Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > Technology and Internet
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Technology and Internet Emerging and current tech related issues. Internet, DRM, IP, and other technology related discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-21-2010, 11:09 AM
Cbr1000Rider's Avatar
Cbr1000Rider Cbr1000Rider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 373
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default FCC Approves Confusing Net Neutrality

Well it is here.. we know what we want but did we really get it? It seems there are loopholes in this that makes it favorable for companies like Comcast or ATT... I don't look at today as a victory until I hear a statement from Google about it.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT "NET NEUTRALITY" MEANS... PLEASE READ HERE..

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...t%20Neutrality

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/

THEN READ THE FOLLOWING STORIES HERE...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...trality-rules/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/...ex.html?hpt=T2

Last edited by Cbr1000Rider; 12-21-2010 at 3:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-21-2010, 11:47 AM
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 5,558
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Net neutrality is stupid because the only way to implement it is through the government. Give anything over to a bunch of power-tripping bureaucrats and you're bound to see nothing but FUBAR. When are people going to learn?
__________________
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:09 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,823
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

The problems that will spawn as a result of government meddling with the internet will never be noticed or discussed on the internet. That's kind of the point
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:22 PM
atto's Avatar
atto atto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 427
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think it's a step in the right direction. It's better to prevent damage than to fix it after the fact.

To those confused:

Quote:
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
Basically telecom companies have thought about slowing down or preventing access to websites/service that are competitors (Hulu for TV, Skype for phone calls, etc.). This prevents it from happening.

Last edited by atto; 12-21-2010 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:31 PM
Cbr1000Rider's Avatar
Cbr1000Rider Cbr1000Rider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 373
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
The problems that will spawn as a result of government meddling with the internet will never be noticed or discussed on the internet. That's kind of the point
I don't think you understand what net neutrality means.

Net neutrality in a nut shell is basically a concept that states "You can't fu*k with the internet"... That means ISP's can't throttle your internet connection for downloading more than your neighbor.. even though you both pay for the same unlimited internet plan. Comcast has throttled internet for years. It also means ISP's can't charge businesses like Netflix a fee for streaming movies to users... while not charging other websites fees... this is ALSO something Comcast has done.

Although.. the "net neutrality" that was passed today is driving criticism due to loopholes... that actually help dominant company's like Comcast. That is not good for you nor I.. the consumer.

Last edited by Cbr1000Rider; 12-21-2010 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:36 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

The concept of net neutrality grew the internet into what it is today. Though I'm generally against government meddling, in the case of NN, it's absolutely necessary.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Cbr1000Rider's Avatar
Cbr1000Rider Cbr1000Rider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 373
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Comcast has been caught throttling before.. I have been throttled and it truely makes your blood boil.. especially when you call Comcast and ask if they have reinstated throttling and they laugh and say "yes, we have".

If the FCC passed a TRUE "net neutrality" policy today, then good for them. People such as I, the consumer will benefit.

If the FCC passed a net neutrality policy that is riddled with loopholes.. we may be doomed.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:53 PM
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 5,558
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

That's the problem. I don't see TRUE net neutrality happening any time soon.
__________________
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:59 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Anything in the right direction is worthwhile. Consumer outrage is all well and good, but sometimes it takes the heavy boot of the government to force the corps to play by the rules. I don't like it when it happens, but sometimes, that's the only thing that'll work.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-21-2010, 1:00 PM
Cbr1000Rider's Avatar
Cbr1000Rider Cbr1000Rider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 373
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute View Post
That's the problem. I don't see TRUE net neutrality happening any time soon.
This is why I await a comment from Google regarding the latest update. They are for true net neutrality... anything that has to do with net neutrality directly affects their business and they are pretty quick to be in the loop.

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...t%20Neutrality
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-21-2010, 1:13 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,823
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I understand what NN is, however I don't believe the FCC does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbr1000Rider View Post
I don't think you understand what net neutrality means.

Net neutrality in a nut shell is basically a concept that states "You can't fu*k with the internet"... That means ISP's can't throttle your internet connection for downloading more than your neighbor.. even though you both pay for the same unlimited internet plan. Comcast has throttled internet for years. It also means ISP's can't charge businesses like Netflix a fee for streaming movies to users... while not charging other websites fees... this is ALSO something Comcast has done.

