Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Neutrality


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Neutrality Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 9:31:44 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Too little, and way too late.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 9:34:06 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

OK, OK, I'm on board with the 'neutrality' thing, however milquetoast a 'response' it might be.


(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 9:36:48 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
yeah you are right....and you STILL dont get it
but keep ranting.....this is better than saturday morning cartoons

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 9:47:08 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

"'Splain, Lucy."

Spell it out for us here. That is, if you still don't understand anything I've said to the (few) responders who attempted the task already to some functional level (which I already said I understood and at least somewhat agree with) or regarding regulation as it has been for 30 years, etc.




(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 10:00:59 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Try reading any of the links given since the start of the thread. Some people DO have a handle on it, but way tooo many are utterly ignorant of what it is trying to achieve. and YES its too late in some cases but NN touches more than just the US....

your ranting

quote:

"But the problem is that all the text-driving and cell-phone-talking-when they're-supposed-to-be-ordering-while-at-the head-of-the-line at the restaurant or coffee shop and twittering-apping and music-and-movie-stealing pizza-eating blasting-earbud GAMERS dropped a pepperoni from mouth to lap, having -just now- somehow caught on to this net neutrality thing as being some potential threat to all the above, ... so then all the world is now to take notice of their concerns.

Good luck with that.

"Regulation" in all forms and venues has been renegade, under essentially rogue governments, for decades already. If you had fucking shut up with the texting and bumping into people in public while yacking nonsense and drivel on the cell phone and otherwise ignoring the rest of the real world while you were killing millions of people in your stupid games, then you might have noticed sometime beforehand.
"




REALLY just makes your own point against you.




_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 10:11:00 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

What is all this about NN anything but ranting? Is their no such thing as ranting for a good cause?

And the issue of regulation (or lack thereof) is a statement of fact, call it 'rant' if you want, as is the pointing out of the sleepers during that de-evolution who have just now woken up to long existing reality. The fact that you completely miss the point about the underlying cause and background to this particular issue says that you might want to take a step back before you feel qualified to ascertain who is capable of understanding what. Seriously.

And yes, the diatribe towards the talkers-and-texters was indeed a rant. Your point?

But thanks for quoting the rant in your just prior post anyway. I didn't know anyone else would appreciate it so much. Makes me more proud of it, actually.






< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/15/2014 10:48:27 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:09:17 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

Scalia and Obama lineup on this issue. NCTA v. Brand X

-----

Scalia's Dissent. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a long and vigorous dissenting opinion that was joined, in part, by Justices David Souter and Ruth Ginsburg.

He wrote, "Actually, in these cases, it might be more accurate to say the Commission has attempted to establish a whole new regime of nonregulation, which will make for more or less free-market competition, depending upon whose experts are believed. The important fact, however, is that the Commission has chosen to achieve this through an implausible reading of the statute, and has thus exceeded the authority given it by Congress."

Scalia also mocked the FCC's "self-congratulatory paean to its deregulatory largesse".

He explained that "what the Commission hath given, the Commission may well take away -- unless it doesn’t. This is a wonderful illustration of how an experienced agency can (with some assistance from credulous courts) turn statutory constraints into bureaucratic discretions. The main source of the Commission’s regulatory authority over common carriers is Title II, but the Commission has rendered that inapplicable in this instance by concluding that the definition of "telecommunications service" is ambiguous and does not (in its current view) apply to cable-modem service. It contemplates, however, altering that (unnecessary) outcome, not by changing the law (i.e., its construction of the Title II definitions), but by reserving the right to change the facts. Under its undefined and sparingly used "ancillary" powers, the Commission might conclude that it can order cable companies to "unbundle" the telecommunications component of cable-modem service."

"And presto," wrote Scalia, "Title II will then apply to them, because they will finally be "offering" telecommunications service! Of course, the Commission will still have the statutory power to forbear from regulating them ... Such Möbius-strip reasoning mocks the principle that the statute constrains the agency in any meaningful way." (Parentheses in original. Footnote omitted.)

Scalia concluded that "After all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is "offering" telecommunications. For that simple reason set forth in the statute, I would affirm the Court of Appeals."


