Where does Obama stand on internet regulation etc? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

What you just did was defend net neutrality. A Christian ISP couldn't block access under net neutrality. An ISP wouldn't be able to build tiered access with net neutrality. Currently the rules are sketchy and the FCC probably doesn't have the ability to stop this from happening.

I think you may have the things backwards.

No, an ISP can't do that now, under totally different laws. You are reading the 'idea' of net neutrality, and not what our law makers have actually tried to pass.

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 05:18 PM

Give it to you in another twist... If we "allow" Net Neutrality to be a real law. This gives the power to regulate to the FCC, legally.

Now, do you really want that for your business?

BlackCrayon · 10-21-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

pocketkangaroo and GregE,
Currently, Net Neutrality is a "principle"... and at a basic idea, it's great. Until the U.S. law makers have a go at it.

They want to make it a law/rule/regulation, which will allow networks to regulate the quality of service (speed & access) they "choose" to give you. Without changing the price (that's the benefit they say)

So, if a Christian ISP said they didn't like porn, they could block it and you would be fucked.

It also means the chance that different qualities of service, could regulate who you could talk/chat or contact online. So if I have a higher end personal package and someone has a regulated package, we may not be able to communicate without the lower end person paying a fee.

We already have laws on the books that regulate ISP's on how much they can/can't charge, if they can or can't limit access. The FCC adopted the 4 basic principles of net neutrality, not a law.. we already have those, to do what this does, and we don't need more twists to screw us over.

Several twisted versions of the law, all set to regulate us, have been shot down over the last several years.

What is Net Neutrality?

Quote:

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.

What is the Current Status of Net Neutrality?

Quote:

Net neutrality is a major issue as the U.S. considers new telecommunications laws. The U.S. House of Representatives passed its telecommunications bill, H.R. 5252, in May, without adequate net neutrality protections. Now the fight has moved to U.S. Senate. On June 28, the Senate Commerce Committee passed its own telecom bill, S. 2686. While an amendment to the bill that would have added meaningful net neutrality safeguards failed 11-11, this tie vote marks a significant political victory and gives the effort new momentum. The debate now shifts to the full Senate, where advocates will be working to get strong net neutrality language is any bill that the Senate considers

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

No, an ISP can't do that now, under totally different laws. You are reading the 'idea' of net neutrality, and not what our law makers have actually tried to pass.

A lot of people believe otherwise. heads of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Amazon and virtually every major internet property. They have spent a lot of money on lobbying for net neutrality. I just have a hard time believing that they and their high priced attorneys have this thing all wrong.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Give it to you in another twist... If we "allow" Net Neutrality to be a real law. This gives the power to regulate to the FCC, legally.

Now, do you really want that for your business?

It gives them power to regulate the telecommunications companies as stated by net neutrality. It doesn't allow them to regulate you at all.

qxm · 10-21-2008, 05:37 PM

K I am no genius but when I comes to McCain an the internet there is not much to be said there.... it is obvious that someone else is going to decide for McCain cause he knows nothing about computers.... plain and simple ....

With Obama you have more liberal POVs and you can bring some discussion to the table and hope he understands your argument which is out of the question with McCain....

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 05:55 PM

BlackCrayon I know the "PRINCIPLE" behind the "IDEA" is...

Does everyone understand, it's an idea, a thought, a way to think - that in the open idea, is kick ass!

Now, for the sheep that can't read the bottom half of wikki...

The laws that are "actually trying to be passed" are worked in a way that allows the Corps and the FCC to regulate us. We already have laws that say ISP's can't tier charge, regulate bw, block sites, ect...

The new version - gives them power and we people/users lose control.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

BlackCrayon I know the "PRINCIPLE" behind the "IDEA" is...

Does everyone understand, it's an idea, a thought, a way to think - that in the open idea, is kick ass!

Now, for the sheep that can't read the bottom half of wikki...

