PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality stating that Internet providers need the freedom to block and throttle Internet traffic

Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality stating that Internet providers need the freedom to block and throttle Internet traffic

by 183 Comments



Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality
Internet providers need the freedom to block and throttle Internet traffic.

“Once the federal government establishes a foothold into managing how Internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, or not at all," Blackburn wrote.

head slam

Check this out on Google+

Comments

  4. P.S. The Republicans can you also get the radio stations the play some cI energy and some beastie boys and some old school LL Cool J, thank u

  6. Republicans don't care. If Obama supports it, they are automatically against it. Been 6 years now and that sad racist refrain keeps right on playing.

  12. Be careful buying into Republican Orwellian new-speak…remember the "Clear Skies Initiative", that deregulated carbon dioxide which contributes to causes of global warming… now the "Internet Freedom Act"–if anything they're at least a pack of creative assholes!

  13. +Bill Joecken
    Just got smacked with the 8th snow storm since Christmas. Thank god for global warming. I can't imagine how much snow would be piled against my front door with out it. I might not be able to get out to let my Hummer idle in the driveway, you know, so I can dump more CO2 into the air, so we can melt some of the 5 feet of snow covering my house. ¬_¬

  14. Net Neutrality will allow the Comcast/Time Warner merger to go through because the Gov will say they have control. NN will do nothing to improve quality.

  17. +Paul Spoerry
    See…….I told you all. This is what happens when you let the government stick their fat sweaty foot in the door. Now the 'other' side is going to pass something to 'fix' what they think is wrong with their opponents 'fix'. Then the Net-neutral folks will have to craft more BS to undo the damage their mortal enemies have done to their beautiful NWO (New Web Order)……..and so on and so on….. Soon the net will be as f'ed up, unmanageable, and unusable as our current medical industry.
    Never let anything you hold dear to be in any way shape or form, touched by the government. They have the anti-Midas touch. EVERYTHING they touch turns to shite. Enjoy your internet while you can kiddies. ¬_¬

  18. Everyone needs to ask themselves, what problem "Net Neutrality" is trying to solve (a great marketing name by the way).

    What I have heard is there are two "problems" being addressed by Net Neutrality.

    1. Blocking of websites and web services.

    This is a strawman if there ever was one. The only sites that I can think of that are being blocked are sites that a government requires to be blocked such as child pornography. I don't see any cases where the carriers are blocking sites or traffic except where required by law.

    2. Treat all data equally regardless of source.

    So what this seems to be saying is that my email should be given the same quality of service and priority as a video stream. Now do I really care that my email arrives 500 milliseconds later than a video packet? No. But I do care if video streaming is delayed due to network congestion because the video will become unviewable. Think about it. In the evening hours 50%+ of all traffic is video streaming (Netflix, YouTube,etc.). Shouldn't those services and consumers of those services be paying a premium for priority packet delivery? Why is that bad? Netflix should be paying for the resources it is consuming.

    If the government wants to address a real issue, they should look at the last mile connection to ensure that we have alternatives to Comcast (Time Warner, etc.) to our homes. Why is it that I only have one choice.

    Focus on the last mile and not these other non-problems.

  19. So instead of the government blocking and throttling you want to allow Comcast, et. al. to decide what you watch, when and how fast for what price – fascinating.

  20. Yep now congress and the FCC will control what we do online not to say hunt us down over what we read and say. The internet is NOT open at this moment it is Google who controls who supplies the Govt with any data on anyone same as Facebook.

  24. @Jack Stanley: Carefully read what I wrote.

    Comcast has both backbone and last mile access. What I said was the bigger problem is that there is no competition on the last mile. Fix that and prices will come down.

    @Scott Wilson: The photo is not fake. That's me at 5 years old – 60 years ago. And I have no idea who follows me. As far as being a shill, no, I work in a school district doing IT work. For many years I was in tech working for computer manufacturers and then telecom. You seem to have some anger issues for some reason. Chill out. Civil discussions are possible without name calling.

  25. +John Huck Every single one of your followers is a sockpuppet account. All one has to do is do a google image search on their profile pics. That can't be a coincidence. Your account is a fake sockpuppet shill account. You've been busted. Why lie about it?

  26. So… the republicans say net neutrality gives the government censership rights (i don't know this for a fact, i didn't and couldn't read the bill when it was being passed) but now
    The democrats say that republican bill IFA would let ISP's cesure content…. who fo you trust? Well… i for one trust the side i can sway by not giving them my money. I can't boycott government.

