goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 09:27:47 AM

Title: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 09:27:47 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKCN0IU1I620141110?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 09:51:20 AM
There is a lot of money to be made by allowing a fastlane fee be charged to both consumer and program provider(netflix).  The lobby for this will make it happen. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 10, 2014, 09:52:40 AM
Will that money create value though?  I mean, what work is someone doing to make that possible?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 09:57:28 AM
It will give the cable companies (really big companies) the ability to charge you and I more and to charge the program providers more as well.  So, that seems like a pretty good place to start
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 10, 2014, 10:02:10 AM
Well so let's liken the internet to a big pipe of water.  Right now data is just flowing through and regardless of source or destination it flows just the same.  So some companies want to charge more to prioritize your data.  If that happens and revenue is generated, is it use to make the internet faster via investment and upgrades?  Or do they just split the big pipe up into a bunch of smaller pipes and valve down the ones that won't pay?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2014, 10:06:05 AM
guys, I can't go back to AOL.  I'll freak out
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 10:11:31 AM
Google has been railing on our country for like 5-6 years now saying that the country isn't doing enough to move forward as far as infrastructure or technology, development wise, to move the internet speed and volume forward.  Accused us of resting on our laurels. 

The infrastructure allows them an excuse to create a premium.

The pipe stays big until it hits your cable provider.  They then cut it down to a variety of sized pipes, put some butter fly valves on said various sized pipes, then charge program providers for which pipe they want and how open they want that butter fly valve to be.  Then they pass the cost to you. 

Making a bigger pipe only makes sense to them if they have more customers if this whole thing passes.   
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
Our cost of service from the cable providers will go up and our subscription fees to the program providers will go up.

Another big issue is it will start a huge barrier to entry for competing program providers. 

The internet is a big place for innovation.  This is going to make that pretty tough compared to what it is now.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on November 10, 2014, 10:18:24 AM
Sounds like communist internet to me
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 10, 2014, 10:20:01 AM
Could kill the stock trading based on latency?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 10:35:43 AM
Maybe not if you and other online traders pay your service provider to upgrade to a faster internet package.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 10, 2014, 10:49:44 AM
Ya actually it would probably become more prevalent.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 10:54:06 AM
Quote from:  ted cruz tweet
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

 :flush:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from:  ted cruz tweet
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

 :flush:

Holy crap.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 10:55:49 AM
http://gizmodo.com/ted-cruzs-net-neutrality-take-isnt-just-dumb-its-dange-1656821283
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 10, 2014, 10:58:28 AM
Ya actually it would probably become more prevalent.
No. Traders already run their own fiber. This wouldn't have an impact.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 10:59:48 AM
Ted Cruze is a conservative hero.  This whole thing is going to be Ted Cruze and his ilk making sure that your netflix runs fast and ppl are going to want it, since they want fast netflix. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 10, 2014, 11:00:43 AM
Ya actually it would probably become more prevalent.
No. Traders already run their own fiber. This wouldn't have an impact.

Across the ocean?  Link?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 11:02:31 AM
Quote from:  ted cruz tweet
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

 :flush:

Holy crap.

yeah, he has already got someone paying him to push for this.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 11:04:25 AM
Quote
This is a dangerous idea because Cruz is one of the most powerful people in Congress. He's on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the internet.

Any chance he gets Huelskamp'd?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 10, 2014, 11:07:02 AM
Ya actually it would probably become more prevalent.
No. Traders already run their own fiber. This wouldn't have an impact.

Across the ocean?  Link?
www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-29/cable-across-atlantic-aims-to-save-traders-milliseconds.html

Also, read Flash Boys if you haven't
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 11:33:27 AM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 11:37:10 AM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2014, 11:39:39 AM
I also cannot wait for Cruz to run, seeing how clueless he is.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 11:45:39 AM
Utilities should not be allowed to do this.  Non-utilities should not be allowed to collude to do this.

Basically I agree, although I'm skeptical that new regulations will improve upon the existing body of law we have to prevent this (eg, if you let the feds eff with it, we're just as likely to get non neutral Web as if we let time Warner super stream espn and curtail fox sports).
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 11:58:34 AM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.

But if you don't like it, can't you just switch to another ISP? Seriously, I know next to nothing about this, so information would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2014, 11:59:07 AM
Utilities should not be allowed to do this.  Non-utilities should not be allowed to collude to do this.

Basically I agree, although I'm skeptical that new regulations will improve upon the existing body of law we have to prevent this (eg, if you let the feds eff with it, we're just as likely to get non neutral Web as if we let time Warner super stream espn and curtail fox sports).

That's why you just have to make that kind of crap illegal.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 12:00:55 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.

But if you don't like it, can't you just switch to another ISP? Seriously, I know next to nothing about this, so information would be appreciated.

Some people can. A lot of people really can't if they want fast internet.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
Also, lots of tax dollars built the internet infra structure. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 12:10:48 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It ensures that cable providers can't slow down competing services that offer alternatives to cable tv to make those services less attractive to consumers.

But if you don't like it, can't you just switch to another ISP? Seriously, I know next to nothing about this, so information would be appreciated.

It's going to be very lucrative for service providers, so they will all be doing it.  Also, how many service provider options do you have at your current location?  I have one that isn't satellite.   Even heavy pop areas have very few options.  Maybe two?  Three? 

The ability to shop just isn't really there.  They should definitely be treated as semi-monopolies/ utilities for this reason alone.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on November 10, 2014, 12:12:46 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

$10 to get online per month 
Entertainment Package: Netflix and Hulu for an additional $20
Shopping Package: Ebay and Amazon for an additional $5
Sports Package: ESPN, WatchESPN, Fox Sports GO for an additional $20
Online Gaming: PS4/Xbox Live access for an additional $15
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 12:14:57 PM
Yep, and then Netflix and other streaming services would raise their rates to pay for the money they have to pay Time Warner for the faster speeds to their customers.

This whole idea is a huge get-rich-quick idea for ISPs
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 12:51:37 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

The internet is the one thing where we should put our partisan bickering aside and pay special attention to. It's literally the most important thing to happen during our lifetimes and insures a future of unprecedented ease of communication and needs to be protected.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 12:52:33 PM
Like, just be cool k-s-u
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

The internet is the one thing where we should put our partisan bickering aside and pay special attention to. It's literally the most important thing to happen during our lifetimes and insures a future of unprecedented ease of communication and needs to be protected.

So we can watch our porn and youtube videos of cats/babies unimpeded.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 01:03:03 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

The internet is the one thing where we should put our partisan bickering aside and pay special attention to. It's literally the most important thing to happen during our lifetimes and insures a future of unprecedented ease of communication and needs to be protected.

So we can watch our porn and youtube videos of cats/babies unimpeded.

Pretty much
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 10, 2014, 01:03:52 PM
Are there any advantages to the public for non-neutrality?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 01:04:59 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 01:07:11 PM
Hopefully one day we're all voting for the president on the internet. I'm serious.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 01:09:17 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

No, it would be much, much worse.

I wish my internet speed were at least 10x faster than it is right now.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 01:31:43 PM
Quote
And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

good grief
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 01:38:13 PM
like, we all joke about how barry hussein obama can come in on any arbitrary side of an issue and we would instantly have the extreme right come out on the other side but this was something I thought that may not be the case for. yet here we are.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 10, 2014, 01:40:21 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
This would allow (Time Warner) to charge (Netflix) (xxx $/month), or they will limit the speed of their customers using (Netflix) to 1 KB/s, effectively blocking their customers from using (Netflix). This is a horrible, horrible thing and I can't see any way this helps any consumer.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on November 10, 2014, 01:44:06 PM

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?



You are assuming they are going to piece it out in an effort to save the consumer money.  In my experience, businesses generally try to make money.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 10, 2014, 01:58:18 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

You do understand that it would be large media companies controlling the speeds and they usually have a liberal bent.  You think your Drudge report loads slow now...
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 02:08:45 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: EMAWican on November 10, 2014, 02:16:22 PM
I'll just connect to the 'net using my dial-up cable that I never tore out.  That will stick it to those big city ISPs. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:16:45 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?

You do understand that it would be large media companies controlling the speeds and they usually have a liberal bent.  You think your Drudge report loads slow now...

Drudge loads incredibly fast because it's about 200kb. It's nothing but a page full of links to news articles and maybe 1 or 2 pictures.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:18:11 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
This would allow (Time Warner) to charge (Netflix) (xxx $/month), or they will limit the speed of their customers using (Netflix) to 1 KB/s, effectively blocking their customers from using (Netflix). This is a horrible, horrible thing and I can't see any way this helps any consumer.

If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:22:38 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 10, 2014, 02:23:09 PM
Can someone succinctly explain why "net neutrality" is a good thing? Without knowing anything else about it, the name alone sounds very Orwellian - not unlike "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (eff the patients and jack up the cost of insurance) or "Bank Secrecy Act" (requiring banks to report "personal" financial info to the government).

It keeps the internet at a constant speed no matter where the user goes.  Without net neutrality, the ISP can prevent or slow down access for the user to go on different sites.  They could potentially slow the speed to a crawl if a user goes to a candidate's website they don't like.  They could reach a deal with amazon to slow down access to small business sites and speed up amazon's.  They could charge the consumer for access to certain sites and do tiers of service similar to cable. 

But lots of vendors (amazon, netflix, hulu, newspapers, etc.) already charge subscriptions to view content - wouldn't it be a nice thing to be able to pay a bit more for faster access to certain "channels" ala cart style, rather than paying a crap-ton for gigabit access to the whole interweb?

And if the "slow" internet of tomorrow is faster than the "fast" internet today, will it really matter? Aside from downloading movies, most of which already require a subscription, how mich faster does the internet need to be?
This would allow (Time Warner) to charge (Netflix) (xxx $/month), or they will limit the speed of their customers using (Netflix) to 1 KB/s, effectively blocking their customers from using (Netflix). This is a horrible, horrible thing and I can't see any way this helps any consumer.

If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
To who? I'd guess that 90% of Americans have only one or two options for high-speed non-satellite internet service.  Where I live, I have one choice.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:29:45 PM
If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
To who? I'd guess that 90% of Americans have only one or two options for high-speed non-satellite internet service.  Where I live, I have one choice.

That's probably true.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 02:30:22 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:32:02 PM
Next question: How is this any different from the argument liberals make in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" to regulate content of speech on the radio because "there are a limited number of frequencies and the radio infrastructure was built with tax dollars"?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: EMAWican on November 10, 2014, 02:33:20 PM
I equate this to the phasing out of "free" unlimited data with cell phone companies.  The same amount of data costs 25-30% more now and the consumer sees no more benefit.  It starts with one company making bank and then all the competitors follow suit.  And when you consider the billions of tax payer money that has been spent on the telecommunications infrastructure, it isn't right.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 10, 2014, 02:35:23 PM
If my ISP tried to distort a favorite internet content provider, I'd prolly just switch ISPs...
To who? I'd guess that 90% of Americans have only one or two options for high-speed non-satellite internet service.  Where I live, I have one choice.

That's probably true.
For what it's worth, I would likely agree with you in a market that wasn't so limited.  If there were 50 ISPs in every location, the market would probably iron out any abuses, but that isn't the case here.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 02:36:52 PM
Next question: How is this any different from the argument liberals make in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" to regulate content of speech on the radio because "there are a limited number of frequencies and the radio infrastructure was built with tax dollars"?

How are apples any different from oranges?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 02:40:18 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.

If we keep electing people who run on morality, we absolutely could see the government regulate content and speech. People are arguing for the opposite of that here, though.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 02:44:26 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.

If we keep electing people who run on morality, we absolutely could see the government regulate content and speech. People are arguing for the opposite of that here, though.

Again, see my point re Fairness Doctrine. It is quite often the studiously immoral or amoral (liberals, fascists, liberal fascists) who want to stifle dissenting speech.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 02:47:41 PM
Saying the internet is as fast as it needs to be is like saying the model-T was as fast as a car ever needs to go. In 50 years we will all have wireless implants in our brains. Steve Dave will make a message board post and I'll lol in real time.

Cars were probably not a good metaphor, since most commercial cars really aren't going any faster than the ones 50 years ago (many are slower, less HP, etc.). In fact, to use the car metaphor, you get to a point where fast is fast enough. Until cars drive themselves, they're fast enough for prudent use.

I'm not saying "net neutrality" isn't a good thing - I'm just thinking that a lot of government regulation starts with good intentions and morphs into yet another burden that actually fucks things up more than if you just let people make choices.

It seems like it would be very difficult to start a successful online business if the world's biggest ISPs each charged you a fee so that your customers could adequately use your website. Shouldn't we be encouraging small business growth? Shouldn't the general public, who paid tax dollars to subsidize this infrastructure, be free from price gauging by ISPs?

I see your point about business startups being potentially prejudiced. I'd be careful about your second argument - since that could also be used by the government to impose all sorts of content and speech regulations.

If we keep electing people who run on morality, we absolutely could see the government regulate content and speech. People are arguing for the opposite of that here, though.

Again, see my point re Fairness Doctrine. It is quite often the studiously immoral or amoral (liberals, fascists, liberal fascists) who want to stifle dissenting speech.

Websites don't need licenses from any federal agency. They really aren't like radio stations in any way. Fairness doctrine was introduced in 1949 and hasn't been a thing for about 30 years now.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2014, 03:05:45 PM
Very shocked that ksuw is on the side of corporations price gouging instead of consumer rights
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 10, 2014, 03:18:14 PM
Rights?  Right.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2014, 03:34:50 PM
Quote
Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peek at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: slucat on November 10, 2014, 03:59:00 PM
Quote
Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peek at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants

Sad (but true). Really.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 10, 2014, 04:00:47 PM
i hope we can get some bi-partisan agreement on this issue too, steve dave
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 04:26:33 PM
like, we all joke about how barry hussein obama can come in on any arbitrary side of an issue and we would instantly have the extreme right come out on the other side but this was something I thought that may not be the case for. yet here we are.

Ted Cruze just completely threw that back in your face!
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 04:32:33 PM
re: fairness doctrine.