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:20:08 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


But thanks for quoting the rant in your just prior post anyway. I didn't know anyone else would appreciate it so much. Makes me more proud of it, actually.






Yes, that doesnt surprise me.
when you make such generalizations you lose all chance of anything but derision
Im glad you liked it.
I thought I should specify which post I was deriding, it would be so easy to get confused.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:39:59 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

What Scalia (and Ginsberg et al.) should have added was that if if cable/satellite/DSL carriers are "telecommunications providers," then they are automatically under UTC jurisdiction and regulation. But I don't see Comcast at the UTC site, though Time Warner is there.

Now we know who has the better lawyers.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/15/2014 11:41:01 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:48:13 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


But thanks for quoting the rant in your just prior post anyway. I didn't know anyone else would appreciate it so much. Makes me more proud of it, actually.






Yes, that doesnt surprise me.
when you make such generalizations you lose all chance of anything but derision
Im glad you liked it.
I thought I should specify which post I was deriding, it would be so easy to get confused.


If by 'generalization' you are taking whatever I said as meaning "100% of the time", then I could see your point. Others are smart enough to read it as "something dealt with often enough."



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/15/2014 12:14:40 PM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:49:22 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Somebody somewhere stomped on that boy's tail hard. Lot of howling and gnashing going on.

It's not the topic -- it's the pain. Here's wishing him peace.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:56:00 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Mr. Pollyanna himself, come to save the day.

Here's something for ya.

Works both ends, I bet.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/15/2014 12:01:57 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 11:57:33 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Or do you have anything to say to the topic?

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 12:01:05 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Blessings. It will get better.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 12:06:45 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I realize I'm not "Mr. Constructive Input" on every occasion on the interwebs, sorry.

Guilty as charged.

But puffing the chest and flapping the feathers is something others do better than I, I'll readily admit.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/15/2014 12:11:06 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 3:31:42 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
My cable company charges from low to high based on both MPS speed and total download limit in Mbytes.

You don't understand the issue. The ISP can certainly sell you a certain bandwidth. What net neutrality is about is whether they can throttle certain content coming over their network to you.
Say Microsoft pays Comcast more than Google so now Bing simply comes up way faster.
The big problem with that is that it could very well freeze out the next big thing as it would never get the bandwidth needed to get noticed.


Bing is still going to suck, so being faster won't make it better.


< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 11/15/2014 3:32:16 PM >


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/15/2014 4:05:55 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
My cable company charges from low to high based on both MPS speed and total download limit in Mbytes.

You don't understand the issue. The ISP can certainly sell you a certain bandwidth. What net neutrality is about is whether they can throttle certain content coming over their network to you.
Say Microsoft pays Comcast more than Google so now Bing simply comes up way faster.
The big problem with that is that it could very well freeze out the next big thing as it would never get the bandwidth needed to get noticed.


Bing is still going to suck, so being faster won't make it better.


The point is that if the net isn't neutral then what would have happened back in the day, 1999, when Google was getting started? Yahoo, and a couple of competitors, owned the search engine world back then and had the money, from ads, to pay the ISP's to favor them over a startup that at the time was a bare page with a logo, a text box and a couple of buttons but Google was so much better than Yahoo and the rest that within months it completely displaced them all and now I can't even remember the other search engines from back then.

Then we have the case of our own CC. There is no way the owner of this forum will pay for bandwidth so without net neutrality it would be consigned to the slowest speed the ISP's felt like giving it. Which would be aggravating to say the least.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/16/2014 5:52:53 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
My cable company charges from low to high based on both MPS speed and total download limit in Mbytes.

You don't understand the issue. The ISP can certainly sell you a certain bandwidth. What net neutrality is about is whether they can throttle certain content coming over their network to you.
Say Microsoft pays Comcast more than Google so now Bing simply comes up way faster.
The big problem with that is that it could very well freeze out the next big thing as it would never get the bandwidth needed to get noticed.

Bing is still going to suck, so being faster won't make it better.