  29. I love how republicans are finally taking this side against the internet. For years internet freedom has been a bipartisan issue, but now it's mostly just republicans screwing things up. I'm not a democrat, but I definitely believe the republicans are doing more to damage this country than any other force at this time. It's much easier to hate them now, and to properly refer to them as "retarded" or "ignorant" in the very least.

    Seriously, though… if Obama's plan was to make republicans fight the internet by backing the internet in the FCC case… then man oh man… he deserves a standing ovation.

  31. The reality is that Net Neutrality is the consumer winning. We win under Net Neutrality. And the traitors in the republican party that hate America and attack its people don't like it.

  32. Man, I see Reynolds Aluminum sold a lot of tinfoil.
    Fuck the Repugniscum minions of corporate hegemony, and fuck anybody who thinks corporations will be fair without government regulations. The natural byproduct of capitalism is slavery. If not here, then somewhere.
    Some of you people are living in a fool's paradise.

  33. God. Hire better shills GOP. It took literally seconds to uncover all the fake accounts linked to all the other ones. You guys are pathetic.

  34. @Scott Wilson: Well despite 40 years in tech, I must be a clueless at least with respect to Google followers as I have no idea why people would be following me. I rarely post and your reception to this rare post reminds me why it is so painful to do so. I am sorry that a coherent discussion is apparently not something you are interested in..

  37. + West Kagle hey Einstein, global warming isn't about the weather in your neighborhood last week…"since the outset of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s,[34] the carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere has increased by about 34%,[35] most rapidly from about 1960 onward."

  41. This is why I'm Libertarian instead of Republican. Why would the GOP take out the non-discrimination part of the legislation when ISPs have mostly been following it since 2010.

  42. +Michael Milstead I linked all the people using your fake profile picture also. Why even bother yelling at me after you are busted? Your paid trickery won't work now. You've been exposed. Move along and find another thread where you can spread your paid advocacy that's against the consumer.

  48. +I AM Of USA Um, I have no idea what you are talking about. We have more choices now, not less. The consumer won because of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is American legislation that protects proud Americans from heathens like Comcast.

  49. +I AM Of USA
    No one actually wants their current ISP and that is a well known public fact. TWC and Comcast are well hated by most, and Comcast is king of that. Considering they throttled Netflix to blackmail them into paying extra for bandwidth that cost Comcast nothing extra.

  51. SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF FCC.

    (a) In General.–The regulations adopted by the Federal
    Communications Commission in the Report and Order in the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices (FCC 10-
    201; adopted December 21, 2010) shall have no force or effect, and the Commission may not reissue such regulations in substantially the same
    form, or issue new regulations that are substantially the same as such regulations, unless the reissued or new regulations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this
    Act.
    (b) Exception.–This section does not apply to any regulations that
    the Federal Communications Commission determines necessary–
    (1) to prevent damage to the national security of the United States;
    (2) to ensure the public safety; or
    (3) to assist or facilitate any actions taken by a Federal or State law enforcement agency."

    Nothing I love more than a short bill. Anyway, this is a good thing. The current FCC regs that this bill would nullify classify broadband as a Title II service… which was defined in 1934 and only amended in 1996. Long story short, the FCC's "net neutrality" would regulate ISP's using outdated 1996 legislation.

    To give you an idea of why the modern internet should not be regulated using 1934-96 regulations, in 1996:

    You had an AOL account.
    It took ten minutes to boot up your modem, turn on your computer, and log on.
    You didn't have an email account.
    Facebook and Twitter don't exist.
    Google was a student research project.
    Youtube didn't exist.
    Wikipedia didn't exist.
    Internet enabled smartphones and tablets didn't exist.
    McDonald's and Starbucks didn't have free wifi.
    After 30 minutes on your computer that didn't have Youtube, you turned off your modem and watched the latest episode of Seinfeld.

    American's spent an average of 30 minutes a month surfing the web. Now they spend 27 hours a month watching twerk videos on Youtube… because such a think exists in 2015, and in spite of the Internet (and Google) blissful ignorance still exists 2015.

  54. +Scott Wilson +Mince Walsh Have either one of you read the 302 pages of regulations? Of course you haven't. Because they havent even been released yet. Why are they so hesitant on releasing it? You are all shooting your loads and you haven't even seen what the FCC is imposing. But as long as there is rumor of getting even with the bad bad internet providers thats enough for the many of you to wave your pom-poms in celebration. Tell me one business where the government got their hands into that didn't end up costing more?