Although.. the "net neutrality" that was passed today is driving criticism due to loopholes... that actually help dominant company's like Comcast. That is not good for you nor I.. the consumer.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-21-2010, 3:53 PM
Cbr1000Rider's Avatar
Cbr1000Rider Cbr1000Rider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 373
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Great letter by Steve Wozniak on the issue

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-21-2010, 8:04 PM
ang3c0 ang3c0 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A free state
Posts: 179
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Real NN legislation needs to be passed, Yesterday.
__________________
Quote:
Socialism. The republican buzzword since WMDs didn't work out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
Doesn't anyone here just want to be left alone?

Shoot a gun, marry a homosexual, go to church, buy a tank, cut down a tree, pay a prostitute, smoke marijuana, burn a flag, be a nun...

It's called freedom. Just leave me alone while you're exercising it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-22-2010, 4:45 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,057
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbr1000Rider View Post
Well it is here.. we know what we want but did we really get it? It seems there are loopholes in this that makes it favorable for companies like Comcast or ATT... I don't look at today as a victory until I hear a statement from Google about it.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT "NET NEUTRALITY" MEANS... PLEASE READ HERE..

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...t%20Neutrality

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...et-free/68294/

THEN READ THE FOLLOWING STORIES HERE...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...trality-rules/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/...ex.html?hpt=T2
They say elections have consequences and today that's a major understatement. Despite over 300 signatures from House and Senate members opposing FCC internet regulation. Despite a court ruling by a federal appeals court that the FCC does not have the authority. Despite the FCCs own doubt as to their authority to make such regulation, our current president is bent on controlling the internet.

Let there be no mistake. The recent FCC action to foist “net neutrality” on the communications industry is a clear attempt at stifling freedom of speech. It is a construct for the purpose of taking control of electronic communication under the guise of public good. Its supporters hail from the same group of organizations that have been synonymous with George Soros.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's actions to impose regulations on the internet will really amount to what equates to a “fairness doctrine” for the internet. Ask yourself why this nation needs that. You won't be surprised to know that the idea was started by Robert McChesney, a radical University of Illinois professor, who is a self avowed Marxist. Who would have thought?

Julius Genachowski is reportedly a friend of Obama from law school. He visited the president, according to visitor logs, no less than 11 times. So then it's no big surprise that he would decree this takeover given his loyalties

What's taking place right under the nose of the American public is an attempt to silence opposition. This is obviously not about any public good. Only the same dirty tricks that we've come to expect from these people and it's a complete outrage.
__________________

Last edited by RRangel; 12-22-2010 at 4:49 PM.. Reason: corrected for clarity
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-22-2010, 9:10 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Those regulations are necessary, and do not go far enough. The very notion that NN regulation threatens free speech is silly at best.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-22-2010, 9:24 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,057
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
Those regulations are necessary, and do not go far enough. The very notion that NN regulation threatens free speech is silly at best.
Absolutely. In bizzaro world.

Make that Marxist bizzaro world.
__________________

Last edited by RRangel; 12-22-2010 at 9:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-22-2010, 9:30 PM
JeffM JeffM is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 4,400
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-22-2010, 9:39 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,057
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.
Just think for a second and realize why you've never heard any public outcry for net neutrality? Because there isn't any. The demand has been fabricated by shills for the very purpose of taking control. The very man who came up with the idea says as much.

It's not like this is rocket science to figure once you see the players in action. I can't wait until 2012 already. It's going to be funner than November.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-22-2010, 9:50 PM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
They say elections have consequences and today that's a major understatement. Despite over 300 signatures from House and Senate members opposing FCC internet regulation. Despite a court ruling by a federal appeals court that the FCC does not have the authority. Despite the FCCs own doubt as to their authority to make such regulation, our current president is bent on controlling the internet.