The laws that are "actually trying to be passed" are worked in a way that allows the Corps and the FCC to regulate us. We already have laws that say ISP's can't tier charge, regulate bw, block sites, ect...

The new version - gives them power and we people/users lose control.

So all these web properties and their top brass have it all wrong? Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, etc are just sheep that don't understand what is happening? Virtually every web business and free speech activist is missing the point?

BlackCrayon · 10-21-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

BlackCrayon I know the "PRINCIPLE" behind the "IDEA" is...

Does everyone understand, it's an idea, a thought, a way to think - that in the open idea, is kick ass!

Now, for the sheep that can't read the bottom half of wikki...

The laws that are "actually trying to be passed" are worked in a way that allows the Corps and the FCC to regulate us. We already have laws that say ISP's can't tier charge, regulate bw, block sites, ect...

The new version - gives them power and we people/users lose control.

The idea that they are trying to pass a law that is essentially the opposite of what it is supposed to be doesn't make much sense. btw, i got that from google's website, not wiki.

mmcfadden · 10-21-2008, 06:12 PM

So which president will affect me getting da mostest puntang? Mo' moneez... more honieez... yeah word

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

So all these web properties and their top brass have it all wrong? Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, etc are just sheep that don't understand what is happening? Virtually every web business and free speech activist is missing the point?

No, they support what we have "now"... which is not having a net neutrality law because we already have several laws that regulate different aspects of the Internet, already making it neutral and safe to grow. Giving us, net neutrality.

Adding a Net Neutrality law, the actual law they are trying to pass. Will hand the rights to regulate to the FCC. Lots of people seem to think, this will 'add more security' to our already good system.

That's the big thing, the law isn't clean and clear, we already have laws that regulate. Two times now it has been kicked back.

Thinking it's making it safe of regulation is stupid, when you are handing the control the FCC.

BlackCrayon · 10-21-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

No, they support what we have "now"... which is not having a net neutrality law because we already have several laws that regulate different aspects of the Internet, already making it neutral and safe to grow. Giving us, net neutrality.

Adding a Net Neutrality law, the actual law they are trying to pass. Will hand the rights to regulate to the FCC. Lots of people seem to think, this will 'add more security' to our already good system.

That's the big thing, the law isn't clean and clear, we already have laws that regulate. Two times now it has been kicked back.

Thinking it's making it safe of regulation is stupid, when you are handing the control the FCC.

I'll have to read more about it but as you describe it, its a very misleading name for a bill they are trying to pass if this is the case.

_Richard_ · 10-21-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Obama is strongly for net neutrality. He spoke at Google a little while back and said it would be one of his first things he does.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE

McCain is against it. He is also for regulating social networking sites to an extreme. You would be required to report any CP and some forms of "obscenity". If not, you go to jail and get fined. Makes it easy to put your competitor out of biz pretty quick. And to shut down almost any adult site under the guise of obscenity.

http://news.cnet.com/SenatorIllegali...3-6142332.html

And lets not forget that McCain wants strict constructionist judges while Obama wants more liberal ones. Strict constructionist ones are the ones that believe that porn is not safe under the First Amendment.

From a sheer internet standpoint, especially in adult, Obama crushes McCain. But some people have other reasons for voting.

great post man, thanks

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

No, they support what we have "now"... which is not having a net neutrality law because we already have several laws that regulate different aspects of the Internet, already making it neutral and safe to grow. Giving us, net neutrality.

Adding a Net Neutrality law, the actual law they are trying to pass. Will hand the rights to regulate to the FCC. Lots of people seem to think, this will 'add more security' to our already good system.

That's the big thing, the law isn't clean and clear, we already have laws that regulate. Two times now it has been kicked back.

Thinking it's making it safe of regulation is stupid, when you are handing the control the FCC.

So you're saying they don't support net neutrality legislation? So the sites and coalitions they helped fund and create were all wrong?

http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

What we have now is extremely muddy and can be viewed many different ways. We are currently at the mercy of the FCC to determine how they want to interpret net neutrality and whether it is relevant.