  59. The important thing is that Net Neutrality passed, and everyone in this thread benefited. The consumer won. We actually won one against the huge evil corporations. It's cause for celebration!

  63. +Nick Ball​ but the point is that this bill is trying to return regulation of the internet to the AOL era as an "information service" rather than accept (as even the FCC has finally done) that it is an important infrastructure element and that even minor players like retailers should be treated as common carriers.

  64. So how much money did she receive from Comcast, Verizon, etc? A judge would be expected to recuse herself after taking money from one of the parties involved in a suit. Pretty much anyone else's motives would be suspect, at best. If seems like we could and should expect at least a pretense of honesty from legislators. Even if everybody knew better, at least they could pretend to do their jobs.

  65. To assume that government not getting involved means things will be resolved just isn't the case. There is no invisible hand. Do you really believe we'd have clean (or… less polluted might be a better term) water without government involvement?

  66. +Aaron Pellowski Whoa! Ya- and I heard The Gates foundation put 100's of millions of dollars into malaria vaccines for disadvantaged kids in third world countries too- scary huh? Maybe Bill Gates is just trying to raise a zombie army!!!? Ya think!!? It hasn't happened but it could in my deluding?!! Think of the conspiracy theories…or just don't and be astute, reasonable and conscious.

  68. For the nuts screaming about Government control in the thread….

    Your roads get plowed. Your mail gets delivered. Your children get educated. Your criminals get put in jail. You get vaccinated for diseases. You have a military protecting you. You have highways and roads. You have police. You have firemen putting out fires. Your garbage gets picked up and taken away. You have WARS to watch on TV. You have an FBI and CIA. Our soldiers are being taken care of. You have a court system. You have metro/bus systems in your cities. You have street lights. You have the department of homeland security. You have a national weather service.

    That is ALL SOCIALISM. That's all the "goverment in your life".

    Now add to it the government protecting you from greedy pieces of shit like Comcast by ensuring they can't hijack your internet connection, or control what you access because of their politics.

    Then shut the fuck up.

  69. +Aaron Pellowski it is though, service providers are screwing with bandwidth allowances based on monopoly and shifty contracts with people. That is what is being regulated. You don't dismiss a bill based on what "pandora box" of stupidness and pretend bs you think it could be a gateway to the Ya idiot.
    Each idea deserves evaluation for its own sake- you have ZERO BASIS AND ZERO COHERENCE of the issue or the science it's based on. You being a dope is what republicans and cable companies that try to strangle competition hope for- you are illiterate.
    Regulations are code and laws that says companies can't cheat – particularly its consumers – it's a good thing to have.

  71. +Buffy Lyon "but the point is that this bill is trying to return regulation of the internet to the AOL era"

    No, the FCC regs do that. They reclassify broadband as a Title II service. I'm in complete agreement that "…it is an important infrastructure element and that even minor players like retailers should be treated as common carriers. " But I do not agree with the FCC's extra-executive actions that would basically take control out of the hands of ISP's and put it into the hands of the government. Need I mention the NSA to point out why someone should be hesitant of anything being put in the hands of the government?

  72. +Nick Ball Link what you are talking about. It sounds like you've been conned by some shill. The legislation doesn't do what you are claiming it does. I think you might be confusing Net Neutrality with something else. I know the paid shills have been trying to confuse it with a different bill.

    Thanks.

  76. +Scott Wilson unfortunately, although some of these government functions are useful (when they actually appear; some of that snow plowing could show up any day now) many of them are extremely "over-functioning"; most of the people put in jail aren't criminals by any reasonable stretch, the need for military protection is dubious at best (and the need for a half trillion dollars per year of it ludicrous), and we sure as hell don't need the FBI to fabricate evidence, the CIA to torture anyone, or the DHS to foul up airline and computer security as well as apparently pretty much anything else they touch.

    So it's no wonder that people like this have an audience and some support, despite being pretty much idiots, working a paid agenda, and completely misinterpreting events.

    Although the government does sometimes act in the public interest, as (at least IMHO the FCC did recently) it's an unusual event, and one that the public rightfully regards with suspicion. After all, many acts of government are just the sort of idiocy that this person is advocating, and few of them are actually in the public interest.