The internet is expanding like crazy.  They are creating so many new .abc domains that there is no need to worry about how many right websites vs left websites there are.  frequency is confining in the fact that you can only split it so far before the signals overlap to the avg radio consumer.  Internet is basically the opposite.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 10, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
re: fairness doctrine.

The internet is expanding like crazy.  They are creating so many new .abc domains that there is no need to worry about how many right websites vs left websites there are.  frequency is confining in the fact that you can only split it so far before the signals overlap to the avg radio consumer.  Internet is basically the opposite.

It's also beside the point.  The fairness doctrine didn't start as a government effort to prevent corporate monopolies from rough ridin' over helpless consumers.  That's what this is.  I know you get it.  K-S-U-Shitbrain! on the other hand is too busy supporting the team to pull his head out of his ass. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 10, 2014, 05:39:11 PM
Very shocked that ksuw is on the side of corporations price gouging instead of consumer rights

He's pro-monopoly. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 10, 2014, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: John Sherman(pub)
If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 06:42:34 PM
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2014, 06:56:53 PM
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on November 10, 2014, 07:06:18 PM
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932

Yes, the omnipotent trial lawyers lobby :lol: :lol: :lol:

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 07:57:31 PM
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932

Yes, the omnipotent trial lawyers lobby :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's one of the most powerful lobbies in DC, numbnuts. It's been rebranded as the association for justice or some other misnomer.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 08:02:21 PM
Quote
There is already bipartisan support for patent reform, which the president calls a top priority. Other than patent-troll firms and their plaintiff lawyers, there is broad agreement that software patents have become a huge tax via litigation on technology companies of all sizes.

The House this year passed a patent-reform bill 325-91. One of Harry Reid ’s most outrageous acts as Senate majority leader was to block a vote in May at the request of plaintiff lawyers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, described himself as “furious” with Mr. Reid. Sen. Leahy should send the reform to the full Senate during the lame-duck session.

Until recently, it was bipartisan policy to keep technology companies free to innovate and to protect the Internet from government control at home and abroad. Perhaps one day these will again be bipartisan positions.


This should have (does have) bipartisan support, agreed?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 08:04:49 PM
If dems and reid are the problem, perhaps Cruz and the pubs should hold themselves to a higher standard?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on November 10, 2014, 08:05:40 PM
I think the fear that FCC regulation of content could lead to something more is legitimate. I agree we should have net neutrality generally though.

This should probably be discussed as a potential bipartisan tech support endeavor, presently unilaterally blocked by Czar Reid (beholden to the trial lawyers lobby)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0SV39S20141106?irpc=932

Yes, the omnipotent trial lawyers lobby :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's one of the most powerful lobbies in DC, numbnuts. It's been rebranded as the association for justice or some other misnomer.

This is incorrect.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 10, 2014, 08:09:50 PM
Quote
There is already bipartisan support for patent reform, which the president calls a top priority. Other than patent-troll firms and their plaintiff lawyers, there is broad agreement that software patents have become a huge tax via litigation on technology companies of all sizes.

The House this year passed a patent-reform bill 325-91. One of Harry Reid ’s most outrageous acts as Senate majority leader was to block a vote in May at the request of plaintiff lawyers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, described himself as “furious” with Mr. Reid. Sen. Leahy should send the reform to the full Senate during the lame-duck session.

Until recently, it was bipartisan policy to keep technology companies free to innovate and to protect the Internet from government control at home and abroad. Perhaps one day these will again be bipartisan positions.

This should have (does have) bipartisan support, agreed?

Seems like they should outlaw these patent trolls.  How's their lobby?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 08:14:09 PM
Thanks for putting a dash in between Bi and partisan, SD. Nobody does that for some reason.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 08:17:48 PM
Thanks for putting a dash in between Bi and partisan, SD. Nobody does that for some reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bipartisan?s=t

 :dunno:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 08:18:02 PM
Quote
1. Patents

A Republican majority, say many observers, could mean near-instant movement on legislation aimed at so-called patent trolls who hold patents solely so they can sue potential infringers. Going after patent trolls is wildly popular on Capitol Hill; the House passed a  troll-targeting bill by 325 to 91. But a Senate version of the bill was killed in late May, after Senate Majority Leader Reid Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to bring it up for a vote.

Why did Reid back off the patent troll bill? He was reportedly leaned on by opponents, chief among them trial attorneys who objected to provisions that would stick those who bring abusive lawsuits with the costs of the legal proceedings. But trial lawyers and Republicans traditionally go together like Mayor Bill de Blasio and groundhogs, and they'd likely hold less sway in a Congress where Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is majority leader.

"To the extent that the current leader is a obstacle to patent reform," says Michael Petricone, the senior vice president for government affairs for the Consumer Electronics Association, a Republican-handover "could make a difference." Reining in trolls is something that Congress and President Obama could quickly agree upon.


Why won't the resident leftists get behind this bipartisan measure?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 08:19:18 PM
Thanks for putting a dash in between Bi and partisan, SD. Nobody does that for some reason.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bipartisan?s=t

 :dunno:

No. Freaking. Way.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 10, 2014, 08:20:17 PM
I'm for getting rid of patent trolls, and super fast, affordable internet. So whatever gets us there.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2014, 08:23:52 PM
get rid of patent trolls as long as actual patents still matter and it's not just a corporations do whatever they want bill. trial lawyers can eff off pretty much
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 08:25:18 PM
Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2014, 08:27:49 PM
liberals are much less partisan than conservatives
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 08:28:14 PM
I don't follow Ted Cruz or know much about him, but i assume he's on the, "eff unelected Bureaucrats" train. Maybe not though.

Bipartisan legislation seems to be the best way to make sure whichever parties president is running the show doesn't go off and get all power thirsty.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 10, 2014, 08:28:46 PM
Maybe an executive order.....
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 10, 2014, 08:29:12 PM
trial lawyers can eff off pretty much

 :sdeek:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
liberals are much less partisan than conservatives

Much like the trial lawyers only seek justice for patent trolls.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2014, 08:31:25 PM
fsd would get a huge (?)  neoboner if cruz was his congressman. guaranteed fsd would vote for him in the neoprimary
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2014, 08:33:01 PM
trial lawyers can eff off pretty much

 :sdeek:

Well not the good looking ones, obviously
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 10, 2014, 08:33:36 PM
liberals are much less partisan than conservatives

I don't think this is true.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 10, 2014, 08:34:55 PM
Ted Cruz is basically just the conservative Nancy Pelosi.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 10, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
liberals are much less partisan than conservatives

Maybe. Most of us just don't shout as loud.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 10, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
trial lawyers can eff off pretty much

 :sdeek:

Well not the good looking ones, obviously

I should have known. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 10, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 10, 2014, 09:25:27 PM
Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: AbeFroman on November 11, 2014, 03:12:40 AM
Quote
Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peek at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186433/what-senator-ted-cruz-just-said-should-scare-anyone-who-wants

Obama needs to RT a link to this thread. I was clueless before I walked into this thread, now I'm an expert in Net Neutrality.
Title: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 11, 2014, 06:25:28 AM
Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 11, 2014, 07:04:25 AM
Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

Your blind confidence that the FCC is going to make this better by regulating the internet as a public utility is pretty dumb. Maybe there's a good idea here but people are right to be sceptical.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 11, 2014, 07:51:58 AM
I like tbe internet as is.  Dont regulate,  just give the right ppl subsidies to make it much faster and more available.  I want WiMax, or the new equivalent.   City wide high speed wifi.  Just stupud fast, too.  Stuff like this should be the only goal
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 11, 2014, 07:53:38 AM
I like tbe internet as is.  Dont regulate,  just give the right ppl subsidies to make it much faster and more available.  I want WiMax, or the new equivalent.   City wide high speed wifi.  Just stupud fast, too.  Stuff like this should be the only goal

Well, can't today Youtube or whatever pay to make their content arrive faster?  There is no regulation to prevent that, yes?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 11, 2014, 07:56:38 AM
Ok, fair enough.  The legislation should be a couple sentences and state no pay for play.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 11, 2014, 08:14:54 AM
Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

Your blind confidence that the FCC is going to make this better by regulating the internet as a public utility is pretty dumb. Maybe there's a good idea here but people are right to be sceptical.

you should really educate yourself on what the FCC has done so far in regards to net neutrality
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 08:25:08 AM
Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

Since the electorate doesn't vote on net neutrality (according to Barry Hussein neither will the people they elect), I don't think it matters what Cruz says or whether people understand it. What's far more concerning is that Reid, a single senator, has successfully blocked patent reform, which has bipartisan support.  Last time I checked he's not the king. Unfortunately partisan dipshits, such as yourself, go after Cruz for his innocuous comments rather than Reid for his egregiously undemocratic behavior.

If the president actually wanted bipartisan support for this measure, he can arrange for legislation to be proposed and the Congress can pass a bill and he can sign it, just like we learned in middle school civics. He doesnt, he wants to politicize it so misinformed idiots such as yourself blame republicans when nothing happens and continue to vote for his party. He's very good at politics and very bad at president.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 11, 2014, 09:12:02 AM
Thanks for putting a dash in between Bi and partisan, SD. Nobody does that for some reason.

thank you. I'm very good at message boarding.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 11, 2014, 09:33:54 AM
The internet seems pretty fair and free right now, what is keeping cable co. From gouging us now?  I don't like the idea of the gov getting involved in it cuz i'm afraid if they do it won't be as cool, it will cost more etc.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 11, 2014, 10:29:51 AM
Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.

Patent litigation reform isn't a similar issue at all.  That's an incredibly dumb thing to say. Are you saying that because Reid was an obstructionist whore on the patent reform that the pubs should be too on NN as payback?  That is the only way it's relevant. 

FSD: "Reid was a rough ridin' idiot so Cruz should be too! Fair's fair!!" 
K-S-U-Shitbrain!: "Go pubs, go! Booo dems, booo!!"
FSD: "Turned it on its head. :gocho:"
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 11, 2014, 10:45:42 AM
http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 11, 2014, 11:18:16 AM
http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650

I always enjoy the comments section of those articles.   While I certainly won't defend telecom providers on any extreme level, I'd just say you can't have everything all at once in an urban sprawl country like the United States.    Massive growth in suburban and semi-rural areas just prior to the advent of more affordable and plausible network buildout technologies means that literally millions of neighborhoods and developments have to be almost completely rewired if you want to move beyond the "infrastructure is crap" scenario so many Americans bitch about.   That costs hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars . . . takes years and piling through mountains of red tape in many scenarios.

You wanted your little farmette on 3 acres 45 miles from city center in 1992, along with your other little "neighborhood" of other farmettes; don't bitch because you only have one option for Internet and it sucks.

 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 11, 2014, 11:44:20 AM


http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650


You wanted your little farmette on 3 acres 45 miles from city center in 1992, along with your other little "neighborhood" of other farmettes; don't bitch because you only have one option for Internet and it sucks.
True, but it is also quite common in large cities to only have one or two ISP options. My location in Chicago has two, my girlfriend has one.  Most places in Mhk only had one until AT&T came in a couple years ago. It isn't really an open market.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 11, 2014, 11:55:31 AM
most people are pretty much limited to the already existing franchise utility for your municipality (i.e. one for cable, one for pots) which happens to also supply internet access.

these franchise utilities have decided to use/expand their infrastructure for internet-related purposes in public right-of-way they already have government-backed access to utilize without market competition.

to pretend that you can just "shop elsewhere" is ridiculous
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 11, 2014, 12:13:34 PM
Vote with your wallet 'bias
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 12:21:08 PM
Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.

Patent litigation reform isn't a similar issue at all.  That's an incredibly dumb thing to say. Are you saying that because Reid was an obstructionist whore on the patent reform that the pubs should be too on NN as payback?  That is the only way it's relevant. 

FSD: "Reid was a rough ridin' idiot so Cruz should be too! Fair's fair!!" 
K-S-U-Shitbrain!: "Go pubs, go! Booo dems, booo!!"
FSD: "Turned it on its head. :gocho:"

The underlying facts and circumstances this thread is premised on are the same, shitbrain.  You and your partisan pals can't have it both ways when it comes to politicizing an issue.

 I support both measures, as any reasonable person would.

A critical distinction worth pointing out is that patent trolling is very much alive and a present problem, while non-neutral net is only feared to happen and the effort to regulate against it (without passing legislation) is quixotic, arguably unnecessary under the existing legal system and likely yet another power grab by an abusive administration.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 12:29:02 PM
http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650

This read like a high school girl's diary, full of hyperbole and devoid of substance. Why in the world would you post that here?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: _33 on November 11, 2014, 12:31:47 PM
Why do the ISPs have a monopoly?  Is it because they work together?  Is it because infastructure is so costly to build?  Is it because local government charges huge fees to build new infastructure?  I don't understand why more companies can't compete.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 11, 2014, 12:36:05 PM
Infrastructure is immensely expensive.  Either you have to run new wire to tens of thousands of ppl, or you have to rent space on existing lines that belong to your competitor.  Your competitor, being your competitor, is going to Katdaddy you for rent on those lines.  So, either you drop multiple millions just to create what is a comparatively small region, or you pay a crazy amount of "rent" to the guy who's biz you are trying to take.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 01:15:13 PM
Both measures presently have bipartisan support.  The problem is two democrats:
1. B.O., who thinks it should be regulated under the purview of the 1934 telecom act, well before the internet was even contemplated. Why he won't seek bipartisan legislation is unknown, although I've already explained the obvious answer.
2. Reid, who won't allow a vote on a measure that already passed with bipartisan report.

Quite undemocratic of the democrats. Sad, really. . . .
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 11, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.

Patent litigation reform isn't a similar issue at all.  That's an incredibly dumb thing to say. Are you saying that because Reid was an obstructionist whore on the patent reform that the pubs should be too on NN as payback?  That is the only way it's relevant. 

FSD: "Reid was a rough ridin' idiot so Cruz should be too! Fair's fair!!" 
K-S-U-Shitbrain!: "Go pubs, go! Booo dems, booo!!"
FSD: "Turned it on its head. :gocho:"

The underlying facts and circumstances this thread is premised on are the same, shitbrain.  You and your partisan pals can't have it both ways when it comes to politicizing an issue.

 I support both measures, as any reasonable person would.