What Obama and all the other web properties want is net neutrality in writing and guaranteed. An act that states there is no leeway here, all packets are treated equally. These companies all supported the previous bills that have been put in front of Congress. The same ones you claim would be bad for the internet.

So like I said, you may believe that they don't want any legislation and that it would be bad, but their opinions are much different. They all clearly feel something needs to be done, they all feel this is important to the internet and business, and they all feel Obama is the right choice.

However you look at it, McCain is on the ass end of this argument. There are no major web properties that support his stance.

_Richard_ · 10-21-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

No, they support what we have "now"... which is not having a net neutrality law because we already have several laws that regulate different aspects of the Internet, already making it neutral and safe to grow. Giving us, net neutrality.

Adding a Net Neutrality law, the actual law they are trying to pass. Will hand the rights to regulate to the FCC. Lots of people seem to think, this will 'add more security' to our already good system.

That's the big thing, the law isn't clean and clear, we already have laws that regulate. Two times now it has been kicked back.

Thinking it's making it safe of regulation is stupid, when you are handing the control the FCC.

how much power could they have? outside the united states i mean

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Adding a Net Neutrality law, the actual law they are trying to pass. Will hand the rights to regulate to the FCC. Lots of people seem to think, this will 'add more security' to our already good system.

Hand the rights for the FCC to regulate what? They already regulate the telecommunications companies under the laws we currently have. What are you talking about?

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Hand the rights for the FCC to regulate what? They already regulate the telecommunications companies under the laws we currently have. What are you talking about?

What? Yeah, they regulate the tele companies now, a net neutrality law would give them more power other than the appointed power they have, over the 'net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBR Richard

how much power could they have? outside the united states i mean

Not anymore power than the U.S. has now, most countries regulate it some how in some way already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

So you're saying they don't support net neutrality legislation? So the sites and coalitions they helped fund and create were all wrong?

http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

What we have now is extremely muddy and can be viewed many different ways. We are currently at the mercy of the FCC to determine how they want to interpret net neutrality and whether it is relevant.

What Obama and all the other web properties want is net neutrality in writing and guaranteed. An act that states there is no leeway here, all packets are treated equally. These companies all supported the previous bills that have been put in front of Congress. The same ones you claim would be bad for the internet.

So like I said, you may believe that they don't want any legislation and that it would be bad, but their opinions are much different. They all clearly feel something needs to be done, they all feel this is important to the internet and business, and they all feel Obama is the right choice.

However you look at it, McCain is on the ass end of this argument. There are no major web properties that support his stance.

They support the most basic idea, of not allowing the telcos to regulate bw pipes to people, companies, ect. Of course we already have laws in place that cover this.

So yeah, if these douches wish to support more laws and rules, then great. I have read the actual attempted laws, and they are very opened ended and clearly give IPS's (which all the companies you listed are) more power. And it would give power to the FCC to regulate the Internet. And they have never been fair, logical, or smart..

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

What? Yeah, they regulate the tele companies now, a net neutrality law would give them more power other than the appointed power they have, over the 'net.

They support the most basic idea, of not allowing the telcos to regulate bw pipes to people, companies, ect. Of course we already have laws in place that cover this.

So yeah, if these douches wish to support more laws and rules, then great. I have read the actual attempted laws, and they are very opened ended and clearly give IPS's (which all the companies you listed are) more power. And it would give power to the FCC to regulate the Internet. And they have never been fair, logical, or smart..

Of course it gives them more power. The power helps all of us. It insures we don't get fucked over by the ISPs.

Here is the act:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s...0-20070109.pdf

Where are you getting this from? The Act isn't open ended, it states everything clear and simple. It doesn't give them any such powers to regulate the net.

The other one:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5417-109.pdf

This just makes it a violation of the Clatyon Antitrust Act to discriminate against traffic.

Those are the acts in full. If you have access to super secret acts that give the FCC the power to regulate the net in broader terms, please let me know. Those acts do not in any way give the ISPs more power. The ISPs have been lobbying heavily against them.