Let there be no mistake. The recent FCC action to foist “net neutrality” on the communications industry is a clear attempt at stifling freedom of speech. It is a construct for the purpose of taking control of electronic communication under the guise of public good. Its supporters hail from the same group of organizations that have been synonymous with George Soros.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's actions to impose regulations on the internet will really amount to what equates to a “fairness doctrine” for the internet. Ask yourself why this nation needs that. You won't be surprised to know that the idea was started by Robert McChesney, a radical University of Illinois professor, who is a self avowed Marxist. Who would have thought?

Julius Genachowski is reportedly a friend of Obama from law school. He visited the president, according to visitor logs, no less than 11 times. So then it's no big surprise that he would decree this takeover given his loyalties

What's taking place right under the nose of the American public is an attempt to silence opposition. This is obviously not about any public good. Only the same dirty tricks that we've come to expect from these people and it's a complete outrage.
I knew it was just a matter of time till Limbaughs paranoid fantasy of Net Neutrality being a left wing conspiracy to stifle Conservative speech got legs here. Sounds pretty much word for word what ol' Rush and Sullivan have been repeating over and over again.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-22-2010, 10:21 PM
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 5,558
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Why do some of you continue to believe that giving the government power to do something "good" will have positive results regardless of their actual motives? Has recent history not shown that every time the government sticks its nose into private industry it just turns into a royal screw up? Yet somehow this one time, it will all be ok? We're boned!
__________________
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-22-2010, 10:48 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Jesus h Christ. Look at the history of the internet. The concept of neutrality has been a gentleman's agreement since the start. It is the reason the Internet is what it is.

Fact 1. The Internet was created with taxpayer dollars.
Fact 2. Last mile connectivity is largely monopolized by a very small group of providers.
Fact 3. There. Is. No. Free market. In. Telephony.

FCC regulations are necessary to preserve the web until such a time that a truly free market arises.

Do you people seriously supports Att's ability to charge calguns for the privilege of traversing the network?

To expound on Fact 3...

Comcast (and other cable companies) have been allowed to flourish *BECAUSE OF* monopoly agreements. That is, they were allowed to monopolize certain regions and geographical locations. Just like telephone companies. In exchange for this protection, they had to operate under relatively strict government rules. Things that included guaranteed service in low-profit regions, service to all homes, and so forth.

What, suddenly enforcing these rules is marxism? Demanding that these companies honor the spirit in which they did busines is suddenly anti-capitalist? What the hell! That's completely ludicrous.

Last edited by bigmike82; 12-22-2010 at 11:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-23-2010, 4:28 AM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,057
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
Jesus h Christ. Look at the history of the internet. The concept of neutrality has been a gentleman's agreement since the start. It is the reason the Internet is what it is.

Fact 1. The Internet was created with taxpayer dollars.
Fact 2. Last mile connectivity is largely monopolized by a very small group of providers.
Fact 3. There. Is. No. Free market. In. Telephony.

FCC regulations are necessary to preserve the web until such a time that a truly free market arises.

Do you people seriously supports Att's ability to charge calguns for the privilege of traversing the network?

To expound on Fact 3...

Comcast (and other cable companies) have been allowed to flourish *BECAUSE OF* monopoly agreements. That is, they were allowed to monopolize certain regions and geographical locations. Just like telephone companies. In exchange for this protection, they had to operate under relatively strict government rules. Things that included guaranteed service in low-profit regions, service to all homes, and so forth.

What, suddenly enforcing these rules is marxism? Demanding that these companies honor the spirit in which they did busines is suddenly anti-capitalist? What the hell! That's completely ludicrous.
It's very hard for you to argue that the political left of center establishment cares about my well being and access to the internet. It's very clear why they choose to interfere and once again the people behind the idea have made it clear. I suppose next you're going to tell me that the fairness doctrine is fine for national radio too. You're either completely naive or you share in the same flawed ideology.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-23-2010, 7:57 AM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"It's very hard for you to argue that the political left of center establishment cares about my well being and access to the internet."
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Look at who is against NN:
Comcast. ATT. Verizon. You know, the big guys who YOU want to have the power to limit what you can see. That's all you're doing. You're telling your ISP that you want to see only what they want you to see.