A critical distinction worth pointing out is that patent trolling is very much alive and a present problem, while non-neutral net is only feared to happen and the effort to regulate against it (without passing legislation) is quixotic, arguably unnecessary under the existing legal system and likely yet another power grab by an abusive administration.

Like I said, if dems are rough ridin' idiots on one issue then you are a rough ridin' idiot right back at them on another.  I understand you, bud.

It's only fair that the pubs let the internet get all mumped up first to show those stupid dems what happens when they eff around on patent litigation reform.  We will not prevent a problem from occurring when there is this other problem already in existence that we want fixed that you won't fix.  That'll show those fuckers, FSD.  Burn this [redacted] down if you have to. 

What's most important is pointing fingers and getting payback.  Murica!
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 11, 2014, 02:10:40 PM
1. B.O., who thinks it should be regulated under the purview of the 1934 telecom act, well before the internet was even contemplated.

It regulated cable televison and cell phones and yet they too were not in existence at its inception.  How can it be!?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 11, 2014, 02:39:07 PM
Were assault rifles around when the second amendment was drawn up?  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 02:57:15 PM
The Ted Cruz tweet is jamming up net neutrality straw man has been burned to the ground. Try again, libtards.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 11, 2014, 02:58:07 PM
:love:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
 :Wha:
1. B.O., who thinks it should be regulated under the purview of the 1934 telecom act, well before the internet was even contemplated.

It regulated cable televison and cell phones and yet they too were not in existence at its inception.  How can it be!?

Statutory amendments, shitbrain
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
Were assault rifles around when the second amendment was drawn up?  :dunno:

You know the difference between the constitution and a Federal statute
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mr Bread on November 11, 2014, 03:59:48 PM
:Wha:
1. B.O., who thinks it should be regulated under the purview of the 1934 telecom act, well before the internet was even contemplated.

It regulated cable televison and cell phones and yet they too were not in existence at its inception.  How can it be!?

Statutory amendments, shitbrain

Did regulation by the FCC come first (by decades) under the then existing language of the act or was it kicked off by the enactment of statutory amendments?  Seems pertinent to BO's stance on NN. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 11, 2014, 05:53:57 PM
While researching this I came across a statistic about how Netflix takes up 34 rough ridin' percent of the entire goddamn internet's bandwith at certain times, which is mind blowingly incredible.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 11, 2014, 06:53:29 PM
I'd be fine with charging people based on the bandwidth they use. Don't charge the companies that provide content that people want more.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 11, 2014, 07:23:02 PM
While researching this I came across a statistic about how Netflix takes up 34 rough ridin' percent of the entire goddamn internet's bandwith at certain times, which is mind blowingly incredible.

 :sdeek:  When you take into account 37 percent is also porn you're only left with 29 percent for other content

I have Netflix can't find 34 minutes of programming I want to watch.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 11, 2014, 09:42:52 PM
I heard skype uses another .01% cause nobody uses skype anymore.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 11, 2014, 10:31:01 PM
I'd be fine with charging people based on the bandwidth they use. Don't charge the companies that provide content that people want more.

Satellite ISPs charge for bandwidth usage and the plans are rough ridin' horrible.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 12, 2014, 08:19:04 AM
Internet Sales tax hosed by republicans.   :Woot:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 12, 2014, 09:08:08 AM
Internet Sales tax hosed by republicans.   :Woot:

That is great.  Still getting state taxes when I buy stuff from Amazon, though.  Sam!  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 12, 2014, 09:37:24 AM
Internet Sales tax hosed by republicans.   :Woot:

That is great.  Still getting state taxes when I buy stuff from Amazon, though.  Sam!  :shakesfist:

I think the Coffeyville distribution plant is closing and opening a new one in Missouri, so that should go away
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 12, 2014, 11:01:10 AM
Internet Sales tax hosed by republicans.   :Woot:

That is great.  Still getting state taxes when I buy stuff from Amazon, though.  Sam!  :shakesfist:

I think the Coffeyville distribution plant is closing and opening a new one in Missouri, so that should go away

One just opened in lenexa, tho
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 12, 2014, 11:02:07 AM
Maybe that was it  :frown:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 12, 2014, 11:04:19 AM
that's some bullshit, Sam
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 12, 2014, 12:52:42 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 12, 2014, 09:30:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/)

Quote
The president’s intervention is troubling, in part because as an independent regulatory agency, the FCC is supposed to be immune from White House influence.

Yeah, Mr. President keep your opinions to yourself. You are the leader of the free world, why don't you go play golf or something.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: _33 on November 13, 2014, 02:55:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 13, 2014, 06:59:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

He kinda funny
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 13, 2014, 08:31:30 PM
Mark Cuban says this is a bad idea. He's an internet genius.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 13, 2014, 09:56:43 PM
Mark Cuban says this is a bad idea. He's an internet genius.

I would tend to trust his opinion on this subject.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on November 13, 2014, 09:59:44 PM
Mark Cuban says this is a bad idea. He's an internet genius.

Did he say why?  I mean, I trust Mark Cuban implicitly in all aspects of life, just wondering.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 13, 2014, 10:05:09 PM
real generic stuff from what i saw, doesn't want the gov't regulating it by saying it can't be privately regulated
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on November 13, 2014, 10:13:56 PM
real generic stuff from what i saw, doesn't want the gov't regulating it by saying it can't be privately regulated

Hmmm.  Looking at his holdings and business interests in media companies, it's fair to say he may have ulterior motives here.  People forget he publicly supported Gronkster in the Supreme Court case MGM v. Gronkster. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 13, 2014, 10:18:23 PM
yeah, you can pretty much rest assured that basically the only people who are against NN are those who have financial stake in media delivery or people who see red at the mention of anything obama supports
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on November 13, 2014, 10:20:06 PM
yeah, you can pretty much rest assured that basically the only people who are against NN are those who have financial stake in media delivery or people who see red at the mention of anything obama supports

Seems that way to me, Tobi, seems that way...
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 13, 2014, 10:20:23 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/)

Quote
The president’s intervention is troubling, in part because as an independent regulatory agency, the FCC is supposed to be immune from White House influence.

Yeah, Mr. President keep your opinions to yourself. You are the leader of the free world, why don't you go play golf or something.

Or the flipside; do whatever I want, whenver I want, and if you try to be, you know, like a Congress should be in a tricameral system then I'll just ignore you and do my own thing.

Elected despostism?

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 13, 2014, 10:50:41 PM
Cuban correctly understands that wireless technology will soon neutralize the wired ISPs hold on their monopoly, and no need to change the current model, which we all love.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 13, 2014, 10:54:33 PM
Yup.  Just like the cordless phone ended Ma Bell's throat.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 13, 2014, 10:58:27 PM
Yup.  Just like the cordless phone ended Ma Bell's throat.

If you mean cell phone, you are correct.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2014, 08:21:04 AM
It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 14, 2014, 08:56:47 AM
Why shouldn't everyone be down with what is rapdily becoming, or already is the most regulatory invasive government(s) (Federal, State and Local) in the industrialized world?   



Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 09:02:34 AM
It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2014, 09:45:11 AM
It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/andy-kessler-the-department-of-the-internet-1415665771 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/andy-kessler-the-department-of-the-internet-1415665771)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 09:47:32 AM
It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

Any legitimate downsides, though?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2014, 09:49:47 AM
It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

Any legitimate downsides, though?

Those are very legitimate downsides. Give the article above a read, just for an example.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 09:52:59 AM
It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

Any legitimate downsides, though?

Those are very legitimate downsides. Give the article above a read, just for an example.

page not found
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 14, 2014, 09:54:35 AM
page not found

msnbcDSL? :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 14, 2014, 12:33:46 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 14, 2014, 12:37:49 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

Maybe, but why take the chance? Probably better to just let a federal agency step and make this all ok.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 14, 2014, 12:44:41 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

Maybe, but why take the chance? Probably better to just let a federal agency step and make this all ok.

I'm being serious hoping for an honest rebuttal from someone who thinks differently than I do. Save the snark. My question was sincere and my views on this are not yet molded.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 14, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

it's been pretty sweet so far, though there have been recent attempts to chisel away at this as the internet continues to gain a stronghold as a revenue generating media outlet.  ISPs have generally been able to toe the line of being good citizens for the most part, but for like 90% of consumers, there is no "market" to work it out with.  the Verizon v. FCC verdict this january removed the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality orders put on the books in 2010, so it's basically fair game now for all ISPs to do what they want.  people for the most part have seen what the long-exempt wireless providers have done (blocking things like skype, facetime, vonage etc on their network) and see the writing on the wall (e.g. verizon throttling netflix in attempts to push their own redbox instant).

it's pretty much an attempt to keep us going on the internet we grew up with, rather than something like in the infographic at http://www.theopeninter.net/ (http://www.theopeninter.net/)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 01:38:41 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

The problem as I see it is that the people responsible for selling high speed internet are the same people who are trying to sell you cable television. This isn't a solution to a made up problem. Providers are asking the FCC to allow them to prioritize internet traffic with "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" and the FCC proposed to allow this in April. This would mean that services you use the internet for that do not pay a special fee to your ISP would not work as well. I would expect services that decide to pay the fee, like Netflix, would pass that cost on to their customers, so you end up paying more. There are also a lot of services on the internet, such as distance learning from universities, that would be unlikely to pay the fee. The proposed regulations are aiming to keep the internet open and free, which should encourage growth in the online sector. Things are likely to get a lot worse without the regs, since there really isn't much of a market to speak of that would work things out.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 14, 2014, 02:18:05 PM
Pretty cool to see how attune the libtards are to "passing costs on" with net neutrality, compared to every other pet project they support that fucks over the working class and poor.

Also pretty cool to see how oblivious they are to the dangers and consequences of undemocratically imposing the will and whims of the then existing administration upon the people via regulation.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 14, 2014, 02:18:54 PM
I doubt this is a good vs. evil debate, more like two groups positioning themselves to see who gets to powerfuck the internet and its consumers.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 14, 2014, 02:42:25 PM
Is there anything that has become less expensive when the government gets involved? I can't think of anything.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 14, 2014, 02:49:03 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

it's been pretty sweet so far, though there have been recent attempts to chisel away at this as the internet continues to gain a stronghold as a revenue generating media outlet.  ISPs have generally been able to toe the line of being good citizens for the most part, but for like 90% of consumers, there is no "market" to work it out with.  the Verizon v. FCC verdict this january removed the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality orders put on the books in 2010, so it's basically fair game now for all ISPs to do what they want.  people for the most part have seen what the long-exempt wireless providers have done (blocking things like skype, facetime, vonage etc on their network) and see the writing on the wall (e.g. verizon throttling netflix in attempts to push their own redbox instant).

it's pretty much an attempt to keep us going on the internet we grew up with, rather than something like in the infographic at http://www.theopeninter.net/ (http://www.theopeninter.net/)

Yeah but isn't the lack of multiple ISPs for most people due to the gov. letting certain ones just monopolize a city or neighborhood? Like, if they let all the companies have access to consumers, there would be multiple options for people who want different things. Like it would be similar to only having dominoes in your hood, when in mine I can choose between like 30 pizzas and they all send me coupons and stuff and compete for a place in my tummy. Isn't that the real issue? Not enough competition?

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 02:51:41 PM
Is there anything that has become less expensive when the government gets involved? I can't think of anything.

food
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on November 14, 2014, 03:04:44 PM
I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

it's been pretty sweet so far, though there have been recent attempts to chisel away at this as the internet continues to gain a stronghold as a revenue generating media outlet.  ISPs have generally been able to toe the line of being good citizens for the most part, but for like 90% of consumers, there is no "market" to work it out with.  the Verizon v. FCC verdict this january removed the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality orders put on the books in 2010, so it's basically fair game now for all ISPs to do what they want.  people for the most part have seen what the long-exempt wireless providers have done (blocking things like skype, facetime, vonage etc on their network) and see the writing on the wall (e.g. verizon throttling netflix in attempts to push their own redbox instant).

it's pretty much an attempt to keep us going on the internet we grew up with, rather than something like in the infographic at http://www.theopeninter.net/ (http://www.theopeninter.net/)

Yeah but isn't the lack of multiple ISPs for most people due to the gov. letting certain ones just monopolize a city or neighborhood? Like, if they let all the companies have access to consumers, there would be multiple options for people who want different things. Like it would be similar to only having dominoes in your hood, when in mine I can choose between like 30 pizzas and they all send me coupons and stuff and compete for a place in my tummy. Isn't that the real issue? Not enough competition?

I guess if pizza companies had to dig little tunnels between the store and every house in their service area in order to deliver you a pizza...

It is incredibly expensive to build out fiber networks in urban areas (or anywhere, but especially urban areas).  Huge capital is required.  At a certain point, it's not worth it to make the investment for a relatively small slice of the pie (see what I did there?). 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 14, 2014, 03:08:47 PM
Yeah but isn't the lack of multiple ISPs for most people due to the gov. letting certain ones just monopolize a city or neighborhood? Like, if they let all the companies have access to consumers, there would be multiple options for people who want different things. Like it would be similar to only having dominoes in your hood, when in mine I can choose between like 30 pizzas and they all send me coupons and stuff and compete for a place in my tummy. Isn't that the real issue? Not enough competition?

the same companies which provide your cable internet or DSL are also your franchise utility companies which are licensed to work under public roadways, within easements, etc (there's a reason there aren't 10 different options for water service, sewer service, etc - this type of work is incredibly expensive and would be a logistical maintenance nightmare for the public and private companies).
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 14, 2014, 03:39:23 PM
Is there anything that has become less expensive when the government gets involved? I can't think of anything.

food

Subsidies don't really make things cheaper.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 14, 2014, 03:41:21 PM
I doubt this is a good vs. evil debate, more like two groups positioning themselves to see who gets to powerfuck the internet and its consumers.

well, you're wrong
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on November 14, 2014, 05:21:26 PM
This isn't to set anybody up to do anything. Not everything is a conspiracy. It's just a safeguard against some possible problems some very smart people can forsee in order to protect one of our most valuable resources. It will still run the exact same.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 14, 2014, 10:46:51 PM
This isn't to set anybody up to do anything. Not everything is a conspiracy. It's just a safeguard against some possible problems some very smart people can forsee in order to protect one of our most valuable resources. It will still run the exact same.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 14, 2014, 10:52:15 PM
I doubt this is a good vs. evil debate, more like two groups positioning themselves to see who gets to powerfuck the internet and its consumers.

well, you're wrong

As demonstrated by the unilateral powerfuck on patents and pipeline. eff democracy is cool, if you're a libtard
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: nicname on November 17, 2014, 05:27:49 PM
I'm on board with this.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 17, 2014, 05:48:04 PM
I don't understand how Cruz is so dumb.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2014, 10:17:24 PM
I don't understand how Cruz is so dumb.