And "these douches" run every major internet property on the web. Are you telling me they are all wrong? That McCain's stance is the right one? I think you're really reaching to try and make McCain somewhat tolerable for those in an online business.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I have read the actual attempted laws, and they are very opened ended and clearly give IPS's (which all the companies you listed are) more power.

If it's giving the ISPs more power, why are they spending millions upon millions trying to stop them from being passed? Are you saying that both sides are living in opposite world and rooting against their own self interests?

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 08:19 PM

Google, MS, ect... they support this because they want to open free ISP's and basically put everyone else out of business. That way the G phone, email, blow job machine can track when it's time for you to take a shit.

Basically right now, everyone in America - has open Internet choice, and each we get more options, now with air cars, sat connections.. it's getting bigger and bigger.

The "Free Market" decides who gets to play ball. If one ISP wants to screw with consumers, we can change. If it's bad enough and cross the line.. the law below kicks in for any Company in America.

We have a law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act
This is the base law that protects consumers, the most basic level of it, it covers all deals/contracts, price screwing, ect related stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...on_Act_of_2006
This is the first try, of a law - based on what we already have within the Free Market. It got canned.

What's it do? It puts in regulation on the Internet - which has none. You regulate it a tiny bit - you get a lot later... history people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...on_Act_of_2006
This cluster fuck of a law tried to slip a tiny bit of "FCC defined net neutrality" into a overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996....

So the broad meanings of Telecommunications, would govern the Internet. Yeah, really f'in smart.

You either want this to be "free of regulation" or you allow the flood gates to op

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

If it's giving the ISPs more power, why are they spending millions upon millions trying to stop them from being passed? Are you saying that both sides are living in opposite world and rooting against their own self interests?

I have heard several ISP's say they have mixed views. From not wanting any Corp regulation, most want the free market to work. To some thinking it's screwed already and it needs regulation, which is only true when the company talking can't gain ground.

Who cares what G, Y, any online company thinks.. Of course they support regulation, more money for them. If you think they do anything but support their own greedy needs, then you are stupid.

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s...0-20070109.pdf

You should read that again

You can't regulate free internet, broadband is only 200kbps???

Digital phone companies, couldn't pipe the digital/talk data.

And wait.. no opened ended regulations? Who gets to tell them what is legal, doesn't discriminate and is reasonable... Who regulates the quality of service?

So wait.. if you open an ISP in the middle of no where, and have to regulate people because the pipe is thin? You can get fined for opening a business to a point to make it run?

Welp.... that's what regulations get ya.. screwed.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I have heard several ISP's say they have mixed views. From not wanting any Corp regulation, most want the free market to work. To some thinking it's screwed already and it needs regulation, which is only true when the company talking can't gain ground.

The ISPs have mixed reviews? You mean the millions upon millions they are spending on lobbying is a mistake? Them teaming up to create sites such as http://www.handsoff.org/ were built by some rogue employees of each company?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Who cares what G, Y, any online company thinks.. Of course they support regulation, more money for them. If you think they do anything but support their own greedy needs, then you are stupid.

Because those companies are in the same boat as we are. The regulation directly benefits us by not allowing the telecommunication companies to throttle traffic to our sites or require us to pay entry fees into their network. You keep glossing over the fact that the regulation being proposed benefits every one of us.

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

The ISPs have mixed reviews? You mean the millions upon millions they are spending on lobbying is a mistake? Them teaming up to create sites such as http://www.handsoff.org/ were built by some rogue employees of each company?

No, I'm sure they have lots of reasons.. Are you saying Google has no reason "but to be a good guy to you?" .. hahahaha...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Because those companies are in the same boat as we are. The regulation directly benefits us by not allowing the telecommunication companies to throttle traffic to our sites or require us to pay entry fees into their network. You keep glossing over the fact that the regulation being proposed benefits every one of us.

