|
Controversial FCC net neutrality rules to take effect in November
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 26 September, 2011
New FCC net neutrality rules for US broadband providers are set to go into effect on November 20. The rules were drafted last year, but have been on hold pending an official announcement of adoption by the agency.
In practical terms, there are two rules and an exception which renders their actual effect less than clear. The first rule mandates transparency with regard to network management practices:
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
26. September 2011 @ 20:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Goodbye Freedom.. It was fun while it lasted.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey_P
Senior Member
|
26. September 2011 @ 21:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
There hasn't been freedom since 09/11/01.
Welcome to 1984.
Jeff
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
27. September 2011 @ 05:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Edit:Wrong Thread
Powered By
 This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2011 @ 16:54
|
Member
|
27. September 2011 @ 16:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:
There hasn't been freedom since 09/11/01.
Welcome to 1984.
Jeff
Truth ^^
How absurd.
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
Bobiroc - Please explain how net neutrality affects your freedom.
DXR88 - What does protection from bandwidth throttling have to do with anon proxies?
I'm immediately tossing out anyone's argument if they reference the Fairness Doctrine and/or Glen Beck.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. September 2011 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
Bobiroc - Please explain how net neutrality affects your freedom.
DXR88 - What does protection from bandwidth throttling have to do with anon proxies?
I'm immediately tossing out anyone's argument if they reference the Fairness Doctrine and/or Glen Beck.
Oops....well in that case i'm referencing ...Glen Beck because the fairness doctrine just sounds stupids.
Powered By
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 16:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Net Neutrality has zero to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
I agree that the Fairness Doctrine is stupid. Most people arguing that Net Neutrality = Fairness Doctrine have zero understanding of what Net Neutrality is and usually only learned of it because they listen to Glen Beck.
|
Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 17:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
Bobiroc - Please explain how net neutrality affects your freedom.
DXR88 - What does protection from bandwidth throttling have to do with anon proxies?
I'm immediately tossing out anyone's argument if they reference the Fairness Doctrine and/or Glen Beck.
Just like with most political things, what they're saying goes directly against what they will do. They say "net neutrality," but they mean "net censorship." They'll give equal bandwidth alright, but not equally to all the net. Coupled with the ACTA it really is the end of the first and fourth amendments if they go through. As if we still had them in any way but misled thought >.>
~*Livin' Electronicallly*~
|
|
Jeffrey_P
Senior Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 17:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Glen Beck?
Please, the man is a nutcase who thinks he is Christs second coming.
Where is my chalkboard?
I like a little humor with the rhetoric Fox news and political types spew.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert at lest keep a smile on my face.
The shows zero out libs and conservatives.
Jeff
Cars, Guitars & Radiation.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2011 @ 17:17
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
What you're suggesting will happen with or without Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality...BY ITSELF...doesn't make it any easier or more difficult to cut us off from torrent sites or news sites. What it does for *MOST* people is keep Time Warner (the ISP and video on demand provider) from throttling other video on demand services to their customers. It keeps AT&T from throttling other competing VOIP services to their customers. It keeps Time Warner the ISP from throttling bandwidth to competing news providers such as Fox News Online. Lastly, it keeps ISPs from being able to throttle your bittorrent because it makes ISPs treat your bittorrent packet no differently than any other packet.
ACTA is a gross overreaction to counterfeit goods and multimedia pirating, a huge overreach of government power, and a huge sellout to big business/big media. ACTA is ripe for abuse by big media and should be shot down. Unfortunately, Democrats don't have a real dog in this race to make this a big issue to fight against and Republicans are going to be torn between supporting big business vs lazy, worthless pirates (who probably collect welfare!) and their stated antipathy towards giving our sovereign rights away to international organizations (I personally think capitalism will win out and Republicans won't care).
|
Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 17:43 |
Link to this message
|
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.c..._internet_users
Lol, check it. They're excluding wireless carriers from the very rules you're talking about.
Done correctly, net neutrality would be beautiful. But it won't be done correctly...
Regardless, it's all sh*t put forth by sh*tty people for sh*tty purposes in sh*tty times of a sh*t country full of sh*t spewing sh*t heads. There is no way this will turn out to be good for masses, it never is.
~*Livin' Electronicallly*~
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2011 @ 17:51
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. September 2011 @ 17:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:
Glen Beck?
Please, the man is a nutcase who thinks he is Christs second coming.
Where is my chalkboard?
I like a little humor with the rhetoric Fox news and political types spew.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert at lest keep a smile on my face.
The shows zero out libs and conservatives.
Jeff
ill take my nuts over my stupids anyday.
Powered By
|
|
Jeffrey_P
Senior Member
|
29. September 2011 @ 18:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Is that some new kind of alcoholic beverage?
Only people from the bible belt or the deep south say such things.
To each his/her own
Maybe Afterdawn should add a political forum.
Jeff
|
Member
|
30. September 2011 @ 08:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:
Is that some new kind of alcoholic beverage?
Only people from the bible belt or the deep south say such things.
To each his/her own
Maybe Afterdawn should add a political forum.
Jeff
Lol, I'm in the deep south of the Bible Belt ^.^ And that would be pretty interesting huh. That does sound funny, because those two are anything but "stupids," they give structure and forethought to their deliverance and reach a wide audience through the use of humor while still getting the important ideas across, which I think is exactly what most news is missing; I mean look at some of the stuff the people who "lead" us do and say and try to put into law, it's hilarious though in usually a depressing manner. And I will affirm Glen Beck being a nut, but he's much more stupid than I'm even willing to go in to, constant (and nonsensical, incorrect) Nazi references, and the whole gold scam. I can't hear a single sentence of that man's that doesn't cause me to instantly feel duller in the head.
|
|
DADEO1
Member
|
30. September 2011 @ 11:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Beck and some Vicks Vapor Rub. Brings a tear to my eyes.
|
|
Jeffrey_P
Senior Member
|
30. September 2011 @ 12:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
"Lol, I'm in the deep south of the Bible Belt ^.^ And that would be pretty interesting huh. That does sound funny, because those two are anything but "stupids," they give structure and forethought to their deliverance and reach a wide audience through the use of humor while still getting the important ideas across, which I think is exactly what most news is missing; I mean look at some of the stuff the people who "lead" us do and say and try to put into law, it's hilarious though in usually a depressing manner. And I will affirm Glen Beck being a nut, but he's much more stupid than I'm even willing to go in to, constant (and nonsensical, incorrect) Nazi references, and the whole gold scam. I can't hear a single sentence of that man's that doesn't cause me to instantly feel duller in the head."
I have to admit, Beck is interesting to watch. Some people take his ranting as gospel.
It Show how diverse the country I love is.
Love it or leave it! Guess things would be fairly ho-hum if there wasn't some controversy.
With the way things are today a little bit of humor doesn't hurt.
Jeff
|
Member
|
30. September 2011 @ 17:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:
With the way things are today a little bit of humor doesn't hurt.
Jeff
That's how I feel. But Beck and them also just seem counter-productive. However, I suppose a lot of things in life are, "different strokes" and all.
~*Livin' Electronicallly*~
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
3. October 2011 @ 10:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Buxtahuda - I agree that wireless shouldn't get preferential treatment in this, but "Net Neutrality" shouldn't just get dumped because of this holdout. It's possible to do this in steps...prove that the Internet isn't going to implode because of Net Neutrality and then require the wireless providers to get on board.
My original concern with this thread when people start talking about "their freedom getting taken away" because of Net Neutrality is that people are listening to pundits who honestly have NFC what the conversation is about. The wireless exemption has no bearing on this particular point.
|