  79. +John Huck not sure if you are fore or against it? A certain telco has a data plan, called "sponsored data" on this plan the companies that pay more get there sites seen. Example, Reebok pays telco larger sum of money than Nike, so when someone types running shoes they go to which site? Take it even futher, they could block Nike entirely, because they didn't pay. All traffic should be equal!

  80. +H Tuttle Think bigger. It's the primaries, so one candidate has bought out all the bandwidth for an area. If you try to search for his competitor, it just spins or worse, redirects you to fake landing pages. Unethical douchebags would love that. But as a consumer, I would not.

  81. Net Neutrality is almost the definition of a law that encourages a freely competitive marketplace. If the republicans actually stood for what they claim they do, they should be all for it.
    And if they have a problem with a specific part of the rules. Or think it should explicitly apply to the government as well then they should say THAT.

    Id also point out the new rules give the government less power then it does over, say, telephones. Its a subset of those rules.
    No company can block another on phones, and now no company will be allowed to block another on the internet. To equate that to the government in any way running the internet is delusional.

  82. Right now, US police departments are being militarized. They are being handed military grade weaponry and vehicles. I'd think THAT would be a much bigger deal to a true republican.

  84. btw, regarding the not released full documented – thats normal while things are being reviewed.
    Its not good, but theres nothing special or abnormal with this process.

  85. Correction (Deregulation of the Internet to allow corporations to exploit their customers)

    Don't fall for this corporate propaganda they have no interest in you other than your wallet and how much they can get out of it.

  86. +Scott Wilson I agree I benefit from mail delivery, roads, and some other government services. And I agree that someone like this twit who wants to make all the roads 3 feet wide because she's been paid off by motorcycle manufacturers is not working in anyone's interest except that of her and her owners.

    However, I am saying that I don't benefit from much (most) of the being governed that I'm paying for, and I don't think many others feel that they are either. That's what leads to people putting credence in this sort of nonsense, and the general "if the government is for it the it must be a bad thing" thinking.

  88. n the latest election cycle, Blackburn received $25,000 from an AT&T political action committee (PAC), $20,000 from a Comcast PAC, $20,000 from a cable industry association PAC, and $15,000 from a Verizon PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics

  90. +Scott Wilson I treasure what freedoms I have left. But I'm realistic enough to realize that the greatest threats to that freedom are the local, state and Federal governments. I've seen those freedoms steadily eroding over the last six decades by the actions of these governments.

    There are arguments for and against a standing military; personally I'm in favor of maintaining such (especially the USMC, for personal reasons). But I don't see any advantage in billion dollar cost overruns on weapon systems that will never be used, for private security contracts that only result in putting service personnel at greater risk, for cost plus contracts where the more warm bodies the more paid – in short, most of what politicians have made of the military.

  91. +Buffy Lyon I can argue the military either way. I can argue a lot of things either way. But not Net Neutrality. There's no real counter argument. We don't want corporations controlling the Internet. They have a vested interest in perverting it. The government does not, and doesn't have the ability to do so.

  92. +Scott Wilson I certainly don't argue with the need for net neutrality, and I think that the FCC has really come through for the people in this case. And I certainly think that paid shills campaigning against net neutrality and the FCC ruling (as in this post) are well deserving of criticism and debunking.

    It's just that such cases of federal agencies acting in the public interest seem (to me) so rare, and that I believe that gives unwarranted credibility to this sort of attack. Not everybody can figure out every issue; and if most of what "they" want has been bad for one, one tends to react accordingly.

  93. +Buffy Lyon like most things of this nature, it's hugely complex. The people against it use arguments that don't fit because they don't have an argument that will. There is absolutely nothing from the past that you can compare to Net Neutrality. Nothing. So be wary of folks trying to make bullshit analogies. It's a popular tactic. Hell, in this thread some idiot tried to claim that it was a bad idea because of old laws. Seriously. That's the level of unethical bullshit we are dealing with.

  95. +Colt Seavers Remove the protections for consumers? Are you insane? We need protected from these greedy piece of shit corporations like Comcast. Why do you think the US is 30th in the world for broadband speeds? Why are you trying to protect a greedy corporation that fucks over Americans?

  99. +Mega Thingz Um, we KNOW they are evil They got busted being evil. We don't have to imagine it. We KNOW they can't be trusted. They've proven it. Comcast acts like a spoiled little kid, and our Government had to step in and kick their childish ass.