You keep ignoring the facts that ISP's aren't doing this, and the ones that do get flamed quickly, sued, ect.. "which is how it should happen".... If you add in regulation for this, more WILL follow.

And if they want to pay entry fee's, let them.. If nobody pays, they go out of business. If it works, Companies grow.

How it should work... oh, snap.

stoner529 · 10-21-2008, 08:58 PM

to me it dosent really matter who is elected for this particular issue. it falls along the same category as abortion and stem cell. a never ending moral dilema of who is right and wrong. one president wont care, and the next will. etc etc etc etc.. kinda like taxes. people will bitch about having to pay them, and at the same time bitch about no education funding and health care reform. the money has to come from somewhere.

and on a side note, if anyone thinks its wrong that obama wants to tax business that make over 250,000. then get over it. i would love to make 250,000. i can live just fine off of 125,000 in my pocket. its a non issue. just the richer wanting to keep more money as usual

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Google, MS, ect... they support this because they want to open free ISP's and basically put everyone else out of business. That way the G phone, email, blow job machine can track when it's time for you to take a shit.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality has no effect on whether they open free ISPs and put other companies out of business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Basically right now, everyone in America - has open Internet choice, and each we get more options, now with air cars, sat connections.. it's getting bigger and bigger.

The "Free Market" decides who gets to play ball. If one ISP wants to screw with consumers, we can change. If it's bad enough and cross the line.. the law below kicks in for any Company in America.

Not exactly true. We have few choices in this country when it comes to high speed connections. There are only a handful of major telecommunication companies. I live in Chicago. We have one choice for a cable modem and a couple for DSL. Satellite is really a matter of where you live/work since it's predominately tall buildings (impossible to do in the loop). When it comes to supplying a strong business connection for an office of many people, we only have one option at all here. That's a major U.S. city, imagine what it's like for some people in rural areas. As someone who went to college in a small town, we had one option for any high speed connection.

Free market might seem nice, but it doesn't work when monopolies take over. We don't want the free market to handle our electric companies. We certainly didn't want them handling the telephone companies any longer. I respect the libertarian opinion of letting the free markets rule and allowing monopolies to dominate, but I just don't think it's good for myself or my business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

We have a law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act
This is the base law that protects consumers, the most basic level of it, it covers all deals/contracts, price screwing, ect related stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...on_Act_of_2006
This is the first try, of a law - based on what we already have within the Free Market. It got canned.

What's it do? It puts in regulation on the Internet - which has none. You regulate it a tiny bit - you get a lot later... history people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...on_Act_of_2006
This cluster fuck of a law tried to slip a tiny bit of "FCC defined net neutrality" into a overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996....

So the broad meanings of Telecommunications, would govern the Internet. Yeah, really f'in smart.

You either want this to be "free of regulation" or you allow the flood gates to op

This isn't regulation of the internet, it governs the telecommunications company. Your broad analysis would be like saying that since the government regulates the electric companies, they can tell you what you can and can't use it for in your home. Those are separate laws and separate matters. You're trying to stretch an Act that would simply force telcos to treat all traffic the same into something it's not.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

No, I'm sure they have lots of reasons.. Are you saying Google has no reason "but to be a good guy to you?" .. hahahaha...

Not at all. But they have a lot to lose in this, just as all of us do. In fact, they would be the ones hurt the most based on their business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You keep ignoring the facts that ISP's aren't doing this, and the ones that do get flamed quickly, sued, ect.. "which is how it should happen".... If you add in regulation for this, more WILL follow.

And if they want to pay entry fee's, let them.. If nobody pays, they go out of business. If it works, Companies grow.

How it should work... oh, snap.

You are ignoring the facts that the laws are real fuzzy regarding this right now. Some say they can be sued for it, some say they can't. Most ISPs are arguing right now that net neutrality doesn't apply to them based on the current set of rules. Net neutrality is simply putting it cut and dry on paper so there is no longer any confusion.