Are you reading this thread? Dumb people like politicians that are like them, most people are dumb. There are a lot of closed minded, dumb people who are resolute with their opinions fed to them by someone else. Ted Cruz is truly a man of his constituency.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 10:37:38 PM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 17, 2014, 10:42:49 PM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

You like Cruz?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2014, 10:43:08 PM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2014, 10:53:11 PM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 17, 2014, 10:57:46 PM
 :lol:

Now we're getting somewhere
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Trim on November 17, 2014, 11:16:13 PM
How much is one of these fast lane passes going to cost gE?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 18, 2014, 12:21:18 AM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:

This may blow the minds of parrot partisan hacks K-S-U-W and FSD but I disagree with Nader, hell I don't even like Ralph Nader, but I am still in the party.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 18, 2014, 12:35:47 AM
i am in no party, but the two major parties can get mumped imo
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 18, 2014, 08:26:19 AM
 :lol:

This is great
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 18, 2014, 10:58:42 AM
I wouldn't admit it either.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 18, 2014, 11:38:56 AM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:

This may blow the minds of parrot partisan hacks K-S-U-W and FSD but I disagree with Nader, hell I don't even like Ralph Nader, but I am still in the party.

It doesn't blow my mind because I couldn't care less. Well, actually, being a member of the Green Party but not supporting Nader is pretty funny. He basically is the entire party. Time to start your own?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 18, 2014, 01:46:13 PM
The Green Party  :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 18, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
The Green Party  :lol:

Nothing says "I'm happy being irrelevant" like voting Green Party.


but I think we all know how they really vote
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 18, 2014, 02:39:37 PM
Nothing says "I'm happy with the status quo" like voting republican or democrat every election (but only one of those are bad right?  ;))
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: gatoveintisiet on November 18, 2014, 05:42:55 PM
Nothing says "I'm happy with the status quo" like voting republican or democrat every election (but only one of those are bad right?  ;))

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 18, 2014, 06:58:15 PM
The tea party and occupy wall street are more legitimate than the green party.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CNS on November 18, 2014, 08:05:37 PM
OSHA, tho
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 20, 2014, 08:29:50 AM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:

This may blow the minds of parrot partisan hacks K-S-U-W and FSD but I disagree with Nader, hell I don't even like Ralph Nader, but I am still in the party.

It doesn't blow my mind because I couldn't care less. Well, actually, being a member of the Green Party but not supporting Nader is pretty funny. He basically is the entire party. Time to start your own?

A man isn't an agenda.

I love these three posters mocking the green party because it isnt the d party or r party without any irony at all. "You align yourself with a party that actually shares your beliefs, hur hur hur what a dumbass, they don't even win games. GO 'PUBS, KEEP KICKIN' ASS AND WINNIN' 'SHIPS!!!"
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 20, 2014, 08:42:24 AM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:

This may blow the minds of parrot partisan hacks K-S-U-W and FSD but I disagree with Nader, hell I don't even like Ralph Nader, but I am still in the party.

It doesn't blow my mind because I couldn't care less. Well, actually, being a member of the Green Party but not supporting Nader is pretty funny. He basically is the entire party. Time to start your own?

A man isn't an agenda.

I love these three posters mocking the green party because it isnt the d party or r party without any irony at all. "You align yourself with a party that actually shares your beliefs, hur hur hur what a dumbass, they don't even win games. GO 'PUBS, KEEP KICKIN' ASS AND WINNIN' 'SHIPS!!!"

Enjoy being completely irrelevant. I'll continue being pragmatic and putting in power a party that can advance at least some of what I want.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on November 20, 2014, 03:43:04 PM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:

This may blow the minds of parrot partisan hacks K-S-U-W and FSD but I disagree with Nader, hell I don't even like Ralph Nader, but I am still in the party.

It doesn't blow my mind because I couldn't care less. Well, actually, being a member of the Green Party but not supporting Nader is pretty funny. He basically is the entire party. Time to start your own?

A man isn't an agenda.

I love these three posters mocking the green party because it isnt the d party or r party without any irony at all. "You align yourself with a party that actually shares your beliefs, hur hur hur what a dumbass, they don't even win games. GO 'PUBS, KEEP KICKIN' ASS AND WINNIN' 'SHIPS!!!"

Enjoy being completely irrelevant. I'll continue being pragmatic and putting in power a party that can advance at least some of what I want.

Hang a banner:

         2013-14
Kansas Republican Party
State Political Champions
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on December 16, 2014, 09:05:20 PM
These rough ridin' idiots....

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/12/shadowy-anti-net-neutrality-group-submitted-56-5-of-comments-to-fcc/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Benja on December 17, 2014, 12:38:28 PM
I don't understand how democrats don't know they're the stupid ones. Everything they do and say is so god damned stupid, yet they rail on.

I'm assuming I am exempt from this since I am a member of the Green Party :emawkid:

voted for nader twice  :cheers:

This may blow the minds of parrot partisan hacks K-S-U-W and FSD but I disagree with Nader, hell I don't even like Ralph Nader, but I am still in the party.

It doesn't blow my mind because I couldn't care less. Well, actually, being a member of the Green Party but not supporting Nader is pretty funny. He basically is the entire party. Time to start your own?

A man isn't an agenda.

I love these three posters mocking the green party because it isnt the d party or r party without any irony at all. "You align yourself with a party that actually shares your beliefs, hur hur hur what a dumbass, they don't even win games. GO 'PUBS, KEEP KICKIN' ASS AND WINNIN' 'SHIPS!!!"

Enjoy being completely irrelevant. I'll continue being pragmatic and putting in power a party that can advance at least some of what I want.

Don't be rude, ksu. I can appreciate your pragmatism but we're all in the same boat here when it comes to relevance.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2015, 08:18:00 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/news-wire/2015/01/16/republicans-unveil-net-neutrality-bill-no-blocking.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-01-16&u=11045160944f58d24b7e6e962a206e&t=1421460942

Looks like the Pubs want to do it right
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 16, 2015, 11:47:08 PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/news-wire/2015/01/16/republicans-unveil-net-neutrality-bill-no-blocking.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-01-16&u=11045160944f58d24b7e6e962a206e&t=1421460942

Looks like the Pubs want to do it right

Finally - an issue we can get some bipartisan agreement on.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on January 17, 2015, 09:12:32 AM
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/republican-net-neutrality-bill-would-gut-fccs-authority-over-broadband/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2015, 01:46:46 PM
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/republican-net-neutrality-bill-would-gut-fccs-authority-over-broadband/

Sounds great.  :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2015, 02:02:38 PM
 B.O. looking like he really wants to control, restrict and tax the internet.  What a two-faced piece of crap.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 07, 2015, 02:21:35 PM
he really is
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: michigancat on February 07, 2015, 02:32:57 PM
Sounds great. How exactly is it different from what Obama suggested?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: michigancat on February 07, 2015, 02:57:03 PM
Sounds great. How exactly is it different from what Obama suggested?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865511/heres-how-the-new-republican-congress-plans-to-undercut-net-neutrality
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2015, 09:27:39 AM
Sounds great. How exactly is it different from what Obama suggested?

You're two weeks behind, I think.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2015, 08:40:59 PM
Show of hands. - anybody still think that the federal government regulating the internet like a public utility is a good idea?

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567 (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Headinjun on February 23, 2015, 09:17:43 PM
Show of hands. - anybody still think that the federal government regulating the internet like a public utility is a good idea?

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567 (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567)

Yes.  I want the next Amazon and Netflix to form and grow.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2015, 10:24:53 PM
Show of hands. - anybody still think that the federal government regulating the internet like a public utility is a good idea?

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567 (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567)

Yes.  I want the next Amazon and Netflix to form and grow.

And you know what will help that? More government regulation. Fertile soil indeed.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on February 23, 2015, 10:38:40 PM
i am 100% for the government blocking corporate regulation of the internet
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2015, 10:41:39 PM
i am 100% for the government blocking corporate regulation of the internet

hmm.  yup
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2015, 10:50:34 PM
That doesn't seem to be happening to any serious extent, but you know what the government says... If it ain't broke, break it so you can fix it. Government regulation will totally make a good thing even better.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2015, 11:13:32 PM
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure  :Carl:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2015, 08:02:04 AM
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure  :Carl:

Definitely. I'm sure it'll just be an "ounce" of regulation. Or however much 300 pages weighs. Not as much as Obamacare, that's for sure!

I really can't believe anyone who likes fast internet wants the government to start rough ridin' with it.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2015, 08:33:25 AM
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure  :Carl:

Definitely. I'm sure it'll just be an "ounce" of regulation. Or however much 300 pages weighs. Not as much as Obamacare, that's for sure!

I really can't believe anyone who likes fast internet wants the government to start rough ridin' with it.

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with the lab, and am told that 1oz = approximately 6 pages of standard weight government copy paper. So the 332 pages of proposed regulations weighs in at about 55.33 ounces, about 3.5 pounds. So if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then 3.5 pounds of prevention is worth 55.33 pounds of cure! That's gotta be something like Google Fiber speed nationwide, amiright?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Headinjun on February 24, 2015, 02:18:26 PM
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure  :Carl:

Definitely. I'm sure it'll just be an "ounce" of regulation. Or however much 300 pages weighs. Not as much as Obamacare, that's for sure!

I really can't believe anyone who likes fast internet wants COMCAST to start rough ridin' with it.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2015, 02:22:58 PM
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure  :Carl:

Definitely. I'm sure it'll just be an "ounce" of regulation. Or however much 300 pages weighs. Not as much as Obamacare, that's for sure!

I really can't believe anyone who likes fast internet wants COMCAST to start rough ridin' with it.

So let me get this straight - Comcast and Verizon throttled the speed of the largest consumer of bandwidth on the planet - Netflix - so now we need the government to step in and regulate the internet like a public utility? Are you really so libtarded that you actually believe government intervention, as opposed to the free market, is going to make this better?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 24, 2015, 07:58:16 PM
Regulating the internet as a public utility is the worst possible outcome. A simple statute will suffice.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Headinjun on February 24, 2015, 11:18:25 PM
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure  :Carl:

Definitely. I'm sure it'll just be an "ounce" of regulation. Or however much 300 pages weighs. Not as much as Obamacare, that's for sure!

I really can't believe anyone who likes fast internet wants COMCAST to start rough ridin' with it.

So let me get this straight - Comcast and Verizon throttled the speed of the largest consumer of bandwidth on the planet - Netflix - so now we need the government to step in and regulate the internet like a public utility? Are you really so libtarded that you actually believe government intervention, as opposed to the free market, is going to make this better?

Free market will not correct an industry with local monopolies and a recent history of mergers.

I know that we are better off because of publicly regulated energy, water, and sewer.

With the Internet being a medium for banking, job searches, government payments, learning etc it has become a standard for the business of conducting life.  All of us should have reasonable broadband and no single person, business, or entity should be priced out because of a private monopoly.

Internet providers use public right of ways and because of that the public should have a say.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Kat Kid on February 25, 2015, 07:44:24 AM
Yes, the public should have a say, but the basis for net neutrality as of now are ancient telecom rules.

Large companies have entire regulatory staffs to help them figure those rules out and to position themselves in kinds of ways to profit, not perform/avoid performance etc. etc. 

Net neutrality also positions a few companies and their huge regulatory staff to run to the FCC everytime they think some little guy isn't meeting the "just and reasonable" criteria.

This is a huge regulatory overreach that goes way beyond whether Farmer Ned in the middle of nowhere can get on the Internet.

That is certainly less of an issue than the threat of control of the internet by ISPs through the use of throttling, which was a possible outcome of doing nothing.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 25, 2015, 09:04:35 AM
If you regulate Internet, only regulators will have Internet!
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 25, 2015, 09:46:26 AM
I'm used to there being arguments on both sides of an issue that have some merit and are persuasive.  That's why this discussion is so odd to me.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on February 25, 2015, 09:49:17 AM
I'm used to there being arguments on both sides of an issue that have some merit and are persuasive.  That's why this discussion is so odd to me.

it's absolutely amazing.  republicans did a very good job doing whatever it is they're doing on this one
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 25, 2015, 09:54:37 AM
I'm used to there being arguments on both sides of an issue that have some merit and are persuasive.  That's why this discussion is so odd to me.

it's absolutely amazing.  republicans did a very good job doing whatever it is they're doing on this one

They just started calling it Obamanet, really.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 25, 2015, 11:26:25 AM
I'm used to there being arguments on both sides of an issue that have some merit and are persuasive.  That's why this discussion is so odd to me.

it's absolutely amazing.  republicans did a very good job doing whatever it is they're doing on this one

Calling others dummies and telling them that this policy is actually pro big business
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 25, 2015, 03:28:25 PM
Is there a problem with the internet right now that needs a bill pushed through without debate? I think we've seen this before with really shitty consequences.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Headinjun on February 25, 2015, 03:30:47 PM
Hey, just think, U.S. net-neutrality could drop the United States out of the Top 50 in World Press Freedom (currently 49th and falling).

What a glorious day for the "Most Transparent Administration in History".

Quit being a douchebag.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on February 25, 2015, 03:31:16 PM
I think we should have a law against throttling traffic to any website or prioritizing one at the expense of others. Is that what is happening, or no?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Headinjun on February 25, 2015, 03:38:40 PM
Hey, just think, U.S. net-neutrality could drop the United States out of the Top 50 in World Press Freedom (currently 49th and falling).

What a glorious day for the "Most Transparent Administration in History".

Quit being a douchebag.

No.

Quit avoiding reality
Reality tells me that the regulation of TV and radio has never threatened freedom of the press but only made it stronger. 