  101. @Scott Wilson: Wow, I see that in a later post you called me a "F%$#er". Hey, I freely admit that I am one. Thanks for the compliment. Even in my 7th decade I do it at least once a week. I never understood why people use the word in a derogatory way.

    You should try it once. I am sure you would find it enjoyable, maybe even mellow out your personality.

    That is, if you could find someone who would want to do it with you.

  103. +John Huck Why are you wasting time attacking me after you've been exposed in the thread? Go find another thread to spread your paid shill nonsense please. Fascism was soundly defeated in this one.

  106. Hahahaha +Scott Wilson your reaction was entertaining. The assumption that I am somehow "protecting" a corporation is where the real entertainment value is gathered. Ever care to think that the US is low on the internet speeds because this country is pretty fucking big?

    It feels good so you're all in, that's right scott stick it to the corporations ["man"]. Nevermind that this was the same mentality that totally fucked the dog on healthcare.

    What's next on the plate for you shit heads to fuck up? Maybe I'll join you fuckers this time

  107. +Colt Seavers China is pretty fucking big. So is Europe. How come they are kicking our asses on broadband speeds? Hmmm? Because greedy piece of shit corporations stole the money we gave them as taxpayers that was SUPPOSED to be used for expansion, and instead used it for executive bonuses. That's why. And that's why it's so bad, the Government had to step in to protect the people from these jackals.

  108. +Rodrigo Mesa The current system is NOT capitalism. It's fascism mixed with fractional reserve economics pretty much boarderline communism. Government and corporations in bed together intimately working with central banks who maintain their gurth off our combined blood as people. All feeding into two party puppetry false flag terrorism, poisoned food, water, air, and manipulation. Congratulations you just brainwashed yourself into thinking this is capitalism we live under.

  112. These "jackals" as you call them +Scott Wilson are the ones who lobbied for this kind of shit in the first place. In all seriousness pal, what is next on the plate for you people to fuck up? Inquiring minds would like to know

  113. +Colt Seavers They are just greedy pricks that aren't doing their job right. That's all. Thankfully they are now being forced to do it right. America is its people. Screwing over the people for corporate profits is attacking America. They are traitors.

  114. It is fucking hilarious how you ( +Scott Wilson) think in this childlike bubble of "corporations ["man"] vs. government when in reality the very corporations you cry about are creations of the government in the first place.

    Try starting a corporation without government… it's impossible.

    See… I can derail a conversation too

  115. +Nick Ball I think you've missed some history. Prior to 1996 internet access and the communication line to connect it were purchased from separate companies, ISPs and telcos. The latter was regulated under Title II like any other communication line. Changes to the communications act in 1996 allowed telcos to provide both parts of the service. They quickly raised line rates and discounted data in order to put those ISPs out of business (or acquire them). That was still regulated as Title II common carriage. A previous FCC ruling in 2002 classified such internet services as "information services", a classification more appropriate for services such as CompuServe or AOL, where (at least partial) transport and content were bundled. Clearly that is not the case with the internet; retail ISPs like Comcast or Verizon do not provide content or other services through the same contract as they provide content services such as voice calling or TV. That's very significant; it's clearly in their interest to impede "over the top" services like Skype or Netflix in order to increase the market for their own services like POTS and cable TV, as we've seen them do.

    The FCC recently corrected this, reclassifying internet access as a common carrier service. That doesn't prevent the cable companies from internet access, but it does mean that if you buy internet access you can used it as you like. Even when that competes with another offering from the same company.

  118. Hey dick you're the asshole who came at me with your emotional bullshit pissing and moaning about "the corporations ["man"]" and how they're soooo fucking evil. In each comment I posed a question of substance which resulted in more misguided bullshit.

    Now I'm pathetic?

    I'm just curious as to what you shit heads are going to ruin next.

  119. +Purple Dott
    Dude…….WTF are you talking about?!? The Corporations were pushing for this net neutral shite. They aren't running to the big bad 'publicans to make the scary hippies with their fair sounding legislation go away. Seriously man, you've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies. ¬_¬

  121. You mean either accept your version of what you declare to be facts or go to gulag right?

    Can you please answer my question as to what you shit heads are going to ruin next?

  124. Republicans (Hypocrites)

    I really wish we could deport them.
    I'm not saying all of them are like that but they certainly seem to go out of their way to bury themselves deeper.

