Net Neutrality is Dead.

1356789

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    BS44325 said:

    Ha. You two are hilarious. A free internet led to sites like this. As per usual when I discuss the problems headed are way I always become enemy number 1. Easier to hate on me then to face the real problems coming our way. We will soon have an internet like China's. I will try to stay positive.

    If any of us here were ignoring real problems we would not be posting here. Also, I might disagree with you on some or even several issues, BS, but I certainly don't hate you.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    edited March 2015
    dignin said:

    BS44325 said:

    Ha. You two are hilarious. A free internet led to sites like this. As per usual when I discuss the problems headed are way I always become enemy number 1. Easier to hate on me then to face the real problems coming our way. We will soon have an internet like China's. I will try to stay positive.



    If you can provide me with evidence of the government putting these restrictions on the internet I would like to see it.

    Otherwise, this is pure speculation based on your world view. That is all.

    Get off my lawn!
    Over 300 pages of regulation that was withheld from the public. Normally that is something people on here would be against.

    Here is one article discussing it although probably from a source that is too right wing for your blood.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund

    If you are not concerned with the speech aspect you can also read Mark Cuban's thoughts on how it will stifle innovation.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/

    Again...this is not a victory. It is also not a left/right issue. This change can be used by any administration to stifle speech they don't like. If Bush did this you would all be outraged.
    Post edited by BS44325 on
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    BS44325 said:

    Ha. You two are hilarious. A free internet led to sites like this. As per usual when I discuss the problems headed are way I always become enemy number 1. Easier to hate on me then to face the real problems coming our way. We will soon have an internet like China's. I will try to stay positive.

    Not an enemy at all, just a real cynic in this thread.
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    Yeah, it might change in the future, but right now, it's a major win. This fight has been on the table for years and the sheer number of people speaking out to their reps in support is what helped it win. FINALLY, something is ruled in favor of the public rather the corporations. That's why it's absurd to not be for it, because it's OUR win.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    edited February 2015
    backseatLover12 said:

    Yeah, it might change in the future, but right now, it's a major win. This fight has been on the table for years and the sheer number of people speaking out to their reps in support is what helped it win. FINALLY, something is ruled in favor of the public rather the corporations. That's why it's absurd to not be for it, because it's OUR win.

    This is not in favour of the public at all. This is government taking control away from the public and putting it in the hands of an unaccountable board. Howard Stern moved to satellite radio because of the FCC. They are not your friend.


    Watch the video at the link...the taiwanese get it

    http://www.tomonews.net/m/fcc-and-obama-think-1930s-regulation-best-way-to-govern-a-modern-internet-198443630706688
    Post edited by BS44325 on
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    backseatLover12 said:

    BS44325 said:

    Ha. You two are hilarious. A free internet led to sites like this. As per usual when I discuss the problems headed are way I always become enemy number 1. Easier to hate on me then to face the real problems coming our way. We will soon have an internet like China's. I will try to stay positive.

    Not an enemy at all, just a real cynic in this thread.
    You think you are speaking truth to power but you are being used for power.

    When Eddie sings "Mother should I trust the government?" the crowd usually yells back "No!"
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    edited February 2015
    Eddie pushed for net neutrality.

    The FCC certainly cannot be trusted, Good God. I said before, the future will bring change, but you're being a wet mop here.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    I know Eddie pushed for it...makes zero sense as far as I am concerned. Call me a wet mop but I have yet to see one positive argument for it unless you just have a general anti-corporate view. The government. Fucks. Up. Everything.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    BS44325 said:

    I know Eddie pushed for it...makes zero sense as far as I am concerned. Call me a wet mop but I have yet to see one positive argument for it unless you just have a general anti-corporate view. The government. Fucks. Up. Everything.

    So it's ok to have an anti-government view but not an anti-corporate view? How does that make sense?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    I wonder also, if you feel our government fucks everything up, why are you so eager to poke our government into every conflict the Cons blather on about???
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    In all fairness, this is a net neutral forum that is slowly becoming net censored. Some posters on here are glad that they can still post an article (greenpeace, etc) without reprisal from the outside. Net neutrality is key and should be fought for by every leader in government of any country.

    But who am I to speak, alas I am behind bars.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    BS44325 said:

    I know Eddie pushed for it...makes zero sense as far as I am concerned. Call me a wet mop but I have yet to see one positive argument for it unless you just have a general anti-corporate view. The government. Fucks. Up. Everything.

    I knew a guy who worked in a government office and he had people frequently tell him the same thing. He got so sick of hearing it because when he questioned about how the government works most people were clueless and b) most of them weren't doing a thing to change anything.
    I'll add c) (and I'm fairly sure you will agree) it's a heck of a lot better than, say, the North Korean government or the Russian government. Again, BS, blanket statements like "The government. Fucks. Up. Everything." don't make for a good argument. Do you know of NOTHING the government has done well? I can think a many. Yosemite, The Wilderness Act etc., etc...

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    I know Eddie pushed for it...makes zero sense as far as I am concerned. Call me a wet mop but I have yet to see one positive argument for it unless you just have a general anti-corporate view. The government. Fucks. Up. Everything.