I don't expect anything new or different with the Internet that drastically changes this. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 25, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
In 60 words or less, tell me why I should be against "net neutrality"?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 25, 2015, 03:49:36 PM
When the internet is controlled and regulated by the government, it will become corrupt without any market forces to keep them in line. There will be many innovations that will no longer be viable without the free market.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 25, 2015, 03:56:41 PM
Are there any examples of things that are both not corrupt and controlled and regulated by the government?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 25, 2015, 04:22:13 PM
Are there any examples of things that are both not corrupt and controlled and regulated by the government?

the internet.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 25, 2015, 04:23:53 PM
Are there any examples of things that are both not corrupt and controlled and regulated by the government?

the internet.

I meant to say are there any examples of things that are both:

1.) Not corrupt, and

2.) controlled/regulated by the government
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on February 25, 2015, 06:42:53 PM
Your costs will go up and the coverage will be shittier.  Did I do that right?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on February 25, 2015, 06:45:58 PM
Your costs will go up and the coverage will be shittier.  Did I do that right?

(http://i.imgur.com/hs5NTiq.jpg)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 25, 2015, 08:58:34 PM
I just want whatever is in the best interests of the consumers.  Maybe that's whatever the broadband providers are fighting tooth and nail for.  I can't be sure.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 25, 2015, 09:00:08 PM
You can have "net neutrality" without taxing internet use and regulating it like a utility.  Just like you could have made health insurance available to people with preexisting conditions without rough ridin' up the entire health insurance industry.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Headinjun on February 25, 2015, 11:22:39 PM
I derstand Judith Miller did some time and that Obama is being a dick about Snowden, but I have yet to see the United States government shutdown a media outlet or arrest somebody because they didn't agree with what they said on the Internet.

Now tell me how specifically does net neutrality affect freedom of the press ?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 25, 2015, 11:30:44 PM
until i see dax's scientific credentials, his alarmist warmism has no standing
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 25, 2015, 11:32:12 PM
i wonder if the press has any agenda in telling people they are unfree
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 26, 2015, 08:40:33 AM
It's Ok guys - I'm hearing all these regulations are intended to do is "guarantee equal access to the internet."

Kind of like how Obamacare guaranteed equal access to healthcare, and look what a bang up job the libtards did on that! :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 26, 2015, 11:07:17 AM
i wonder if the press has any agenda in telling people they are unfree

Yeah . . . that's it.

Anway.

Working in the industry I see nothing but a litany of lawsuits and know that big players will still get their content prioritized in the network.   It's relatively easy to do and while it's easy to show how it's being done, good luck fighting it.  Also, putting today's Internet to the litmus test of 1930's telecom legislation is ridiculous, and as I've said.   Net neutrality quite possibly will allow the big guys to tie up little guys in a morass of regulatory complaints.   That's what some of you just don't get.   Telecom regulations have literally wiped out entire forests with paper and printing and small print.

welp
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2015, 01:36:16 PM
Mmmmmmm internet freedom
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 26, 2015, 02:07:00 PM
Mmmmmmm federal, state, and local internet access fees
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2015, 02:14:11 PM
There is absolutely no reason to handle something with bipartisan support in this manner, unless you're trying to do something absolutely nobody wants.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on February 26, 2015, 07:54:07 PM
win for big free internet today
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on February 26, 2015, 09:18:12 PM
nope, sure havent
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 26, 2015, 09:18:49 PM
I might have to pay $60 for internet access???  :Wha:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: puniraptor on February 26, 2015, 09:29:15 PM
This reminds me it's time again to call and threaten to cancel my uverse
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 10:05:46 PM
that's either very low or some sort of promo pricing
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on February 26, 2015, 10:08:16 PM
you probably get about 12 down and 5 up with that kind of pricing
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 10:11:02 PM
maybe he meant 6 Mbs  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on February 26, 2015, 10:23:54 PM
maybe the east coast goes by microbytes  :dunno:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: puniraptor on February 26, 2015, 10:27:08 PM
60Mbps for $24.95 a month here . . . for now.

holy god can i move in with you
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on February 26, 2015, 10:31:04 PM
i pay $74 for 100/10 and that doesn't seem horrible
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 10:33:10 PM
i pay $74 for 100/10 and that doesn't seem horrible

below national average i'm betting
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: puniraptor on February 26, 2015, 10:36:07 PM
Sorry kids, 1 year Charter Internet, and the regular price is like $32 a month, no bundles.   They just offered 200 channels with tons of HD with no contract and a DVR for $34 a month.   Tempting.

My laptop just did 35.14Mbps/1.64Mbps and that's with Netflix streaming in the other room, and that's pinging to Horry Telephones crappy network, just did Charter to Charter in Sugar Hill, GA and it was 54.14Mbps/1.77Mbps.

you cant talk me out of it. I'm moving in.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 10:40:32 PM
is this why dax gets so meltdown defensivey about carolina?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on February 26, 2015, 10:43:10 PM
his bill is gonna double, at least, and speed will be cut in half
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: puniraptor on February 26, 2015, 11:03:59 PM
i dont think the doofy fcc is the route to protect the internet, but i do think it needs to be protected somehow. the fcc is doofy.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: puniraptor on February 26, 2015, 11:04:22 PM
i dont think the doofy fcc is the route to protect the internet, but i do think it needs to be protected somehow. the fcc is doofy.

maybe make it like a national park
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 11:07:01 PM
i dont think the doofy fcc is the route to protect the internet, but i do think it needs to be protected somehow. the fcc is doofy.

fair point, but how would you enforce anything if no though the fcc?  unless you started a whole new agency
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 11:07:41 PM
but yes, the fcc are mongoloids
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: puniraptor on February 26, 2015, 11:08:09 PM
national park service
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2015, 11:10:18 PM
dax is a closet regulator too   :runaway:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 27, 2015, 11:05:42 AM
I don't know what I pay or how fast it is but it's fast enough to do movies and bbs at the same time.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 27, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
It already costs more than phone service, so we're off to a bad start from a baseline perspective.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sys on February 27, 2015, 09:32:21 PM
Sorry kids, 1 year Charter Internet, and the regular price is like $32 a month, no bundles.   They just offered 200 channels with tons of HD with no contract and a DVR for $34 a month.   Tempting.

My laptop just did 35.14Mbps/1.64Mbps and that's with Netflix streaming in the other room, and that's pinging to Horry Telephones crappy network, just did Charter to Charter in Sugar Hill, GA and it was 54.14Mbps/1.77Mbps.

i hate california.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 28, 2015, 08:14:06 AM
Sorry kids, 1 year Charter Internet, and the regular price is like $32 a month, no bundles.   They just offered 200 channels with tons of HD with no contract and a DVR for $34 a month.   Tempting.

My laptop just did 35.14Mbps/1.64Mbps and that's with Netflix streaming in the other room, and that's pinging to Horry Telephones crappy network, just did Charter to Charter in Sugar Hill, GA and it was 54.14Mbps/1.77Mbps.

i hate california.

My gas has gone up a dollar in the last month. Back to $3.40.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sys on February 28, 2015, 01:33:09 PM
My gas has gone up a dollar in the last month. Back to $3.40.

it went up like $0.20 yesterday!   :curse:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on March 13, 2015, 07:33:19 AM
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/todays-net-neutrality-order-win-few-blemishes
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on March 13, 2015, 07:34:34 AM
what a bunch of studs
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 14, 2015, 10:11:15 AM
No more data free streaming of spotify and Pandora on T-Mobile. Thanks Obama.  :'bye cruel world:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: mocat on December 10, 2015, 11:18:10 AM
this has nothing to do with net neutrality, but the thread title is apropos

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-sign-education-law-rewrite-power-shift-states-n477656 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-sign-education-law-rewrite-power-shift-states-n477656)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on April 04, 2017, 10:25:21 AM
APPARENTLY NOT
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on April 04, 2017, 10:50:14 AM
Sad
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: mocat on April 04, 2017, 10:53:17 AM
ksuw was amazing early and often itt
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: AbeFroman on April 04, 2017, 10:55:47 AM
Deconstruction of the administrative state.  :frown:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on April 04, 2017, 11:12:38 AM
ksuw was amazing early and often itt

Fantastic
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2017, 11:55:35 AM
Sad
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on April 04, 2017, 12:20:47 PM
All good things must come to an end.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on April 04, 2017, 01:04:48 PM
Man, imagine how butthurt they're going to be when they throttle back breitbart. Art of the deal with it poors.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 04, 2017, 03:30:01 PM
another example of his voters getting screwed.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on July 12, 2017, 02:28:46 PM
So we still have bi-partisan agreement on this one right?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on July 12, 2017, 03:12:31 PM
The shithead in charge of this is from Parsons.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on July 12, 2017, 05:50:32 PM
This is, once again, some bullshit bipartisan agreement should be able to be reached on
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on November 21, 2017, 11:40:03 AM
I guess this is the right thread

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/21/16680290/fcc-end-net-neutrality-vote-announced
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on November 21, 2017, 12:24:58 PM
DOJ suing in unprecedented fashion to stop an AT&T vertical merger while the FCC looks to completely destroy consumer protections online. This really is like a bizzaro world administration.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on November 21, 2017, 08:42:54 PM
Apparently bi-partisan agreement on this was too much to hope for. Woof.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2017, 08:20:20 AM
https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Gooch on November 22, 2017, 08:34:14 AM
By the way. You cord cutters are the ones driving this.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on November 22, 2017, 08:55:07 AM
By the way. You cord cutters are the ones driving this.

Explain to me your reasoning here.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 09:11:08 AM
By the way. You cord cutters are the ones driving this.

Explain to me your reasoning here.
he's upset that cord cutters aren't subsidizing his internet by paying for cable
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: IPA4Me on November 22, 2017, 09:22:56 AM
Providers are losing revenue. Now, they recapture that revenue with "internet" bundles. In the long run, we all lose. Providers will get back their lost revenue and more.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Gooch on November 22, 2017, 09:40:15 AM
Providers are losing revenue. Now, they recapture that revenue with "internet" bundles. In the long run, we all lose. Providers will get back their lost revenue and more.
Correct
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 22, 2017, 09:49:20 AM
Local governments with their hand in the cookie jar all over the place. 

Franchise fees, right away fees, pole attachment fees, IRU’s. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2017, 10:01:07 AM
The internet is a failed experiment, it's time to move on.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on November 22, 2017, 10:05:44 AM
The paid VPN services industry is going to explode because of this.  I will never paid for “internet bundles” as a part of my internet.  That’s absolute bullshit and I will not do it.  Nobody “owns” the internet.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 10:44:14 AM
is there not a way to keep "net neutrality" AND reduce the cost of entry for small time ISPs?  i know very little about the actual underlying policy here.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 11:11:23 AM
I thought net neutrality was a check on ISPs and how they provide content. I don’t see why it would affect new ISP entrants. It affects how content is provided to consumers.

Trump is worried about AT&T buying Time Warner, but if net neutrality goes away, the potential impact to consumers is WAAAAY worse.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 11:25:04 AM
I thought net neutrality was a check on ISPs and how they provide content. I don’t see why it would affect new ISP entrants. It affects how content is provided to consumers.

Trump is worried about AT&T buying Time Warner, but if net neutrality goes away, the potential impact to consumers is WAAAAY worse.
a lot of the supporting arguments i've read is that the current regulations make it next to impossible for new ISPs to enter the market.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on November 22, 2017, 11:26:32 AM
Enforcing Antitrust laws seems like a good way to make it easier for new/small ISPs, but I don't really know
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 11:28:14 AM
I haven’t read much on it, but if so I guess that would be because you cannot have a provider who just offers Netflix for example. Still, I would think the infrastructure is what really keeps out new ISPs.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2017, 11:48:22 AM
The impact on new ISPs was given exactly zero consideration in this decision.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 11:51:00 AM
The impact on new ISPs was given exactly zero consideration in this decision.
Quote
By exploring ways to reduce needless red tape, the Commission hopes that these proposals will spur broadband deployment throughout the country, bringing better, faster Internet service to more Americans and boosting competition and choice in the broadband marketplace.
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom)
 :dunno:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on November 22, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
Providers are losing revenue. Now, they recapture that revenue with "internet" bundles. In the long run, we all lose. Providers will get back their lost revenue and more.

Fleece the people even more, not like they already don't everything else.

I hate everything about it.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 12:18:10 PM
Cost is just a minor concern for net neutrality proponents. The bigger concern is ISPs being able to either throttle or completely remove content that customers have access to. You think people live in bubbles now? Just wait until they’re subscribing to TrumpNet.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2017, 12:23:03 PM
The impact on new ISPs was given exactly zero consideration in this decision.
Quote
By exploring ways to reduce needless red tape, the Commission hopes that these proposals will spur broadband deployment throughout the country, bringing better, faster Internet service to more Americans and boosting competition and choice in the broadband marketplace.
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom (https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom)
 :dunno:

 Yep, that's what they say!
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on November 22, 2017, 12:29:42 PM
Cost is just a minor concern for net neutrality proponents. The bigger concern is ISPs being able to either throttle or completely remove content that customers have access to. You think people live in bubbles now? Just wait until they’re subscribing to TrumpNet.

This.

I’m not really concerned with people being in their own bubbles, we have that now.  The censoring of content is what countries like China and North Korea do.  Granted that’s at government level but censoring for capital gain would eliminate any new internet company entrants.  It would create monopolies like we haven’t seen since Microsoft.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on November 22, 2017, 12:30:20 PM
Cost is just a minor concern for net neutrality proponents. The bigger concern is ISPs being able to either throttle or completely remove content that customers have access to. You think people live in bubbles now? Just wait until they’re subscribing to TrumpNet.

Costs will be though a more upfront and writ large in your face thing that everyone will bear.

You can bubble yourself pretty well regardless of paying for access to something.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 12:34:38 PM
Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 22, 2017, 12:46:43 PM
I like my internet completely unregulated and more than slightly scary.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2017, 12:48:11 PM
Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

the internet is only like 20 years old bruh
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on November 22, 2017, 12:50:03 PM
Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

I am going to venture that if we only hopped back 10-15 years ago the internet wasn't as ubiquitous of an item compared to the sales and money and traffic it has now. I am just guessing that a provider like Time Warner sat there and was like "yeah, we make all our $$ on cable, internet is a nice bump" and when people didn't want cable anymore and you could stream shows, movies, etc over the internet, the ball game changed. I mean, you have to remember something like Netflix was a mailing DVD service at first, and it was that not because they loved DVDs but because it was incapable of providing streaming service with 2007 internet for most people.