  126. +Yggdrasil AE I like to find solutions that make everyone happy. So my idea was to make a fake heaven in some place nobody cares about like one of the dakotas, then we drug them and ship them to "heaven" and convince them that the rapture happened. They'll believe. They believe pretty much anything they are told. We'll just pay a fox news person to tell them they are "in heaven" when they get there.

    Then we fill up "heaven" with things they like. Guns, rascal scooters, matlock reruns. Because their average age is 67 now. No shit. On the bright side, they'll all die soon, and we can start fixing the country they fucked up.

  129. +Thomas R Ruiz Somebody asked this the other day and I came up with nothing:

    "Name one thing the republicans have done for the people in the past ten years."

    And I sat there for a while, and came up with absolutely nothing. Nothing. Everything they've done has been to benefit corporations that lobby them. They don't give a fuck about America. Just money. The Dems aren't much better, but at least they do things for us.

  130. Being tolerant and truthful don't always come hand in hand. If they do stupid shit, then they should be called on it….. don't just blame the other side for the horse shit they serve us

  131. +Yggdrasil AE
    If you'll pay for the 1st class plane fare, and the cost of me relocating to the country of my choosing, I'll gladly be 'deported'. This country has been transformed into a rotting carcass. It's only a matter of time before the propped up edifice comes tumbling down, and I would prefer to be no where near ground zero when that happens. ¬_¬

  132. Business will take over until people actually open there eyes and shut their ears to the bull that is served to them. Maybe voters should be educated before allowing them to vote as it seems that common sense really isn't so common….

  133. +Thomas R Ruiz
    ….and yet Barry does stupid shite all the time, and he never seems to be called on the carpet because we're afraid to be called racist by the PC police,……… I mean media. ¬_¬

  134. Who cares about race, but how constrained hasn't he been by republicans and then he still is blamed for their bs. Be clear that no one person is perfect and the system is so held up by political arguments

  135. +Thomas R Ruiz I'd love a true free market. That would be awesome. And it would work. But for a true free market, we'd have to do away with all the cheat codes that the 1 percent put in place to ensure their unfair advantage. Patents would have to go. They are bullshit. Patents are anti-consumer. Most licensing would have to go. The glass ceilings put in place to stop people from being able to enter industries would have to go. I should be able to drill for oil on my own land if I want, but I'm legally not allowed because of protections big oil put in place. Things like that. But again, we'll never see it. Because the people that come before us make sure. Only their friends. Only their children. Only them.

  136. "the 1%"

    Nigga that's 70 million people? Cheat codes? This ain't no fucking video game pal. The unfair advantages are there because of government not despite it. What you're calling for is deregulation which would lead to a downsizing of the very government you worship +Scott Wilson

    You lost your shit when I initially commented about dissolving the FCC, now this fucking tripe?

    Well played bruh

  137. Oh man that is stupid, problem is that we should decide what is fair. You want democracy then we should all vote on everything that concerns us. Having representatives makes us a republic and the choices are clearly not made for the majority of pwople, but some decisions since it was setup are good for all. But those cases are low……

  139. +Colt Seavers Uh, I'm thinking you are older. Like in your 60's. Because I'm using some fairly common lingo, and it's going right over your head. You also were basically agreeing with me on everything up until the very end, when you contradicted yourself by pretending I love the government I'm advocating radically changing.

    This is a monster of government situation. I'll explain. Comcast is a monster that exists because the government allowed themselves to be manipulated. Net Neutrality is us slaying that monster. Before we can fix the government, we'll have to deal with all the monsters it has spawned.

  140. +Thomas R Ruiz
    Listen…..Democracy is a good thing, however having a pure democracy as a basis for your government is foolish and reckless. Let me borrow from 2 great philosophers…..A democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, a Constitutional Republic (what we have), is like 2 wolves and a sheep with a gun deciding what's for dinner.
    …and then there's this gem:
    "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…."
    "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
    "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
    "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
    "I did," said Ford. "It is."
    "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
    "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in." 😛

  141. +Buffy Lyon "The FCC recently corrected this, reclassifying internet access as a common carrier service. That doesn't prevent the cable companies from internet access, but it does mean that if you buy internet access you can used it as you like."

    It also means the FCC has newly self-granted authorities over said internet access. At the end of the day, we can only watch as it plays out, but I put no faith in this administration or the next to regulate itself, and neither should you.