The point is that if the net isn't neutral then what would have happened back in the day, 1999, when Google was getting started? Yahoo, and a couple of competitors, owned the search engine world back then and had the money, from ads, to pay the ISP's to favor them over a startup that at the time was a bare page with a logo, a text box and a couple of buttons but Google was so much better than Yahoo and the rest that within months it completely displaced them all and now I can't even remember the other search engines from back then.
Then we have the case of our own CC. There is no way the owner of this forum will pay for bandwidth so without net neutrality it would be consigned to the slowest speed the ISP's felt like giving it. Which would be aggravating to say the least.


Do you not see the potential issues with having the US Government controlling the internet in the US? Do you not think it can't, or won't, be abused for political capital (either party)?

I do see the pitfalls of allowing money to control speed.

Apparently, you trust the US Government. I do too. But, I trust they will abuse any and every power we give it (which is why I want it's power and authority to be limited).


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/16/2014 7:26:33 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
My cable company charges from low to high based on both MPS speed and total download limit in Mbytes.

You don't understand the issue. The ISP can certainly sell you a certain bandwidth. What net neutrality is about is whether they can throttle certain content coming over their network to you.
Say Microsoft pays Comcast more than Google so now Bing simply comes up way faster.
The big problem with that is that it could very well freeze out the next big thing as it would never get the bandwidth needed to get noticed.

Bing is still going to suck, so being faster won't make it better.

The point is that if the net isn't neutral then what would have happened back in the day, 1999, when Google was getting started? Yahoo, and a couple of competitors, owned the search engine world back then and had the money, from ads, to pay the ISP's to favor them over a startup that at the time was a bare page with a logo, a text box and a couple of buttons but Google was so much better than Yahoo and the rest that within months it completely displaced them all and now I can't even remember the other search engines from back then.
Then we have the case of our own CC. There is no way the owner of this forum will pay for bandwidth so without net neutrality it would be consigned to the slowest speed the ISP's felt like giving it. Which would be aggravating to say the least.


Do you not see the potential issues with having the US Government controlling the internet in the US? Do you not think it can't, or won't, be abused for political capital (either party)?

I do see the pitfalls of allowing money to control speed.

Apparently, you trust the US Government. I do too. But, I trust they will abuse any and every power we give it (which is why I want it's power and authority to be limited).



This is why I'm undecided on net neutrality. This is the same government that brought us the NSA, the Patriot Act, and the Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, isn't net neutrality just a modern way of America saying don't tread on me? Would this even be an issue if we had more ISPs to choose from? What we have now seems more like an oligopoly than a free market.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Ne... - 11/16/2014 7:52:11 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
My cable company charges from low to high based on both MPS speed and total download limit in Mbytes.

You don't understand the issue. The ISP can certainly sell you a certain bandwidth. What net neutrality is about is whether they can throttle certain content coming over their network to you.
Say Microsoft pays Comcast more than Google so now Bing simply comes up way faster.
The big problem with that is that it could very well freeze out the next big thing as it would never get the bandwidth needed to get noticed.

Bing is still going to suck, so being faster won't make it better.

The point is that if the net isn't neutral then what would have happened back in the day, 1999, when Google was getting started? Yahoo, and a couple of competitors, owned the search engine world back then and had the money, from ads, to pay the ISP's to favor them over a startup that at the time was a bare page with a logo, a text box and a couple of buttons but Google was so much better than Yahoo and the rest that within months it completely displaced them all and now I can't even remember the other search engines from back then.
Then we have the case of our own CC. There is no way the owner of this forum will pay for bandwidth so without net neutrality it would be consigned to the slowest speed the ISP's felt like giving it. Which would be aggravating to say the least.


Do you not see the potential issues with having the US Government controlling the internet in the US? Do you not think it can't, or won't, be abused for political capital (either party)?

I do see the pitfalls of allowing money to control speed.

Apparently, you trust the US Government. I do too. But, I trust they will abuse any and every power we give it (which is why I want it's power and authority to be limited).


Do you even understand what common carrier status means? The phone companies have that status today and have had it for decades and it is legally based on such things as public roads. How has the US government abused that status? In detail with examples please. Not paranoia but concrete examples.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Rules to Protect Net Neutrality Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094