Basically, you couldn't do on the internet then what you can now, so tiering it would've been more of a why bother, rather than a why not. I hope you get that 125kB email 0.5 seconds faster.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on November 22, 2017, 12:51:01 PM
Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

the internet is only like 20 years old bruh

Actually the public internet is about 28 and a half years old.  The internet itself is about 48 years old.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 12:53:46 PM
was the internet really that different in 2015 when Title II was enacted?  i'm more than willing to join in the outrage here, i'm just not sure what we're outraged about.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on November 22, 2017, 12:56:00 PM
Is there a reason these doomsday scenarios didn't happen prior to the current regs?

I am going to venture that if we only hopped back 10-15 years ago the internet wasn't as ubiquitous of an item compared to the sales and money and traffic it has now. I am just guessing that a provider like Time Warner sat there and was like "yeah, we make all our $$ on cable, internet is a nice bump" and when people didn't want cable anymore and you could stream shows, movies, etc over the internet, the ball game changed. I mean, you have to remember something like Netflix was a mailing DVD service at first, and it was that not because they loved DVDs but because it was incapable of providing streaming service with 2007 internet for most people.

Basically, you couldn't do on the internet then what you can now, so tiering it would've been more of a why bother, rather than a why not. I hope you get that 125kB email 0.5 seconds faster.

Here are some hard statistics that support this point.  The amount of data and potential market if they undo net neutrality is staggering.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/vni-hyperconnectivity-wp.html
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 22, 2017, 12:59:10 PM
I don't know anything about the issue but if I were guessing I would say this is an opportunity for the big ISP companies to slow down your internet if you don't pay them a whole F ton.  They have been killing each other in price wars and this will let them dick us harder.

Am I right?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 01:02:37 PM
I don't know anything about the issue but if I were guessing I would say this is an opportunity for the big ISP companies to slow down your internet if you don't pay them a whole F ton.  They have been killing each other in price wars and this will let them dick us harder.

Am I right?
isn't that exactly how markets work though?

:confused:

basically, i'm seeing a bunch of people tell everyone to call their congressmen but i don't understand (a) why bringing things back to the 2014-15 era of ISP regulations would lead to the doomsday scenarios people claim it will and (b) even if it does why those doomsday scenarios are unfair
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 01:06:49 PM
Dlew wants to MAGA.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2017, 01:08:28 PM
Yea it's how markets work when they are monopolized
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on November 22, 2017, 01:12:01 PM
Two big things net neutrality keeps in check:

1. Censorship. ISPs would be able to restrict access to whatever they want. Got a Soros/Koch type who owns an ISP? Maybe you won’t be able to see certain content around election time. Not super likely, but more importantly, totally ok without net neutrality.

2. It can kill competition among content providers. Something like YoutubeTV coming to your area? Think again says DIRECTV Now, we’re going to pay the ISP to NOT carry their content so that we can charge you more for ours.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 22, 2017, 01:13:01 PM
Dlew12, ISP's were starting to look at "tiered" internet for a little while before title II, but it's a pretty big step that will piss off most of their consumers. What sucks is that ISP's are basically a public utility at this point and choice of service isn't possible for most consumers.

Think of it like this: what if kcpl started charging tiers like a  heating/ac bundle, a kitchen appliances bundle, an entertainment bundle, a computer or business bundle, etc
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 01:23:54 PM
Dlew12, ISP's were starting to look at "tiered" internet for a little while before title II, but it's a pretty big step that will piss off most of their consumers. What sucks is that ISP's are basically a public utility at this point and choice of service isn't possible for most consumers.

Think of it like this: what if kcpl started charging tiers like a  heating/ac bundle, a kitchen appliances bundle, an entertainment bundle, a computer or business bundle, etc
Now this I understand.  I don't know why it's impossible for most consumers to choose their ISPs, but if that's the case then that's a problem that the market wouldn't be able to solve.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on November 22, 2017, 02:28:07 PM
Dlew12, ISP's were starting to look at "tiered" internet for a little while before title II, but it's a pretty big step that will piss off most of their consumers. What sucks is that ISP's are basically a public utility at this point and choice of service isn't possible for most consumers.

Think of it like this: what if kcpl started charging tiers like a  heating/ac bundle, a kitchen appliances bundle, an entertainment bundle, a computer or business bundle, etc

Which is pretty precisely what the FCC ruled and enforced in 2015 to keep the internet neutral. They labeled it as a utility, as it should be.


Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2017, 03:14:41 PM
OBAMA!  :curse:

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/933372798210334720
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2017, 03:15:23 PM
That's the douchebag from Parsons.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on November 22, 2017, 05:35:11 PM
I don't know why it's impossible for most consumers to choose their ISPs, but if that's the case then that's a problem that the market wouldn't be able to solve.

the major ISP players are very often operating under municipal franchise monopolies. in a large part of the US, if you're lucky you get to choose between paying the telephone franchise utility or paying the cable franchise utility
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on November 22, 2017, 05:47:15 PM
I think we all got trolled by dlew12
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DQ12 on November 22, 2017, 09:36:51 PM
Wasn't trolling.  Genuinely didn't understand it because most articles seemed hyperbolic one way or the other.  This thread helped clear things up for me.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CHONGS on November 22, 2017, 09:43:13 PM
He was just asking questions bros
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 27, 2017, 03:24:14 PM
The republican party just gets harder and harder to associate with.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on November 27, 2017, 03:27:43 PM
Not for racists
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 27, 2017, 03:30:29 PM
Not for racists

Yeah, I guess everyone has their priorities.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on December 01, 2017, 04:37:10 AM
Dlew12, ISP's were starting to look at "tiered" internet for a little while before title II, but it's a pretty big step that will piss off most of their consumers. What sucks is that ISP's are basically a public utility at this point and choice of service isn't possible for most consumers.

Think of it like this: what if kcpl started charging tiers like a  heating/ac bundle, a kitchen appliances bundle, an entertainment bundle, a computer or business bundle, etc
Now this I understand.  I don't know why it's impossible for most consumers to choose their ISPs, but if that's the case then that's a problem that the market wouldn't be able to solve.

The technology also is still very much in development. The area I live in is getting our first high speed isp this month. It's been satellite and line of sight internet in the area I live in.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 01, 2017, 08:15:39 AM
Does line of sight internet mean watching your neighbors’ Netflix through the window?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on December 01, 2017, 04:38:41 PM
Does line of sight internet mean watching your neighbors’ Netflix through the window?

It's getting a signal from antennas.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2017, 05:32:28 PM
Just got another quote back.  11,000 feet of fiber, will cost $279K to build.  Plus another $25K to the railroad to bore under their tracks, pole attachment fees to local utility TBD, and ROW fees to local municipality TBD.

Current ROI: 84 months!



Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 01, 2017, 05:34:46 PM
Just got another quote back.  11,000 feet of fiber, will cost $279K to build.  Plus another $25K to the railroad to bore under their tracks, pole attachment fees to local utility TBD, and ROW fees to local municipality TBD.

Current ROI: 84 months!






what does this mean in relation to this thread?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2017, 05:39:10 PM
Just got another quote back.  11,000 feet of fiber, will cost $279K to build.  Plus another $25K to the railroad to bore under their tracks, pole attachment fees to local utility TBD, and ROW fees to local municipality TBD.

Current ROI: 84 months!






what does this mean in relation to this thread?

The meltdown over tiered pricing.   The United States suffers from the worst urban sprawl in the world, everybody wants their little ranch and ranchettes in the middle of nowhere yet wants huge unlimited Internet bandwidth for 50 bucks a month.   Then in Urban settings the local governments plow their hand in the cookie jar.



Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2017, 05:42:47 PM
Plus the notion that the Taxpayers have "paid" and thus must be giving almost free access is comical.  Taxpayers paid for the existence of the Internet, but in most cases didn't pay a dime for the access to the Internet.   
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 01, 2017, 05:45:28 PM
so you are advocating that the current proposals that would favor ISP's is ok with you?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 01, 2017, 05:47:24 PM
this is like wackycat08 levels of post encryption
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Tobias on December 01, 2017, 05:50:15 PM
still unsure about the NN daxfuscation relevance
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 01, 2017, 05:55:21 PM
The ISPs could always just charge more for their service if they are losing money, Dax. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: CHONGS on December 01, 2017, 06:13:00 PM
Pro tip- dax has no idea what this is about
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Gooch on December 01, 2017, 08:57:59 PM
He is in lockstep with the admin. It's actually admirable.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on December 01, 2017, 09:02:42 PM
got an actual video of 90% of the republican party after trump does something

(http://cs9.pikabu.ru/post_img/2017/06/15/6/1497514563157847481.gif)
Title: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 02, 2017, 12:17:22 AM
Pro tip- dax has no idea what this is about

Yeah I’m pretty sure him trying to even set up a VPN is out of the question. Guys this effects everyone, and in a significant way. I would even go as far as comparing it to the gun lovers ‘they won’t take MY GUNS’ thing. I’ll die on this NN Hill because nobody owns the internet. I’ll also never abide by it, no ISP could ever ban VPN’s in the US.

https://www.wired.com/story/heres-how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-will-change-the-internet/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 09:48:45 AM
"Net Neutrality" saved the internet for, what, a year? Now we're back to 2015 internet.  :runaway: :Crybaby:

You people cannot be anymore fucktarded
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 02, 2017, 12:55:50 PM
"Net Neutrality" saved the internet for, what, a year? Now we're back to 2015 internet.  :runaway: :Crybaby:

You people cannot be anymore fucktarded

Wrong but not response worthy.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 02, 2017, 01:05:53 PM
Fsd, what do you think net neutrality is?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: michigancat on December 02, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
lol
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on December 02, 2017, 04:42:19 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 05:38:22 PM
Back to the dark 2015 days of net un-neutrality, when everything was broken and the only search engine was att.net.  :runaway:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 02, 2017, 05:42:03 PM
Fsd, what do you think net neutrality is?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 02, 2017, 05:53:08 PM
What it actually is or what you fucktards are advocating for?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 02, 2017, 05:56:30 PM
Why not both?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on December 04, 2017, 03:39:13 PM
Back to the dark 2015 days of net un-neutrality, when everything was broken and the only search engine was att.net.  :runaway:

Don't worry about it.  You're safely in Trump's corner of people not knowing what the eff it is so you're in the right place
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 13, 2017, 08:49:09 PM
Vote is tomorrow guys. I’ll find ways around it, but I want a free and open internet for everyone. Today may be your last chance to speak out.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 13, 2017, 09:18:08 PM
Quite a bit of agreement here.

Quote
83 percent of Americans do not approve of the FCC proposal. Just 16 percent said they approved.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on December 14, 2017, 09:27:28 AM
Trump ignoring constituents in favor of corporations?  I do not believe it.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: mocat on December 14, 2017, 10:08:18 AM
could someone play devil's advocate on this for me? tia
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 14, 2017, 12:21:58 PM
:flush:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 14, 2017, 12:26:27 PM
Hey Chings can you remove the Cloudflare TOR checks now?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 12:31:55 PM
https://twitter.com/ceciliakang/status/941364556592447489

I was looking to see what happened and saw this response!  :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

https://twitter.com/FatChickinLA/status/941365729214873600
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 12:38:43 PM
FCC: People are going to love this.

Also FCC: Actually, can we have the room cleared before we vote?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on December 14, 2017, 12:39:12 PM
I'm not sure if I am going to be able to afford to stay on gE when I have to buy an expensive package to get on here.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 12:40:18 PM
gE will definitely be on most ISPs' premium package.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on December 14, 2017, 12:41:59 PM
What a bunch of idiots
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 12:52:08 PM
Side note: the FCC chairman easily has one of the top-5 punchable faces I have seen in recent memory.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: OK_Cat on December 14, 2017, 01:00:52 PM
Since FSD is too scared to ask, here you go bud.

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutralityfor-dummies-and-how-it-effects-you-2014-1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 14, 2017, 01:18:18 PM
That is a perfect link title for FSD
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on December 14, 2017, 01:19:15 PM
Trump keeps putting industry people in charge of the agencies that are supposed to regulate them.  The FCC knows this fucks over consumers but they don't care.

I would think that the MSM haters would be the ones least comfortable with ISPs controlling their content. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 14, 2017, 01:19:44 PM
What timing too! Had this for a solid minute before it posted

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171214/29d872efc7ac417636955bab99a3913f.jpg)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 01:35:37 PM
This Pai quote is maddeningly inaccurate.

https://twitter.com/bafeldman/status/941362883685994496
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
Libtards are so rough ridin' stupid.

It's amazingly incongruent to say you support net neutrality but also support the net neutrality regulations. The regulations do not promote a free and open internet you fucktards, they want to tax and fee your face off until your only choice a version of a Southwestern Bell landline.

It's like saying you support the rights of unborn children and planned parenthood. One necessarily undermines the other. Each is a misnomer.

The ignorance is astounding. You fucktards literally believe anything you are tild to believe.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 14, 2017, 03:51:46 PM
As usual fsd has a firm grasp on the issue
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: dal9 on December 14, 2017, 03:53:06 PM
Side note: the FCC chairman easily has one of the top-5 punchable faces I have seen in recent memory.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=68&v=LFhT6H6pRWg[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 03:54:20 PM
You are so goddamned brainwashed that you think Verizon is really going to start requiring you to use webcrawler as a search engine and hulu as the only streaming video service. What in the holy eff would be verizons motivation for that?

Good grief. Most of you nitwits wouldn't know the difference between what you have now and a 56 bot modem, and you think that if 1916 telephone regs arent applied to the internet you won't be able to watch reruns of friends on netflix.

