Obamacare To Obamanet

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

But you want it controlled by nameless unelected government bureaucrats with an agenda under a regimen of regulations you haven't seen or understand.





You voted for Obama, not me. His White House is the one who called this independent agency and demanded the rule. This very issue is under investigation by two congressional committees as we speak.





The 304 pages of rules have not been released even to Congress, but the two Republican commissioners on the FCC have seen it and have written articles about the contents. I posted an interview with one of them in this thread.




The key to the independence and freedom of the Internet is to leave it in the control of the market, not the government, which fucks up all that it touches. The economic decisions and judgements of five commissioners in Washington is no match for the input of millions upon millions of freely made, worldwide, economic decisions that has shaped the Internet into what it is today.

All of the innovation in marketing, in the communication of ideas, the worldwide economic achievement of the Internet, the fact that you can visit markets in almost any country in the world and engage in economic activity without a passport, plane tickets, hotel reservations, is a monumental benefit to mankind, that would never have evolved from a government controlled and regulated Internet.

The motivations of our government and all others is to stifle the free flow of information, to control it. Their motivation is to tax all economic activity and regulate it, and they cannot do this to the degree they want to with a free Internet. This is where you lose sight of the ball the government is tossiing into the game.

You do know that without government, the internet wouldn't exist, right? Both ARPANET and Tim Berners Lee were government funded.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Maybe, but the amazing success it is today has nothing to do with government intervention. The last time the FCC tried to claim authority over the net, a federal court ruled against them. They've little to do with today's Net except for their nefarious plans to control it's content and tax it do death.

And they intend to keep out of it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Maybe, but the amazing success it is today has nothing to do with government intervention. The last time the FCC tried to claim authority over the net, a federal court ruled against them. They've little to do with today's Net except for their nefarious plans to control it's content and tax it do death.

Actually, the amazing success is almost exclusively down to porn. The pornographers were the first ones to work out how to monetise it. And if your party had their way, that stuff would have been banned years ago.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No they don't. Two commissioners who have seen and voted on the rules say different. Get a clue.

I have a clue, you have to commisioners with bought votes. I have three with vision.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

But you want it controlled by nameless unelected government bureaucrats with an agenda under a regimen of regulations you haven't seen or understand.
You voted for Obama, not me. His White House is the one who called this independent agency and demanded the rule. This very issue is under investigation by two congressional committees as we speak.
The 304 pages of rules have not been released even to Congress, but the two Republican commissioners on the FCC have seen it and have written articles about the contents. I posted an interview with one of them in this thread.
The key to the independence and freedom of the Internet is to leave it in the control of the market, not the government, which fucks up all that it touches. The economic decisions and judgements of five commissioners in Washington is no match for the input of millions upon millions of freely made, worldwide, economic decisions that has shaped the Internet into what it is today.

All of the innovation in marketing, in the communication of ideas, the worldwide economic achievement of the Internet, the fact that you can visit markets in almost any country in the world and engage in economic activity without a passport, plane tickets, hotel reservations, is a monumental benefit to mankind, that would never have evolved from a government controlled and regulated Internet.

The motivations of our government and all others is to stifle the free flow of information, to control it. Their motivation is to tax all economic activity and regulate it, and they cannot do this to the degree they want to with a free Internet. This is where you lose sight of the ball the government is tossiing into the game.

The rules are actually eight pages long not 304, the remaining pages are replies to some of the millions of comments sent to the FCC earlier and it is only being held up because the two Republican FCC commissioners you mentioned are delaying its release by refusing to submit their edits. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions.

You want to know exactly what the rules say, stop claiming that they're being held in secret, tell the two GOP commissioners to get off their asses, stop writing articles and submit their edits and opinions so that they CAN be published.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Mostly false. Evangelicals might be ready to police the web, but most conservatives are content to leave the Internet as it is. Porn can be found in almost every marketplace in America, almost every town. It exists because it is the law of the land with only minor restriction. The Internet is no different than any other marketplace save taxes and minimal government intrusion.

Then how come prospective GOP candidates are being asked to sign a pledge saying they will never look at pornography?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

You do know that without government, the internet wouldn't exist, right? Both ARPANET and Tim Berners Lee were government funded.

what, no Crack for you to smoke today?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Then how come prospective GOP candidates are being asked to sign a pledge saying they will never look at pornography?

how will you and Lance find new child porn?

 

[BotanyBoy]

But you want it controlled by nameless unelected government bureaucrats with an agenda under a regimen of regulations you haven't seen or understand.

Better than a board of executives at some company.....

You voted for Obama, not me.

REALLY? News to me you arrogant know it all. I did no such thing.

His White House is the one who called this independent agency and demanded the rule. This very issue is under investigation by two congressional committees as we speak.

WELL...if they find snaky shit I hope they crush his balls with a battle axe for it. If they come back with some more weak ass "Butt....Butt BENGHAZI!!" bullshit you can peddle that shit somewhere else, only you fanatical GOP knob bobbers are buying it because pre-sold.

The 304 pages of rules have not been released even to Congress, but the two Republican commissioners on the FCC have seen it and have written articles about the contents. I posted an interview with one of them in this thread.

That doesn't make them matter of fact....I got records of Republicans who literally don't know the difference between a womans pussy and and her asshole as recent as this past month. Pardon me if I don't take "Republican" as a synonym for "Word of GAWD!!!" like you do LMFAO!!

The key to the independence and freedom *Snipped for big steaming pile of opinions you can't back up and we all know it.*

Has nothing to do with the question you were failing at responding to. Try again...