    So it's ok to have an anti-government view but not an anti-corporate view? How does that make sense?
    It is ok to have both. In this instance however an unregulated internet and corporate competition led to huge technical innovations with accessibility to all. Look how far the internet has come in such a short period of time. Internet content of your choice is pretty much available world wide at reduced rates and blazing fast speeds. This is not an accident. Government regulation will only strangle innovation and if anything put more power in the hands of those corporations that are willing to play ball. We see this in China where only corporations that cooperate are given access to the markets. Over time FCC mission creep will grow and the same situation will occur here. New tech start-ups will find it more difficult to get off the ground. We will have more attacks on companies like Uber and Lyft which are being strangled by the government protected taxi industry. We will have more attacks on services like AirBnB which is being strangled by the goverment protected hotel industry. Next you will see new media and bloggers under assualt. I am honestly aghast by the people on this forum who are so concerned about the Patriot Act, NSA spying, etc. yet are so unconcerned about a takeover of the internet. Net Neutrality is a back door to attacking speech and everyone on here should recognize it as such.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    edited March 2015
    One more article on this and then I'm done. This was sold as one thing and became another.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-liberals-mugged-by-obamanet-1425252804

    Damn...link could be behind a paywall. For some reason I can read it when I click through google.
    Post edited by BS44325 on
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    I tend to agree with BS about needing to keep perspective. I am 100% in favor of net neutrality. That doesn't mean I am 100% in favor of the FCC reclassifying it, and keeping the details of their plans quiet. I'm reserving judgement about this news until I know what the FCC is actually up to. I may be called pessimistic for joining his concern, but I think it is realistic caution.

    Similarly, I am pro-legalization with respect to weed. My state legalized weed through an initiative called I-502. Although I am 100% in favor of legalization I voted against I-502. I was worried that in our rush for legalization we would grant the government regulatory powers that would be detrimental to the actual objective. Sure enough, I-502 shoehorned weed into an archaic, post-prohibition alcohol control scheme that didn't work very well for alcohol, but since alcohol sales were moved out from under their control, they were just itching for something else to inefficiently regulate and got it with weed. I've never been to a legal, retail pot store here because they can't compete on price with the black market or the medical dispensaries. I can get week for $15 - $20/gram at a store. I can get 1/8th for $25 at a dispensary or through the black market. Why would I pay retail prices which have been taxed 3 different times on its way to the consumer? This has resulted in non-competitive pricing, a strange supply/demand problem, and inefficient licensing of retail stores. Some stores that received licenses haven't even opened, probably because they're waiting to see if there's an actual/viable business to be made.

    It is this type of disappointment with government controlled services that informs my less-than-positive view of the FCC's actions regarding net neutrality. Again, 100% in favor of net neutrality, not so much in favor of the unknown fall-out that we'll surely be facing soon through new taxes and regulations.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    My step daughter, who is rather conservatively against government legislating pretty much anything, is currently working in a large South American city where the absence of government legislation is very widespread. However, she is appalled at how polluted the place is. She's learning a lot down there. I'm fairly certain she will return to the U.S. with a different perspective on government legislation here in the U.S.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    brianlux said:

    My step daughter, who is rather conservatively against government legislating pretty much anything, is currently working in a large South American city where the absence of government legislation is very widespread. However, she is appalled at how polluted the place is. She's learning a lot down there. I'm fairly certain she will return to the U.S. with a different perspective on government legislation here in the U.S.

    This is fair and I should clarify that I am not for zero government regulation. It is always a question of balance.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    My step daughter, who is rather conservatively against government legislating pretty much anything, is currently working in a large South American city where the absence of government legislation is very widespread. However, she is appalled at how polluted the place is. She's learning a lot down there. I'm fairly certain she will return to the U.S. with a different perspective on government legislation here in the U.S.

    This is fair and I should clarify that I am not for zero government regulation. It is always a question of balance.
    Good enough, BS.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rr165892
    rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    My step daughter, who is rather conservatively against government legislating pretty much anything, is currently working in a large South American city where the absence of government legislation is very widespread. However, she is appalled at how polluted the place is. She's learning a lot down there. I'm fairly certain she will return to the U.S. with a different perspective on government legislation here in the U.S.

    This is fair and I should clarify that I am not for zero government regulation. It is always a question of balance.
    Here,here.
  • rr165892
    rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    jeffbr said:

    I tend to agree with BS about needing to keep perspective. I am 100% in favor of net neutrality. That doesn't mean I am 100% in favor of the FCC reclassifying it, and keeping the details of their plans quiet. I'm reserving judgement about this news until I know what the FCC is actually up to. I may be called pessimistic for joining his concern, but I think it is realistic caution.

    Similarly, I am pro-legalization with respect to weed. My state legalized weed through an initiative called I-502. Although I am 100% in favor of legalization I voted against I-502. I was worried that in our rush for legalization we would grant the government regulatory powers that would be detrimental to the actual objective. Sure enough, I-502 shoehorned weed into an archaic, post-prohibition alcohol control scheme that didn't work very well for alcohol, but since alcohol sales were moved out from under their control, they were just itching for something else to inefficiently regulate and got it with weed. I've never been to a legal, retail pot store here because they can't compete on price with the black market or the medical dispensaries. I can get week for $15 - $20/gram at a store. I can get 1/8th for $25 at a dispensary or through the black market. Why would I pay retail prices which have been taxed 3 different times on its way to the consumer? This has resulted in non-competitive pricing, a strange supply/demand problem, and inefficient licensing of retail stores. Some stores that received licenses haven't even opened, probably because they're waiting to see if there's an actual/viable business to be made.

    It is this type of disappointment with government controlled services that informs my less-than-positive view of the FCC's actions regarding net neutrality. Again, 100% in favor of net neutrality, not so much in favor of the unknown fall-out that we'll surely be facing soon through new taxes and regulations.

    Usually there is nothing the govt runs that is more efficient then private enterprise.But Lets not forget Jeff,At least you have the added availability for procurement and a progressive minded state.We are still in the dark ages here in FL,when it comes to MJ.Hopefully this year.We lost out by 2%.we needed 60% to pass and only got 58%.

Categories