Not one of you can even begin to articulate what the eff these regulations are you support, or why they promote real net neutrality. You just accept a misnomer and support it because some libtard on twitter says so.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: OK_Cat on December 14, 2017, 03:54:46 PM
Hey FSD, I noticed you haven’t had a chance to read my article yet. Hope you get time today to check it out and really let it suck you in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 14, 2017, 03:55:32 PM
Yup, obamacare for the internet
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: dal9 on December 14, 2017, 03:55:47 PM
Side note: the FCC chairman easily has one of the top-5 punchable faces I have seen in recent memory.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=68&v=LFhT6H6pRWg[/youtube]

They're starting already, the fuckers!
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: dal9 on December 14, 2017, 03:56:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 03:58:19 PM
As usual fsd has a firm grasp on the issue

I can't imagine how low your self esteem is and how little self worth you ascribe to yourself, to monitor every post on this board all day every day, yet never ever make a single substantive contribution concerning the basis for your position.

It's one chicken crap dickless post after another. They're boring, and they are redundant.

Grow balls. Youre heaving snowballs from behind a brickwall and running inside.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: OK_Cat on December 14, 2017, 03:59:02 PM
FSD still doesn’t understand the issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 03:59:54 PM
Repealing regs equals more regulation, yeah I get your perverted pov
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 14, 2017, 04:03:22 PM
I enjoyed the "56 bot" modem reference from known net neutrality expert fsd :thumbs:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 04:05:01 PM
Side note: the FCC chairman easily has one of the top-5 punchable faces I have seen in recent memory.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=68&v=LFhT6H6pRWg[/youtube]

:curse:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2017, 05:52:14 PM
A good explanation of what is going on from former FCC commish, but NBC guy keeps cutting him off.

[youtube]6wHoeCNhnNc[/youtube]
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 07:23:18 PM
That msnbc guy is a total fucktard getting clownsuited by the FCC guy.

The msnbc guy is basically the libtards itt.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 07:29:30 PM
https://twitter.com/henshaw/status/941133127283564544
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 07:46:46 PM
Chum (aka chicken little) coming strong with the #fakenews
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2017, 07:48:31 PM
Stop confusing me with all these laws about the net neutrality laws :curse:, I'm talking about the bandwith and the consequences!!!! :runaway:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2017, 08:10:18 PM
https://twitter.com/henshaw/status/941133127283564544

Yes, they changed it last April  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 14, 2017, 09:23:32 PM
Looks like I need to post more!
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 14, 2017, 09:27:42 PM
A good explanation of what is going on from former FCC commish, but NBC guy keeps cutting him off.

[youtube]6wHoeCNhnNc[/youtube]

This actually makes me feel a lot better about the vote. The MSNBC guy is an ass.

Also, FCC guy acts like I imagine Spracne acting whenever he posts on gE.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 15, 2017, 06:49:55 AM
All the takes that cheap Internet will be the catalyst for massive and expensive broadband buildouts are just straight up LOL.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 15, 2017, 08:05:52 AM
Stupid pubtards believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. Yea, tax cuts and forcing content providers to pay ISPs will result in zero cost to consumers SMDH.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 15, 2017, 09:20:48 AM
All the takes that cheap Internet will be the catalyst for massive and expensive broadband buildouts are just straight up LOL.

Who in this thread is saying that?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 15, 2017, 09:22:01 AM
All the takes that cheap Internet will be the catalyst for massive and expensive broadband buildouts are just straight up LOL.

Who in this thread is saying that?

The articles being referenced.
Title: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 15, 2017, 09:24:13 AM
Alex Jonesites (like lib for example) types in Perpetual Meltdown ProgLib Nation are conjuring up some fantastic conspiracies.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on December 15, 2017, 10:07:54 AM
All the takes that cheap Internet will be the catalyst for massive and expensive broadband buildouts are just straight up LOL.

Who in this thread is saying that?

Dax thinks net neutrality forces ISP's to stop charging for their service
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: ChiComCat on December 15, 2017, 10:26:35 AM
I would have thought some of the Republicans would like a free market on the internet but nope!  Maybe they will be a little bit concerned when comcast offers free access to MSNBC but charges for Fox news and infowars.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 15, 2017, 10:32:40 AM
Someone will figure out how to bypass them in a block chain for internet kind of disruption and it will be glorious
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 15, 2017, 10:59:35 AM
:Chirp:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 15, 2017, 12:51:14 PM
https://twitter.com/MackenzieAstin/status/941459382864437248
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 15, 2017, 12:56:18 PM
All the takes that cheap Internet will be the catalyst for massive and expensive broadband buildouts are just straight up LOL.

Who in this thread is saying that?

Dax thinks net neutrality forces ISP's to stop charging for their service

Total dumbass is a bad look lib.  You're not even funny anymore.  SMDH, so sad.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: passranch on December 15, 2017, 01:44:20 PM
I would have thought some of the Republicans would like a free market on the internet but nope!  Maybe they will be a little bit concerned when comcast offers free access to MSNBC but charges for Fox news and infowars.

Or blocks them outright.

But that's not the best part.  The best part is the one about Comcast being a monopoly in the town where they live, and because they so strongly supported protectionist local legislations, no other company can even consider building out a rival network to compete.

Should be pretty fun.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 15, 2017, 01:51:52 PM
Owning the libs by paying more for foxnews.com content.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2017, 02:53:33 PM
I would have thought some of the Republicans would like a free market on the internet but nope!  Maybe they will be a little bit concerned when comcast offers free access to MSNBC but charges for Fox news and infowars.

I would think even a fucktard would understand that repealing regulations on the internet is a free market thingy.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 15, 2017, 02:55:43 PM
Single provider entities in a community is about as free market as it gets
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2017, 02:56:16 PM
The libtards don't even know that "ending net neutrality" was nothing more tham repealing the regulations of the internet promulgated under an 80+ year old law.

AMAZE
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: LickNeckey on December 15, 2017, 03:59:41 PM
For my clarity, as i am a little slow, how do you see the ending of net neutrality improving free market conditions.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2017, 08:29:43 PM
Net neutrality did not begin in 2015, nor did it end in 2017.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 15, 2017, 08:40:43 PM
Maybe FSD will grow out of his adolescent stage one day and bring more to the discussion than libtard and fucktard.  Highly doubtful considering he’s a giant dumbass but we can dream guys.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 15, 2017, 08:50:14 PM
https://twitter.com/MackenzieAstin/status/941459382864437248

She is probably still voting too, but we don't care about that either.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 15, 2017, 09:36:53 PM
Single provider entities in a community is about as free market as it gets

No sure if serious, but it absolutely is what free market gets you. It’s just that most folks aren’t actually comfortable with a completely free market society which is why we have anti-monopoly laws and used to have net neutrality.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 15, 2017, 09:38:57 PM
Single provider entities in a community is about as free market as it gets

No sure if serious, but it absolutely is what free market gets you. It’s just that most folks aren’t actually comfortable with a completely free market society which is why we have anti-monopoly laws and used to have net neutrality.

shut up asshat no one likes you
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 15, 2017, 09:59:37 PM
I’ll be fine guys.  Even tho I want everyone to be fine, it’s probably not gonna happen tho.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on December 15, 2017, 10:02:13 PM
Single provider entities in a community is about as free market as it gets

No sure if serious, but it absolutely is what free market gets you. It’s just that most folks aren’t actually comfortable with a completely free market society which is why we have anti-monopoly laws and used to have net neutrality.

shut up asshat no one likes you

Oh.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 16, 2017, 08:52:11 AM
Maybe FSD will grow out of his adolescent stage one day and bring more to the discussion than libtard and fucktard.  Highly doubtful considering he’s a giant dumbass but we can dream guys.

Fucktard
Libtard
Dumbass

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on December 16, 2017, 02:10:51 PM
Single provider entities in a community is about as free market as it gets

No sure if serious, but it absolutely is what free market gets you. It’s just that most folks aren’t actually comfortable with a completely free market society which is why we have anti-monopoly laws and used to have net neutrality.

shut up asshat no one likes you
Not sure if sarcasm, but he's absolutely correct. It's akin to saying that repealing the Sherman Act is just a way of supporting free markets. And it has nothing to do with my feelings towards catastrophe.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on December 18, 2017, 08:29:32 PM
https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/942842016190185472
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on December 18, 2017, 08:52:09 PM
I don't think Ed understands how our government works
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on December 18, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
I'll still be fine guys but if this is true than pretty much everyone will be fine too.  This isn't gonna be a quick resolution.  Even if congress passes it there isn't an ISP on earth that would take advantage right away.  Would be business suicide.  So my point is everybody should figure out how to get around this just in case DOES actually happen, which it probably never will.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on January 03, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/colorado-city-to-build-fiber-broadband-network-with-net-neutrality/%3famp=1 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/colorado-city-to-build-fiber-broadband-network-with-net-neutrality/%3famp=1)


:users:


Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on January 03, 2018, 09:55:34 PM
It seems almost inevitable.  Internet is a utility.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 04, 2018, 08:06:00 AM
Ft. Collins is such an elite city.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: MakeItRain on January 08, 2018, 09:13:04 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/367929-senate-bill-to-reverse-net-neutrality-repeal-wins-30th-co-sponsor-ensuring

It will be interesting to see how moderate Republicans and Republicans in blue and purple states vote on this.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on January 25, 2018, 10:20:45 AM
https://twitter.com/burgerking/status/956166686054408192
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on January 25, 2018, 10:47:06 AM
The giant Reese's mug at the end was a nice touch.

But I feel that I have to make the obvious counterpoint: fast food restaurants like Burger King are currently allowed to do what Burger King did in that commercial.  However, none of them do because it pisses people off.  You could easily make the same argument for ISPs in a free market.

My biggest issue with Net Neutrality is that if completely repealed the ISPs do not have to tell you what they are throttling and/or censoring, which can affect people and businesses without their even knowing it.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 25, 2018, 10:54:09 AM
The giant Reese's mug at the end was a nice touch.

But I feel that I have to make the obvious counterpoint: fast food restaurants like Burger King are currently allowed to do what Burger King did in that commercial.  However, none of them do because it pisses people off.  You could easily make the same argument for ISPs in a free market.

My biggest issue with Net Neutrality is that if completely repealed the ISPs do not have to tell you what they are throttling and/or censoring, which can affect people and businesses without their even knowing it.

Burger King doesn't do that because people would just go to some other fast food restaurant to get cheap shitty food instead. A lot of people don't have many options for high speed internet.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on January 25, 2018, 11:40:27 AM
The giant Reese's mug at the end was a nice touch.

But I feel that I have to make the obvious counterpoint: fast food restaurants like Burger King are currently allowed to do what Burger King did in that commercial.  However, none of them do because it pisses people off.  You could easily make the same argument for ISPs in a free market.

My biggest issue with Net Neutrality is that if completely repealed the ISPs do not have to tell you what they are throttling and/or censoring, which can affect people and businesses without their even knowing it.

Burger King doesn't do that because people would just go to some other fast food restaurant to get cheap shitty food instead. A lot of people don't have many options for high speed internet.

Exactly. One of many reasons not to do this dumbassery. IF certain things were more easily subject to true market forces, I would be ok with this, but certain things like healthcare, power, internet, etc. just have either too high of a barrier to entry to be practical or geographically you are pinned in, which leads to price gouging and other crap. It's very un-capitalistic.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on January 25, 2018, 10:17:33 PM
The giant Reese's mug at the end was a nice touch.

But I feel that I have to make the obvious counterpoint: fast food restaurants like Burger King are currently allowed to do what Burger King did in that commercial.  However, none of them do because it pisses people off.  You could easily make the same argument for ISPs in a free market.

My biggest issue with Net Neutrality is that if completely repealed the ISPs do not have to tell you what they are throttling and/or censoring, which can affect people and businesses without their even knowing it.

Burger King doesn't do that because people would just go to some other fast food restaurant to get cheap shitty food instead. A lot of people don't have many options for high speed internet.

So should the government add a crap ton of regulations so ISPs are regulated like water or electric companies, or should it remove regulations so that ISPs function like fast food restaurants?  I don't think there is a clear answer (I'm personally in favor of the former).  I cannot necessarily fault people who believe the second option is the better choice.  Repealing net neutrality is obviously a part of that policy.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 26, 2018, 08:17:58 AM
The giant Reese's mug at the end was a nice touch.

But I feel that I have to make the obvious counterpoint: fast food restaurants like Burger King are currently allowed to do what Burger King did in that commercial.  However, none of them do because it pisses people off.  You could easily make the same argument for ISPs in a free market.

My biggest issue with Net Neutrality is that if completely repealed the ISPs do not have to tell you what they are throttling and/or censoring, which can affect people and businesses without their even knowing it.

Burger King doesn't do that because people would just go to some other fast food restaurant to get cheap shitty food instead. A lot of people don't have many options for high speed internet.

So should the government add a crap ton of regulations so ISPs are regulated like water or electric companies, or should it remove regulations so that ISPs function like fast food restaurants?  I don't think there is a clear answer (I'm personally in favor of the former).  I cannot necessarily fault people who believe the second option is the better choice.  Repealing net neutrality is obviously a part of that policy.

ISPs will never function like fast food companies. They are a utility, with lines everywhere and everything.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on January 26, 2018, 09:38:05 AM
Ok grandpa. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/15/the-next-generation-internet-technology-that-could-supercharge-your-home-a-cold-calculating-look-at-the-reality-of-wireless-fiber/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 26, 2018, 09:47:24 AM
I think cellular services should be considered utilities, too.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on January 26, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
I mean, I'm totally with you on both counts, but if (really when) wireless companies like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile etc. are able to enter the internet game, competition won't be as much of an issue for ISPs.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on February 15, 2018, 07:20:00 PM
Shocking

https://twitter.com/ceciliakang/status/964118473172385792
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2018, 09:28:49 PM
Can't read. Ever since free internet was repealed by the gop I can only access foxnews, paramount, and other right winged media outlets
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: mocat on February 16, 2018, 05:40:02 AM
Fsd posts itt are the very best
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2018, 04:12:40 PM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/nra-gives-ajit-pai-courage-award-and-gun-for-saving-the-internet/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2018, 04:26:44 PM
Why couldn't they bring the gun on stage? Dangerous?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Gooch on February 23, 2018, 04:33:53 PM
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/getty-ajit-pai-cpac-800x534.jpg)
JFC! Has there ever been a more punchable face?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2018, 04:39:13 PM
Why couldn't they bring the gun on stage? Dangerous?