So what is your position on this? Earlier you stated that it would be bad if ISPs blocked websites, then you said it should happen because of the free market. Then you said that everything is fine because these laws are already in place (despite just about everyone thinking otherwise), but don't want it to be solidified. What is your stance on this? Do you believe the ISPs should be able to prioritize traffic or that it should treated the same?

HighEnergy · 10-21-2008, 10:14 PM

Of all the fucking things to be concerned about that will impact your life in this election........

TheDoc 'gets it' IMO

KillerK · 10-21-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoner529

and on a side note, if anyone thinks its wrong that obama wants to tax business that make over 250,000. then get over it. i would love to make 250,000. i can live just fine off of 125,000 in my pocket. its a non issue. just the richer wanting to keep more money as usual

There we have it, because you make less then 250,000 you dont care, but if you did then you wouldn't want to be taxed more.

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Not at all. But they have a lot to lose in this, just as all of us do. In fact, they would be the ones hurt the most based on their business.

You are ignoring the facts that the laws are real fuzzy regarding this right now. Some say they can be sued for it, some say they can't. Most ISPs are arguing right now that net neutrality doesn't apply to them based on the current set of rules. Net neutrality is simply putting it cut and dry on paper so there is no longer any confusion.

So what is your position on this? Earlier you stated that it would be bad if ISPs blocked websites, then you said it should happen because of the free market. Then you said that everything is fine because these laws are already in place (despite just about everyone thinking otherwise), but don't want it to be solidified. What is your stance on this? Do you believe the ISPs should be able to prioritize traffic or that it should treated the same?

As I said, net neutrality is bad. Just because a few people want to select a few good things about it and focus on that, doesn't make it good overall and will not get my support. I don't care what the "idea" behind it is, the fact is it's being used as a non-neutral tool by both sides.

Nothing is fuzzy about this. We have clear laws, people have been and can be sued, and the free market has worked. You feel a Company that has a monopoly (which may only be 1 of 2 companies in an area) should be regulated, when they haven't done anything wrong. And the fact that we have laws already that regulate them, even more so if they are a monopoly.

We have no need to regulate, no need to make rules, and the longer we keep "rules" out the more free the Internet will be.

And at the same time I support a company pushing/lobby to have whatever "they" think will make them more money. I don't think any major Company/Industry (other than adult) does it any other way - and they don't.

I'm not the one that needs to wake up and see the truth in this. This is basic 101, it happens in every Industry. The good vs. the bad, one is pushing for regs the other wants either different regs or none... at the end of the day, both are pushing for the same thing... more regulations - which means more control.

A Net Neutrality law at this time, for sure.. is not needed and is bad.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

As I said, net neutrality is bad. Just because a few people want to select a few good things about it and focus on that, doesn't make it good overall and will not get my support. I don't care what the "idea" behind it is, the fact is it's being used as a non-neutral tool by both sides.

That's fine. There are a lot of anti-regulation people out there. I respect that opinion completely. In some cases, I'm against regulation too. For my business though, I feel safer not having to pray that the telcos will allow me to reach their customers. We just differ on what we feel net neutrality will accomplish. Your opinion is in the minority of website operators though on this issue.

What I was confused on is your earlier response:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

So, if a Christian ISP said they didn't like porn, they could block it and you would be fucked.

It also means the chance that different qualities of service, could regulate who you could talk/chat or contact online. So if I have a higher end personal package and someone has a regulated package, we may not be able to communicate without the lower end person paying a fee.

That is the exact argument net neutrality advocates have been making. Nonetheless, we'll see how this plays out over the years.

TheDoc · 10-21-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

That's fine. There are a lot of anti-regulation people out there. I respect that opinion completely. In some cases, I'm against regulation too. For my business though, I feel safer not having to pray that the telcos will allow me to reach their customers. We just differ on what we feel net neutrality will accomplish. Your opinion is in the minority of website operators though on this issue.

What I was confused on is your earlier response:

That is the exact argument net neutrality advocates have been making. Nonetheless, we'll see how this plays out over the years.

