I have to choose between the government run FCC or some monolithic, privately owned corporation like Comcast to determine what I have access to over the internet, I'm going with the FCC.



Does no one remember the recent Netflix/Comcast contract disputes where Comcast purposefully slowed Netflix connectivity?



At least with the FCC, I can get in touch with my democratically elected representatives and voice my opinion....if Comcast is your only local option for high-speed internet access, do you think some Comcast board member will give a shit about "that one customer who can't download a video"?



I agree with every word you typed, especially the part with how easy it is to get in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion. Which is what every mother / religious / school / political group does to get their little pocket issue taken care of.  How many shows have been cancelled or censored, how many people have lost their jobs because literally a few dozen or hundred people complained and wrote some letters?



I'm not trying to be alarmist, just raising awareness that having the FCC get involved with carries another set of concerns that should be discussed. This way people aren't caught off guard. I'd put money on that within 5 years if this going through, someone will try to put a bill in increasing the FCCs jurisdiction to start regulated decency standards.



And just to make it clear, I'm for the most part all for this. I just want to see as many protections as possible built into this from the foundation up.

Reply
#43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Yeah this attack might have been a little much.



Not an attack.   Just saying that free expression has never been absolute, online or off.  Stressing such a hard line so strongly begs a lot of "wait, even ____??" questions.



I like to think that if nothing else, my time here has shown that I do not come to throw stones at anyone else's porn preferences.

Reply
#44
Quote:

Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 


I agree with every word you typed, especially the part with how easy it is to get in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion. Which is what every mother / religious / school / political group does to get their little pocket issue taken care of.  How many shows have been cancelled or censored, how many people have lost their jobs because literally a few dozen or hundred people complained and wrote some letters?



I'm not trying to be alarmist, just raising awareness that having the FCC get involved with carries another set of concerns that should be discussed. This way people aren't caught off guard. I'd put money on that within 5 years if this going through, someone will try to put a bill in increasing the FCCs jurisdiction to start regulated decency standards.



And just to make it clear, I'm for the most part all for this. I just want to see as many protections as possible built into this from the foundation up.



If the FCC could get out of the business of regulating decency standards in the public airwaves, it would.  Trust me.

Reply
#45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spook View Post
 


If the FCC could get out of the business of regulating decency standards in the public airwaves, it would.  Trust me.



Why should I trust you? That's a serious question, do you have some sort of inside knowledge of the agency? Again, genuine question.



I work for the government, we are ALWAYS looking to expand resources and power. It's job security.

Reply
#46
Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 


Not an attack.   Just saying that free expression has never been absolute, online or off.  Stressing such a hard line so strongly begs a lot of "wait, even ____??" questions.



I like to think that if nothing else, my time here has shown that I do not come to throw stones at anyone else's porn preferences.



I don't post much, typically because I eventually have the entire community attacking me after a few days. So you'll have to excuse me being defensive since after my first post I'm accused of defending kiddie porn.



But this is the internet, with it comes hyperbole, and I did say "for any reason" so I guess you got me. I assumed some common ground of discourse. Obviously no one is talking about criminally illegal actions.



We should all know what that means, so let's move on.

Reply
#47
AMoving on: The assumption that an FCC policy ensuring net neutrality will lead directly to a de facto repeal of the First Amendment sounds very silly to me.
Reply
#48
Quote:

Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 


I agree with every word you typed, especially the part with how easy it is to get in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion. Which is what every mother / religious / school / political group does to get their little pocket issue taken care of.  How many shows have been cancelled or censored, how many people have lost their jobs because literally a few dozen or hundred people complained and wrote some letters?



While there are always going to be small pockets of ignorant and backwards thinking individuals trying to get their way...(TX school book debacle)...I'm thinking the days when a few aggravated parents demand that the word 'muslim', 'abortion', 'Beyonce', etc. not be spoken in their child's school room are waning.



IMO. this is due, ironically, to the internet. There's something to be said for internet 'activism'....I can email my representative in a shorter amount of time than it took to type all this out....whereas before, I'd have to either call and/or physically write a letter....which  many people couldn't be bothered with.



Also, don't discount the idea of public shaming. These days, a person's 'local' retrograde idiocy can be given wide exposure...instantly.


Look to the way that Rand Paul and Christie tried to walk back their vaccine stupidity. If it were 20-30 yrs ago, they would have skated on those comments.