  143. +Adamlee Borchardt point taken agree with on lot of what you said…. I just think we are opening Pandora box and We the people deserve to see what's in the regulations 326 pages ? AND head of FCC refuses to speak to Congress what's in it?!?!

  145. +Nick Ball You are wildly wrong and your long and winding comparison is completely pointless as it has nothing to do with the actual application of the technology used. IPv4 was designed to carry all packets equally, with the only exceptions being made for congestion (which are compensated for, not encouraged, by other protocols on higher-level layers) Try to strap on another layer that makes decisions based on bribery, and you go against the entire spirit of the OSI model, and doing so is universally a short cut to failure.

    The actual solution to the problem we face now is actually making more competition (read: any) happen, which isn't apparently possible without going in and breaking up all the monopolists and splitting their customer base into fouths or even fifths (which is laughable). In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with the FCC regulating this, as it's specifically what they're meant to do. Perhaps if some of this money spent on lobbyists and shills were actually put back into infrastructure growth these idiots wouldn't have the congestion problems they do. Allowing the monopolists to create more congestion problems and force everyone else to pay a premium to get around them is categorically not a solution. If half the money they waste trying to bribe their way through things were spent on infrstructure, there would not be any congestion problems.

    I also find it extremely odd that you mention the time period you do, since that all happened shortly after the FCC brought this same hammer down on telephony… which is the entire reason the telephony monopolists weren't able to get a deathgrip on dialup internet by charging ludicrous extra fees for "data devices" which used the exact same service as voice connections. Perhaps this was before you were born, but there is no excuse for trying to cherry pick your way through historical facts.

    More to the point, what this woman is proposing is so in direct opposition to the reality of the situation, there really is only one logical conclusion: *Marsha Blackburn is a paid liar*.

    Note to shills: Welcome to the "social" network which is dominated by the people who actually develop and create new technolgies. Now get out.

  146. +Nick Ball "It also means the FCC has newly self-granted authorities over said internet access."

    No, just no. They've always had this authority. It's simply now becoming clear that they must exercise it to prevent further harm.

  147. Have you noticed how I've called out both +Nick Ball and +Aaron Pellowski for LYING about what Net Neutrality is about by trying to pretend a DIFFERENT BILL ENTIRELY is it? Notice they've said NOTHING because they got CAUGHT?

    That's how unethical Comcast is. Why are they telling Comcast talking points I wonder?

  148. Hahaha net neutrality is best for all. Having controlled Internet is best for providers….. wonder why comcast, verizon, att, etc are all putting in so much effort for this…..

  153. +Scott Wilson Here is a concept for you, tool bag: Maybe I didn't reply because I'm not sitting around taking in welfare checks, and I actually have a job that takes higher priority than some rant on the internet.

    In fact, this is the last time I will even acknowledge you. Unlike +Dagmar d'Surreal or +Buffy Lyon, you haven't said anything remotely intelligent or contributory to this discussion. CASE IN POINT: Comcast was one of Obama's larger backers in both elections, raising $2.2 million between the two.

    Moving on….

    +Dagmar d'Surreal "No, just no. They've always had this authority. It's simply now becoming clear that they must exercise it to prevent further harm."

    Uhm, no. They didn't. Your previous history lesson kinda touched on that. They didn't have the authority to regulate broadband under the Title II Communications Act until they reclassified broadband as a Title II service. I argue that the FCC can't do that without legislative authority, which they don't have, and I'm aware of the precedent.

    I also argue that the FCC is doing this precisely because the internet has changed dramatically since the last time these laws were updated, and clearly these laws need to be updated. Congress is absolutely at fault here, but what the FCC did is still an overreach and without subsequent legislation from congress it does more harm than good.

    Its worth noting that the FCC also updated it's benchmark speeds from 4mbps/1mbps to 25mbps/3mbps. I'm not for a minute arguing that what the FCC did was evil or anything… unlike you who seems convinced that Republicans are, indeed, evil.

  156. The Internet was made to be free and the Internet service providers are only meant and should only allow us a connection and all Web pages should only be limited by there own server capacities and not by isps…. if you like google, Facebook or any other, previously small and now large website, then you would be smart enough not to try to limit these businesses. ISP'S want to "tax" companies to allow faster flow through the Internet they provide us. That is unfair to all. If anything Internet fees should be unlimited and only limited by there speeds, not like they have been attempting to do, by capping monthly data amounts….. don't be so ignorant people stop defending the Republicans that only look out for the already wealthy….