It's not confusing... Right now an ISP couldn't just come out and block porn, they can't do it now, and they couldn't do it afterwards.

The difference is, if you open an ISP and say it's for Christians now, you will get into trouble if you regulate. Under the possible laws, as long as you spell out your services and what you limit, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

Understand that - it's no different than what we have no, zero difference.. other than regulations get put in place. Free market is controlling it now and it's working just fine. Your business is in ZERO danger, other than the story you made up in your head.

What the telcos can't do is regulate the pipes to the people. So some regulation at some point, might be needed. But they can and already do regulate them to Companies, and you have way more than 2 selections. We are talking backbones, your entire city has more than 2 coming in. Otherwise, it's personal - and again, nothing needs to be regulated at this time.

So going for net neutrality, means you are okay with the Gov telling Companies what they can and can't do, when those Companies haven't done anything wrong. It means giving the power to the FCC to regulate the people, which is totally stupid. Just because one or two "try" new things - isn't doing anything wrong.

pocketkangaroo · 10-21-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

It's not confusing... Right now an ISP couldn't just come out and block porn, they can't do it now, and they couldn't do it afterwards.

The difference is, if you open an ISP and say it's for Christians now, you will get into trouble if you regulate. Under the possible laws, as long as you spell out your services and what you limit, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

Understand that - it's no different than what we have no, zero difference.. other than regulations get put in place. Free market is controlling it now and it's working just fine. Your business is in ZERO danger, other than the story you made up in your head.

What the telcos can't do is regulate the pipes to the people. So some regulation at some point, might be needed. But they can and already do regulate them to Companies, and you have way more than 2 selections. We are talking backbones, your entire city has more than 2 coming in. Otherwise, it's personal - and again, nothing needs to be regulated at this time.

So going for net neutrality, means you are okay with the Gov telling Companies what they can and can't do, when those Companies haven't done anything wrong. It means giving the power to the FCC to regulate the people, which is totally stupid. Just because one or two "try" new things - isn't doing anything wrong.

Like I said, it's not just me who is worried. Besides the slew of top web properties named, we have adult companies like Hustler and Playboy who are adamant about net neutrality. I respect your opinion, but I feel safer siding with those web companies over Comcast.

And I don't have more than 2 selections. I have AT&T for DSL and Comcast for cable. For our office, Comcast is the only option available.

Our country is woefully behind in broadband rankings. We can sit back and continue to let Europe and Asia kick the shit out of us in the broadband world. I personally believe that it would benefit our business greatly if we could catch up to other countries.

Twoface31 · 10-22-2008, 06:47 AM

well goodluck guys !!!!!!

TheDoc · 10-22-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Like I said, it's not just me who is worried. Besides the slew of top web properties named, we have adult companies like Hustler and Playboy who are adamant about net neutrality. I respect your opinion, but I feel safer siding with those web companies over Comcast.

And I don't have more than 2 selections. I have AT&T for DSL and Comcast for cable. For our office, Comcast is the only option available.

Our country is woefully behind in broadband rankings. We can sit back and continue to let Europe and Asia kick the shit out of us in the broadband world. I personally believe that it would benefit our business greatly if we could catch up to other countries.

These guys back an idea, not what has actually happened with it. If you told these same "so highly informed" people that laws were being shot down that killed neutrality, I bet most would swing. I'm not a sheep, I just don't latch onto some idea because a few people think it's cool.

They are caught up the words, the shinny lights, swinging around them making them go la la la, all day long.

These guys want to add in regulations to protect the net, make me and you safe. The net already grows, but these monster companies don't feel it's fair.. wtf..? Yeah, they would never have an agenda.. ever... pfft. They have same agenda as the phone companies, just a different bs reason.

I'm sorry, any regs, any "filtering" - by someone saying this is good/bad, safe, doesn't discriminate, ect.. even more so when they don't say by who (I guess the FCC?) I don't want that, that isn't being neutral.