You claimed things would never be the same under government control....yet you champion corporate control. Since your rather direct implication is that change is the enemy I ask you again.

How would things never change under corporate control? Are you seriously that delusional?

 

[unregistered]

 

[CandiCame]

It seems weird that Vett is even on the internet since it was pioneered by gay icons. I mean, it's weird that he cares about it's regulation since by his own logic he shouldn't be using it all.

 

[CandiCame]

Of course! A two man Republican minority is holding up the release of rules they voted against. Wheeler wouldn't even let congress see the text of the the rules. This violates

The comments are only on the proposal, not the rules yet to be published.

Try all you want to downplay the real purpose of the rule, to reclassify the Internet as a Title II utility, so it can be regulated for content and taxed by the FCC. From the proposal:

Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY:

The proposed Order applies “core” provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no unjust or unreasonable practices or discrimination)

Allows investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement provisions, specifically sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217

Notwithstanding Wheelers alleged "forebearance" of vast amounts of Title II requirements, it will nonetheless become a playground for ACLU, The SPLC, and an army of leftists proponents of the Fairness Doctrine, and other alleged discrimination as to content.

So do you genuinely not know the difference between service providers and content providers? Because reading this that's what I've come to understand.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The key to the independence and freedom of the Internet is to leave it in the control of the market, not the government, which fucks up all that it touches. The economic decisions and judgements of five commissioners in Washington is no match for the input of millions upon millions of freely made, worldwide, economic decisions that has shaped the Internet into what it is today.

There is no freedom of the internet, or there won't be soon. It certainly is not what is was 10 or 15 years ago.

The internet is falling under the control of a few companies and they are exerting market power with their monopolies. Verizon needs to be broken up. LACs need to be made to provide equal access to homes and businesses.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So do you genuinely not know the difference between service providers and content providers? Because reading this that's what I've come to understand.

He has no idea what the fuck he's talking about, which comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody I'm sure. He's been told that it's a "Bad Thing™" and that's his position.

He doesn't even understand the pieces of the proposal he quoted. The "no unjust or unreasonable practices or discrimination" applies to ISPs and their penchant for "fast lanes" and throttling bandwidth of those content providers who refuse to pay extortion. See VerizonFiOS and Netflix or Comcast and Netflix examples given earlier.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The last time the FCC tried to claim authority over the net, a federal court ruled against them.

Cite?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Notwithstanding Wheelers alleged "forebearance" of vast amounts of Title II requirements, it will nonetheless become a playground for ACLU, The SPLC, and an army of leftists proponents of the Fairness Doctrine, and other alleged discrimination as to content.

Well, that would be a very different thing from the FCC regulating/censoring Internet content. And a much better thing, too.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

Google it god damn it! It's very common knowledge. It's the whole reason for this rule change.

2010:
http://www.cnet.com/news/court-fcc-has-no-power-to-regulate-net-neutrality/

2014:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/

 

[Sean Renaud]

2010:
http://www.cnet.com/news/court-fcc-has-no-power-to-regulate-net-neutrality/

2014:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/

Has anybody told you your AV is creepy as hell. Like I think it gives kids nightmares.

 

[ZiggyTheHutt]

Why are any of you even replying to the vettebitch?

This entire thread so far has been one person after another attempting to educate the fucktard with neutral, non-partisan, fact-containing links, with pointed questions.

This assumes the vettebitch will read anything you post if it contains any sort of content that is factual.

Note what the vettebitch responds to, and what it does not respond to.

It is obviously skimming the thread and reading posts, but it is very deliberately ignoring all your articles and information. It is posting stupid, stupid, stupid opinions based on its utterly imbecilic worldview, and it will not be penetrated by facts of any kind. Its skull is too thick, it is bone all the way through to the other side. There's nothing contained within except an auto-response that libruls are the devil.

Why do you converse with the brain-dead troll?

Why do you attempt to engage it, like it is a person?

It is not a human being. It is less than a child, less than a moron, less than a mentally handicapped person, it is less than a dog, less than a vegetable. There is no hope of communication with it. It is beyond all reason, beyond all redemption. It exists for one purpose: To generate posts.

Like NeverEndingMe, and other spam generating machines, it is not a human being.

It is a rancid pile of feces. It exists to generate stink, and attract the kind of brainless insects that feast on the factless waste that spews forth. It is a fly trap for the sub-human mind.

Cleverbot can at least be made to respond to what you say. The vettebitch does not pass a Turing test. It doesn't even pass the cleverbot test.

Every single time you respond to one of the threads it generates, hoping to correct its misinformation, or to inform it of how it is wrong, you must realize you have more hope of convincing a pile of straw to animate itself into a scarecrow, and at least the scarecrow would realize that it lacks a brain.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

MY PREDICTION: the end of online anonymity. I believe we will see justification for that buried within the new rules, particularly the "general conduct" provision and its seven factors.

Although the FCC has not publicly disclosed specifics of the seven factors, an FCC spokeswoman told Reuters that three of those guidance criteria are related to impact on competition, innovation, and free expression.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/usa-internet-neutrality-idUSL1N0VU01W20150220

I don't think it is a coincidence that I have seen quite a few articles and editorials) about online bullying and free speech such as this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/19/the-war-against-online-trolls/free-speech-does-not-protect-cyberharassment

But at the end of day it won't be about protecting losers who can't handle being trolled. It will be about releasing more consumer habits to corporations for marketing purposes.