Not enough armed teachers in the crowd, apparently.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: The Big Train on February 27, 2018, 03:44:20 PM
https://twitter.com/aclu/status/968596250911178752
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 27, 2018, 04:02:50 PM
It's one vote in the senate and a lot of votes in the house.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on February 27, 2018, 04:24:53 PM
Is it an actual piece of legislation or more like an oversight type action?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 27, 2018, 04:43:51 PM
Is it an actual piece of legislation or more like an oversight type action?

Oversight-type action. The Congressional Review Act gives congress the ability to undo the FCC order through a "resolution of disapproval" if they act withing 60 days of publishing in the Federal Register, which happened last week.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 16, 2018, 03:04:08 PM
https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/996842309340852224
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on May 16, 2018, 03:18:32 PM
Will the house even vote on it?  Seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on May 16, 2018, 03:26:55 PM
good
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 16, 2018, 03:29:59 PM
Neither of our Kansas senators voted for net neutrality.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 16, 2018, 10:00:10 PM
color me stunned
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 16, 2018, 10:08:21 PM
Remember when net neutralitu was repealed and the internet ended?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 17, 2018, 08:03:59 AM
Remember when net neutralitu was repealed and the internet ended?

Yeah. Way back in June, 2018. Those were the days.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: LickNeckey on May 17, 2018, 10:47:11 AM
Remember when net neutralitu was repealed and the internet ended?

 :dubious:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on May 17, 2018, 11:09:02 AM
They are going to throttle my YouTube I just know it, those bastards.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: mocat on May 17, 2018, 11:53:01 AM
i love when fsd talks about net neutrality
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on May 17, 2018, 12:58:55 PM
Remember when net neutralitu was repealed and the internet ended?

Yeah. Way back in June, 2018. Those were the days.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: cfbandyman on May 17, 2018, 12:59:46 PM
i love when fsd talks about net neutrality

or really anything, it's like watching someone who thinks they know it all while not knowing anything
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Katpappy on May 17, 2018, 01:08:22 PM
i love when fsd talks about net neutrality

or really anything, it's like watching someone who thinks they know it all while not knowing anything

Well, what do you expect from a young white female.   ;)
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on June 05, 2018, 12:38:13 PM
https://twitter.com/dellcam/status/1004008977972293632
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 05, 2018, 01:14:07 PM
Remember when net neutralitu was repealed and the internet ended?

Yeah. Way back in June, 2018. Those were the days.

Sorry fellas. The free internet no longer exists. Because the FCC can no longer regulate like a landline utility, as it did for 15 mos or whatever, it will never work again.  Just like the libtards warned it would, my ISP makes me pay  $500 an hour just to post on goE.

  :runaway: :lol:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: SkinnyBenny on June 05, 2018, 02:49:25 PM
FSD would you consider the swamp drained?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 07, 2018, 01:18:21 PM
https://twitter.com/dellcam/status/1004008977972293632

This was Obama's fault.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/ajit-pai-admits-fcc-lied-about-ddos-blames-it-on-obama-administration/
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2018, 02:03:22 PM
Neo Statists on the Rise:

https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 25, 2018, 10:54:57 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/verizon-couldn-t-have-restricted-santa-clara-county-s-phone-ncna903531
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 25, 2018, 11:38:05 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/verizon-couldn-t-have-restricted-santa-clara-county-s-phone-ncna903531

Years in telecom, that's nothing more than a typical boneheaded customer service issue, which sadly happens all the time.

Why that government entity didn't have a dedicated account team they could contact is baffling.

It's also LOL'able to think that the companies that spend billions on their networks, and are already highly regulated, paying billions in taxes and fees to the government already.  Paying billions to local governments, power companies (true monopolies) and transportation entities (like railroads) for right of way, pole access etc. etc.  Wouldn't be allowed to run their own networks as they see fit as the article suggests.







Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 15, 2018, 04:33:03 PM
It really looks like we probably have pretty solid bipartisan agreement after all.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kmedj/997-percent-of-unique-fcc-comments-favored-net-neutrality?utm_source=reddit.com

We just need new representation.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2019, 12:47:27 PM
Hey everybody, how’s your internet working?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2019, 02:42:26 PM
Hey everybody, how’s your internet working?

1 gig now available at my house, up from 400Mbps.   HOA signed a bulk deal:  150 channels, 1G of Internet, and they just installed a blow torch Ruckus Access Point in every residence.  $45 a month.  QAM service which means no cable boxes, On Demand and Cloud Based DVR.



Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2019, 02:51:14 PM
Still pretty neutral though?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2019, 03:29:28 PM
Still pretty neutral though?

Provider does no prioritization or blocking.

Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on February 18, 2019, 07:58:56 PM
Hey everybody, how’s your internet working?

1 gig now available at my house, up from 400Mbps.   HOA signed a bulk deal:  150 channels, 1G of Internet, and they just installed a blow torch Ruckus Access Point in every residence.  $45 a month.  QAM service which means no cable boxes, On Demand and Cloud Based DVR.





Hot damn
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Spracne on February 18, 2019, 08:28:44 PM
Yeah, I mean that's a hell of a deal...
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 18, 2019, 08:33:46 PM
Even if congress passes it there isn't an ISP on earth that would take advantage right away.  Would be business suicide.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2019, 07:32:27 AM
Even if congress passes it there isn't an ISP on earth that would take advantage right away.  Would be business suicide.

We’re six months into the proclaimed internet Armageddon of no net neutrality. What’s your over/under on when the evil internet barons roll out Operation DOOM?
Title: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2019, 07:40:49 AM
To be clear, KSU-W, you also support Google’s right to prioritize search results in any way Bezos sees fit, right?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2019, 07:44:22 AM
To be clear, KSU-W, you also support Google’s right to prioritize search results in any way Bezos sees fit, right?

Nope. Did the net neutrality regs address that?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2019, 07:52:19 AM
To be clear, KSU-W, you also support Google’s right to prioritize search results in any way Bezos sees fit, right?

Nope. Did the net neutrality regs address that?
No, they didn’t.  So your position is that search engines shouldn’t have the right to prioritize results on their site, but ISPs should have the the right to prioritize bandwidth for certain sites over others?

Those positions seem wholly inconsistent to me. I can understand if you think that each private company should do whatever they want, but why limit one and not the other? For much of the country, ISPs have a local monopoly. If you don’t like the way Google search results are ordered, you can always choose Bing (if your ISP lets you).
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Phil Titola on February 19, 2019, 07:58:53 AM
I've not experienced one argument against net neutrality that makes any factual sense.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2019, 08:05:51 AM
To be clear, KSU-W, you also support Google’s right to prioritize search results in any way Bezos sees fit, right?

Nope. Did the net neutrality regs address that?
No, they didn’t.  So your position is that search engines shouldn’t have the right to prioritize results on their site, but ISPs should have the the right to prioritize bandwidth for certain sites over others?

Those positions seem wholly inconsistent to me. I can understand if you think that each private company should do whatever they want, but why limit one and not the other? For much of the country, ISPs have a local monopoly. If you don’t like the way Google search results are ordered, you can always choose Bing (if your ISP lets you).

My “position” is that the net neutrality regs weren’t necessary, and when did I say Google search prioritizariom should be regulated?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2019, 08:08:56 AM
Okay, fair enough. You don’t support their right to, but don’t think it should be regulated away from them.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2019, 08:22:39 AM
I've not experienced one argument against net neutrality that makes any factual sense.

Obamacare for the internet
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2019, 08:24:36 AM
Okay, fair enough. You don’t support their right to, but don’t think it should be regulated away from them.

Yeah sorry - I didn’t read your question closely enough. I guess they should have the right even if I don’t like it.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2019, 08:26:04 AM
I've not experienced one argument against net neutrality that makes any factual sense.

Obamacare for the internet

Especially the part about not having a good grasp on the subject.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2019, 08:29:39 AM
I've not experienced one argument against net neutrality that makes any factual sense.

Obamacare for the internet
-W’s limitation of the quantity of regulation is actually a decent one. It’s not an argument against net neutrality though, just an argument for the null set.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2019, 08:35:39 AM
I don’t see a feasible way to regulate search prioritizarion and other liberal-leaning speech filters of influential social networking sites - which is concerning - without a host of unintended consequences.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Phil Titola on February 19, 2019, 08:46:12 AM
I'd love to read a search regulation.  That would be all kinds of LOL.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2019, 08:46:42 AM
Are there any advantages to the public for non-neutrality?

Question still hasn't been answered
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2019, 08:47:47 AM
Also I miss Mr Bread  :frown:
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2019, 08:48:10 AM
Are there any advantages to the public for non-neutrality?

Question still hasn't been answered
True. I don’t think there are.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2019, 10:13:20 AM
I often wonder how much longer the incognito free ride will last.  :frown:

My general view of the internet is that it has gotten progressively worse since the day people started making money with it. Net neutrality is another step.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 19, 2019, 10:22:12 AM
Even if congress passes it there isn't an ISP on earth that would take advantage right away.  Would be business suicide.

We’re six months into the proclaimed internet Armageddon of no net neutrality. What’s your over/under on when the evil internet barons roll out Operation DOOM?

I don’t have one. It won’t be all at once, tiny little baby steps over a prolonged period of time. It will happen if it stays.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: steve dave on February 19, 2019, 10:30:40 AM
Jesus Dax, that is a smoking deal. Congrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 19, 2019, 11:58:40 AM
Jesus Dax, that is a smoking deal. Congrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's not bad.   While HOA's can be like wrestling cats, if you have one, and haven't explored this kind of thing, you should.   Cable/Telco providers are desperate to save wired TV customers and are ramping up their MDU/HOA sales groups.




Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on February 19, 2019, 12:08:16 PM
I often wonder how much longer the incognito free ride will last.  :frown:

My general view of the internet is that it has gotten progressively worse since the day people started making money with it. Net neutrality is another step.

What in the world. The internet is a billion times better than in 1998.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2019, 12:32:38 PM
I often wonder how much longer the incognito free ride will last.  :frown:

My general view of the internet is that it has gotten progressively worse since the day people started making money with it. Net neutrality is another step.

What in the world. The internet is a billion times better than in 1998.

On balance, everything is less fun. Think of facebook, for example. That's pretty much the story across the board.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Phil Titola on February 19, 2019, 12:43:51 PM
MIGA
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2019, 03:41:53 PM
Jesus Dax, that is a smoking deal. Congrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's not bad.   While HOA's can be like wrestling cats, if you have one, and haven't explored this kind of thing, you should.   Cable/Telco providers are desperate to save wired TV customers and are ramping up their MDU/HOA sales groups.

I live in an HOA in Wichita. The only cable / internet providers are Cox and AT&T. I’ve got AT&T for
internet but DirecTV for tv. There’s no way in hell I could get all the homes in this neighborhood under one contract. Is that what you did? Like a condo association? Or are these seperate homes? All under one contract, or just a preferred pricing contract where people still subscribe individually at a special rate? That is a crazy good deal.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cire on February 19, 2019, 05:07:55 PM
Guys ksw only wants what the gop wants regardless if it's good for him or bad for him.


To own the libs of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: DaBigTrain on March 01, 2019, 08:26:19 PM
I guess this is the right thread for this.

I want internet access to as many people as possible. I truly believe that knowledge is power and access to it is live changing. The deal with capitalism is you can go where the money is, and with internet service that means neglecting rural communities.

I don’t know how you change it to provide access to more people and build out more infrastructure. I don’t think it’s having the government have a hand in controlling it though. Maybe it’s bidding out contracts to companies and giving incentives. Maybe it’s setting up access points from hot air balloons. I don’t know.

Governments who control internet access have been abusing that power more and more across the world in recent years. I can’t remember where I read it or saw it(I think it was on GPS with Fareed Zakaria) but internet blackouts have been on the rise. I know America is different and our government doesn’t wield that power, but this seems like the wrong direction to go.

I believe in Bitcoin and fair crypto’s wholeheartedly because it allows people to control their own money. It allows them to buy and have control over sound money. It can’t be censored or confiscated by governments. I believe free and open access to the internet should be protected and spread out as much as possible. It’s gives the people power and knowledge and freedom.

I think Trump is right that we need to expand it, I’m just not a big proponent on having governments have any major control of it. Maybe they will figure a way to incentivize private companies to build it out. I don’t know. Private companies and ISP’s could potentially do the same thing as governments if they banded together.  So I don’t think there is a truly universally good option. Just whatever gives as many people as possible free and open access to the internet I am in favor of.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/01/trump-campaign-5g-1230276
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 04, 2019, 10:59:09 AM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-am-allowed-back-us-isis-bride-tells-cbs-news-in-syria/ar-BBUlJ2I?li=BBnb7Kz

I think we can all agree she shouldn't be allowed back, right?
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on March 04, 2019, 11:07:22 AM
Wierd thread choice but I couldn't care less about this story. As long as we don't decide to just assassinate her, I'm OK with whatever.

It does appear to be a very passionate and important issue to a lot of maga's tho.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: LickNeckey on March 04, 2019, 11:10:48 AM
still a citizen

try her for a crime if she committed one
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: Cire on March 04, 2019, 11:46:35 AM
still a citizen

try her for a crime if she committed one
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: wetwillie on March 04, 2019, 12:10:40 PM
How bad is Alabama that you would rather go to Syria and marry an ISIS fighter twice? 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 04, 2019, 12:26:46 PM
A sizable population of Muslims is in Alabama. 

BHAM area is quite diverse. 
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: catastrophe on March 04, 2019, 04:02:18 PM
still a citizen

try her for a crime if she committed one

My understanding is that the Whitehouse is disputing the citizenship issue.

It does seem like that should resolve it, though. If she’s a citizen give her a trial.
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2019, 10:13:08 AM
Different issue but similar in like why do we let this crap happen

https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1115582655146463233?s=19
Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 04, 2020, 10:49:59 PM
 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Will put this one up next to WWIII coming because Trump killed a singular Iranian terrorist


Title: Re: Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On
Post by: star seed 7 on August 04, 2020, 11:12:04 PM
Huh?