Reply
#49

I work for the public sector (AKA "Government")  - our state level officials are trying to destroy the social infrastructure and auctioning off essential services to whoever sneaks them enough money, while also lowering taxes and getting re-elected.  If not a single fucking thing in the community works, but is "privatised," this is somehow better than anything working ever.  This is how pretty much how every red state in the nation operates, and middle-income educated people have been heading to blue states like rats off the Titanic.  That's the plan of the telecommunications companies - to deregulate services that should be public in the first place, then charge people up the ass for essential services that they don't really deliver.  This type of thing rolls in fly-over states, but when you get to the cities full of people with money - these types of shenanigans get stopped dead.



On Friday the county level data-services where I live were "slow" while I was trying to update public info, then the fucking bank had the same issues while I'm trying to deposit checks at a local branch.  There's no way that the Feds will roll over on this, because the telecorps already try and leverage the strangle-hold that they have on society - they've soured the voting base, POTOS, and the Justice Department.  They are going to get hit hard, and soon.

Reply
#50
Quote:

Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

I don't post much, typically because I eventually have the entire community attacking me after a few days.



Did it ever occur to you that it's the content of what you post that might be the catalyst for the 'attacks'?

Reply
#51
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 


Did it ever occur to you that it's the content of what you post that might be the catalyst for the 'attacks'?



Of course it does Captain Obvious.



What's really funny is that where I'm from and on local message boards I'm usually considered a far Liberal. Then I come here and most hate me because I'm some conservative devil.



Being in the middle is sometimes exhausting.

Reply
#52
Quote:

Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 


I work for the government, we are ALWAYS looking to expand resources and power. It's job security.



Physician, heal thyself.



On a more serious note, mostly because enforcing the utterly vague indecency standards promulgated by the Supreme Court after interpreting the Federal Communications Act is a pain in the ass.  The FCC gets hauled to court all the time because the standard can only be applied unevenly.  It costs money, time and effort to defend those lawsuits.

Reply
#53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 


Of course it does Captain Obvious.



What's really funny is that where I'm from and on local message boards I'm usually considered a far Liberal. Then I come here and most hate me because I'm some conservative devil.



Being in the middle is sometimes exhausting.


Just because you are considered 'left' on those local message boards you mentioned does not necessarily mean that you are in the actual political 'middle'.

Reply
#54

Seriously?  Are we going to have a liberal dick-measuring contest now or something?



 

Reply
#55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
 

Seriously?  Are we going to have a liberal dick-measuring contest now or something?



Not at all....just a call for a bit of self reflection.


Some of the hardcore conservatives (authoritarians) I've met are/were unwilling to indulge in introspective thought.



Case in point- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3BPK8ahNPo

Reply
#56
AMy liberal dick is 3"...




...from the floor.
Reply
#57
AWhat's weird is Bradito lost his legs and was left with these 3 inch nubs.
Reply
#58

I was going to go for a Bradito is '...more Frodo than Aragorn' joke, but that works.



: )

Reply
#59
A:'(

That's the last time I steal a joke from Ron Jeremy.
Reply
#60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post



On Friday the county level data-services where I live were "slow" while I was trying to update public info, then the fucking bank had the same issues while I'm trying to deposit checks at a local branch.  There's no way that the Feds will roll over on this, because the telecorps already try and leverage the strangle-hold that they have on society - they've soured the voting base, POTOS, and the Justice Department.  They are going to get hit hard, and soon.



I know it's tacky to quote yourself, but since my last post the FCC Chair got in step with POTUS, DOJ and "smrt" voters -


http://consumerist.com/2015/02/04/fcc-ch...r-lawsuit/



I'd love to see ATT fight back against the Feds, because that worked so great when they had their assess busted up in '82.  It's all a dog and pony show anyways - the GOP knows that stopping Obamacare, Marriage Equality, and Net Neutrality is bad for business in the long-haul, so they talk a good game, do a few block plays, and then let the competition win on purpose - if they were serious they would offer serious counter-proposals instead of just blow-hard speeches and obstruction.  The Netflix paid-prioritization was too high-profile for the Feds to let slide - if the ISPs extorted Netflix, they could extort anyone for anything - including politicians.  They over-played their hand, and now it's getting slapped.

Reply
#61

This thread needs a new title because Net Neutrality is ALIVE AND KICKING!



Something else the FCC did today?



FCC Overturns State Laws that Protect ISPs from Local Competition.  Municipal wifi could be just around the corner - finally! (if your municipality does not have wifi or if it does, could now expand.



Here's a quote from the FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler:



Quote:

This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
Reply
#62

This is good news....so, I wonder who will be against this decision?