Passing the law, would legally allow an ISP to filter anything, charge high or low for it, as long as they make it clear. Right now, they can't...

I don't care if our net "might" get 10x or 100x faster, the Companies are going to charge for it either way. They were already given BILLIONS to upgrade the U.S. 'net and they spent it on hookers and blow.... well they didn't upgrade the 'net either way

Welp, I'm off to start work for the day...

MrAwesome · 10-22-2008, 07:39 AM

obama baby...

10-21-2008, 05:18 PM	#52
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Give it to you in another twist... If we "allow" Net Neutrality to be a real law. This gives the power to regulate to the FCC, legally. Now, do you really want that for your business? __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

10-21-2008, 05:37 PM	#56
qxm Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: NoHo Posts: 5,970	K I am no genius but when I comes to McCain an the internet there is not much to be said there.... it is obvious that someone else is going to decide for McCain cause he knows nothing about computers.... plain and simple .... With Obama you have more liberal POVs and you can bring some discussion to the table and hope he understands your argument which is out of the question with McCain.... __________________ ICQ: 266990876

10-21-2008, 05:55 PM	#57
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	BlackCrayon I know the "PRINCIPLE" behind the "IDEA" is... Does everyone understand, it's an idea, a thought, a way to think - that in the open idea, is kick ass! Now, for the sheep that can't read the bottom half of wikki... The laws that are "actually trying to be passed" are worked in a way that allows the Corps and the FCC to regulate us. We already have laws that say ISP's can't tier charge, regulate bw, block sites, ect... The new version - gives them power and we people/users lose control. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

10-21-2008, 08:19 PM	#70
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Google, MS, ect... they support this because they want to open free ISP's and basically put everyone else out of business. That way the G phone, email, blow job machine can track when it's time for you to take a shit. Basically right now, everyone in America - has open Internet choice, and each we get more options, now with air cars, sat connections.. it's getting bigger and bigger. The "Free Market" decides who gets to play ball. If one ISP wants to screw with consumers, we can change. If it's bad enough and cross the line.. the law below kicks in for any Company in America. We have a law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act This is the base law that protects consumers, the most basic level of it, it covers all deals/contracts, price screwing, ect related stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...on_Act_of_2006 This is the first try, of a law - based on what we already have within the Free Market. It got canned. What's it do? It puts in regulation on the Internet - which has none. You regulate it a tiny bit - you get a lot later... history people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interne...on_Act_of_2006 This cluster fuck of a law tried to slip a tiny bit of "FCC defined net neutrality" into a overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.... So the broad meanings of Telecommunications, would govern the Internet. Yeah, really f'in smart. You either want this to be "free of regulation" or you allow the flood gates to op __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

10-22-2008, 06:47 AM	#84
Twoface31 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,746	well goodluck guys !!!!!! __________________ Email: [email protected] HentaiG4h * Lusty Life ICQ: 291-953

10-21-2008, 06:12 PM	#60
mmcfadden So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: philly Posts: 5,099	So which president will affect me getting da mostest puntang? Mo' moneez... more honieez... yeah word

10-21-2008, 08:58 PM	#75
stoner529 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: longwood, fl Posts: 421	to me it dosent really matter who is elected for this particular issue. it falls along the same category as abortion and stem cell. a never ending moral dilema of who is right and wrong. one president wont care, and the next will. etc etc etc etc.. kinda like taxes. people will bitch about having to pay them, and at the same time bitch about no education funding and health care reform. the money has to come from somewhere. and on a side note, if anyone thinks its wrong that obama wants to tax business that make over 250,000. then get over it. i would love to make 250,000. i can live just fine off of 125,000 in my pocket. its a non issue. just the richer wanting to keep more money as usual

10-21-2008, 10:14 PM	#78
HighEnergy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 806	Of all the fucking things to be concerned about that will impact your life in this election........ TheDoc 'gets it' IMO

10-22-2008, 07:39 AM	#86
MrAwesome Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 898	obama baby... __________________ CraftCannabis