  159. Oh my God, enough with the Koch brothers nonsense. We get it, you hate them because they have more money than you and refuse to share it with you. Spineless ingrates. Why don't you hate on someone richer… like – IDK – Bill Gates?

    Oh wait… he's liberal.

  162. The conversation has been short-circuted, ain't this grand lets fucking bicker between each other over non-existent problems while we all get fucked over and fuck each other over

    well done

  163. +Nick Ball CITIZENS UNITED IS THEIR DOING YOU NITWIT! I don't care at all that they have money, it's how they leverage their money on our democracy through corruption/lobbying and election campaigns. Buffet and Gates spend their money to help people- they created wealth for many and don't poke holes in working streams and strangle others. Koch's take, give little, inherited, and want to manipulate secular government to further do so- disgraceful and traitorous if you have a clue of what country you live in.
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?referrer=&_r=0

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
    Money isn't free speech and companies aren't people you fraudulent and/or ignorant piece.

  164. +Colt Seavers Don't get your panties in a bunch. It's not like the internet was not a free internet a week ago. The most this bill would do is reduce FCC regulations to their 2010 standards… which may or may not be a bad thing, but most certainly isn't apocalyptic.

  165. Oh my fucking God. Did you just defend the fucking Koch Brothers +Nick Ball? Are you just really fucking stupid? NOBODY LIKES THEM. NOBODY. Christ. For great fucking reasons. You should go. You should have left this thread after the first four times I owned you.

  166. I'd rather the FCC be fucking dissolved haha, it's just funny that people are so god damn reactionary like Scott above losing his shit. Should read my initial comment and scott losing his shit

    Fucking entertaining as all fuck

  171. +Nick Ball Sorry, shillboy. It's actually been the FCCs explicit purview to regulate this all along. They, not Congress, get to define which thing they oversee gets classified as what. They didn't need to deal with this before because prior to this, almost all IP providers either managed their networks properly or they failed and disappeared. Although the FCC originally considered most cable-internet providers an "integrated information service" on the basis that they were also supplying cable TV over the same wires (and not strictly TItle II common carrier) in 2002, they held then that it was possible this could change in the future and require reclassification. This went before the Supreme Court and was upheld in 2005. They very much do have the authority your corporate masters claim they lack.

  172. +Rodrigo Mesa
    …but you realize that the big bad businesses that have the biggest interest in this issue, are in favor of and desperately pushing for net neutrality.
    ….think they know something that the rest of us don't???

  173. Well according to my data, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are against Net Neutrality, which is enough for me to be for it in my book. Of course, I've heard that some people actually enjoy the cock of untrammeled corporate power shoved down their throats, because "freedom," yo.

  175. +Rodrigo Mesa Actually, I'm funny in the exact same way. I don't want buttfucked by corporations either. I wonder about the people that enjoy the anal pounding they are getting so much they want more.

  177. +Dagmar d'Surreal My corporate masters? Alright, I'm done. This is clearly on the level of Glorious Revolution for you, and you can take your bourgeoisie nonsense somewhere else and let someone more interested listen.

    "They didn't need to deal with this before because prior to this, almost all IP providers either managed their networks properly or they failed and disappeared."

    Imagine that, and your idea of a solution is to treat broadband like a good and regulate ISP's as common careers, instead of treating it like a service and building a public utility around it. No doubt because you think all business are evil and need to be heavily regulated anyway.

    Fortunately, the FCC's current ruling actually makes municipal broadband easier, and while I still argue that it opens the floodgates for future administrative abuse, in the short term I believe it may be beneficial. At the very least, the internet and it's function in modern America – indeed, it's necessity – has been brought to the attention of Congress. I hope to one day see a future President do for the internet what President Eisenhower did for transportation, because I think it has become that important and integral to the way Americans live and to American security… and I might think you would agree.

    If not, then STFU. I'm done talking to you.

  179. +Nick Ball No, Nick. You're just dealing with someone who has been using the Internet so long that he remembers when one could print a map of the entire thing on greenbar and hang it on the wall, and who is in possession of actual facts. You are either incredibly misinformed or a paid liar, and since you don't appear to be mentally handicapped, that leaves only one reasonable deduction. Deal with it.

  183. +Nick Ball Then shut up, already. Surely they don't pay you by the word. Nothing you can say will change the fact that you were entirely wrong and not only does the FCC have the power to do this, it was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court almost ten years ago. Your ignorance of history will not help you ignore it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.