:



"Consumers, investment in state-of-the-art networks, and job creation all stand to lose from today’s heavy-handed decision."

WASHINGTON, DC – Republican Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology today responded to the FCC’s vote in favor of utility-style regulation of the Internet:



“Resorting to Great Depression-era rules will trigger a stampede to the courts, unleashing years of lawsuits and uncertainty at a time when U.S. leadership and the Internet economy are more important than ever. We believe the Internet has worked well under current rules, but we were – and we remain – willing to come to the table with legislation to answer the calls for legally sustainable consumer protections for the free and open Internet that has fostered a generation of innovation, economic growth, and global empowerment.



“Republicans, Democrats, consumer groups, and investors all agree that we need sustainable protections to preserve the Internet as we know it. A 3-2 party-line vote is not the policy consensus this issue deserves. Consumers, investment in state-of-the-art networks, and job creation all stand to lose from today’s heavy-handed decision. And transparency has all but evaporated during this broken process. Once these rules finally emerge from the shadows, it will become clear that the FCC’s action today does not end the debate.”



The above statement is attributable to every Republican member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.



<then there's a list of all the GOP members that oppose the decision>


Reply
#63

I feel like you could switch out anything relating to 'FCC decision' with 'shit Roosevelt did during the 30s' and you'd have pretty much the same thing.



Or replace it with 'anything that helps out the little guy' for the past 80 years.

Reply
#64

I have an Etsy shop and I follow Etsy on Facebook.  Etsy, naturally, is celebrating this decision and they posted a link to one of the articles. What happens?  Loons.  Loons come crying out, "government regulation is bad!"  And someone posts, "I just opened up my Etsy shop and this decision worries me..."



Are you fucking kidding me?



Artists - we're celebrating! Because so many of us are small business owners and our main outreach is the net with our portfolios/websites, online shops, and networking.  But yes, there are a few nutcases.  One told me to (on one of my posts on Facebook), "read up on this" better because this is obviously "more" Obama and government over reach.  That more regulations are around the corner and that there's no way this would "pass the judicial system.."



I replied, " 'read up on it'?  Oh, okay, I will - I'll read up on it on the now fully open and free from corporate telecoms middling, internet..."

Reply
#65

Wow, the town of Wilson NC was one of the places that stood up to the state law ... and I thought nothing good came out of Wilson NC

Reply
#66

So Trump's new FCC stooge is threatening the internet again, and this time it's serious.

Reply
#67
A[quote name="Ambler" url="/community/t/150034/net-neutrality-is-dead/60#post_4411696"]So Trump's new FCC stooge is threatening the internet again, and this time it's serious.
[/quote]

Yeah, at this point we're pretty fucked.

It's up to the courts most likely.
Reply
#68
AI guess I’ll get a small amount of satisfaction when Trump supporters find out Brietbart and InfoWars are no longer included in their base internet package, and they have to pay an additional 15 bucks a month for the Russian Puppet Propaganda Package.
Reply
#69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalyn View Post

I guess I’ll get a small amount of satisfaction when Trump supporters find out Brietbart and InfoWars are no longer included in their base internet package, and they have to pay an additional 15 bucks a month for the Russian Puppet Propaganda Package.


You kidding....in DJT's FCC those along with Fox will be the only channels allowed a broadcast license.

Reply
#70
A[quote name="Dalyn" url="/community/t/150034/net-neutrality-is-dead/60#post_4411704"]I guess I’ll get a small amount of satisfaction when Trump supporters find out Brietbart and InfoWars are no longer included in their base internet package, and they have to pay an additional 15 bucks a month for the Russian Puppet Propaganda Package.[/quote]

This is the worst effect (to me) of Trump and his administration + a GOP congress:

They've introduced so many incentives for citizens to become self-serving, non-community minded assholes Just. Like. Them.

Given the odds they're stacking against the low-income and minority/non-rural folks out there, and the complete gutting of the social safety nets + public schooling system they've undertaken, I admit to having the protective parent instinct to just say "fine, fuck you, pay me" and get as independently wealthy as possible so at least MY kid(s) will be able to go to a decent school and me and my wife can retire comfortably.

Which is NOT the solution. What's the point of MY kids being OK financially if the world they inhabit is full of shit racist people, corporate nation-states, a destroyed environment, and about 3 species of animal left?

But if I can feel those self-preservation impulses to just amass wealth and fend for ourselves, I can only imagine the systemic effect on the country's fabric these policies could have over a generation.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)