This is only a 'leftist' issue because many on the right have taken the foolish position that Net Neutrality is somehow an infringement on free speech. This idea is utter and total nonsense. Net Neutrality protects freedom of speech and ensures that you, the consumer, can access whatever you want on the service that *YOU* pay for.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-23-2010, 8:38 AM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,057
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
I knew it was just a matter of time till Limbaughs paranoid fantasy of Net Neutrality being a left wing conspiracy to stifle Conservative speech got legs here. Sounds pretty much word for word what ol' Rush and Sullivan have been repeating over and over again.
What? Is that all you have? If that's what the man actually beleives then he must be very grounded in common sense. Instead of following your political masters in lockstep you might want to try independent thought some time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:07 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,631
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Here are the issues...

#1 - The full text of the "Net Neutrality" decree from the FCC has not been made public. How can anyone support or oppose if they don't even know what the details are?

#2 - The FCC, by decree, has circumvented Congress, our elected officials.


This is half baked and typical of this government. Pass huge bills, without reading the actual bill, or rule by decree without letting the public know what the details are until it's already been decided. If anyone is supportive of this type of governance they need to get their head checked.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:11 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,631
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
I knew it was just a matter of time till Limbaughs paranoid fantasy of Net Neutrality being a left wing conspiracy to stifle Conservative speech got legs here. Sounds pretty much word for word what ol' Rush and Sullivan have been repeating over and over again.
Have you read the full text of "net neutrality"? How do you know what is or isn't in the decree? For anyone to act as though they know how this will play out is incorrect considering the decree, in it's full text, has not been made public. Does that not bother you in the least?
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:12 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
What? Is that all you have? If that's what the man actually beleives then he must be very grounded in common sense. Instead of following your political masters in lockstep you might want to try independent thought some time.
I get all my information from various sources, since I cited Rush and Sullivan, it would follow that I listen to them. I have made comments on this and other forums repeatedly about using multiple sources (left and right) to find the truth, so don't go there. I don't see where ISP's being able to throttle down or limit access to web data is good for anybody except them (allowing preferred content based on fees paid to them). You need to research this further, if you want freedom of information and access to the web you need some kind of net neutrality. When was the last time any corporation did anything to benefit the public over the dollar and themselves? Or do you want your access filtered? And don't come up with the switch ISP's if you don't like it...not an option in many more rural areas.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:18 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree View Post
Have you read the full text of "net neutrality"? How do you know what is or isn't in the decree? For anyone to act as though they know how this will play out is incorrect considering the decree, in it's full text, has not been made public. Does that not bother you in the least?
No I haven't, and yes it is a very real concern. But I also know that this is opposed most of all by corporations, and that the Supreme court has given them the same rights and individuals in this country. I also know that since corporations have unlimited money to buy influence, I'd prefer that they not be allowed to start shaping the internet in a way that puts their profits over our access. I'm not saying I know all about this, this is just my opinion now on my understanding of it and my knowledge of how things seem to work in the U.S. these days.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:25 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,631
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
No I haven't, and yes it is a very real concern. But I also know that this is opposed most of all by corporations, and that the Supreme court has given them the same rights and individuals in this country. I also know that since corporations have unlimited money to buy influence, I'd prefer that they not be allowed to start shaping the internet in a way that puts their profits over our access. I'm not saying I know all about this, this is just my opinion now on my understanding of it and my knowledge of how things seem to work in the U.S. these days.

The larger issue, as I see it, is that the government is ruling by decree in the shadows instead of letting the public know the details. Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree. Would you not agree? It's the accountability piece.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:36 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree View Post
The larger issue, as I see it, is that the government is ruling by decree in the shadows instead of letting the public know the details. Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree. Would you not agree? It's the accountability piece.
I don't know. I have NO faith in congress anymore, citing my previous post about them working for (getting bribed by) corporations and special interests. That is what drives our elected officials, nothing else. There is no accountability anymore anywhere IMO. I do wonder if maybe this is being done in an end around kind of way because congress can't come up with anything because of all the conflicting 'contributions' clouding the issue. At the risk of repeating myself...I have lost ALL faith in our government, and only see it getting worse.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-23-2010, 9:54 AM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree."
The FCC had handled crap like this since its inception. That's the point behind agencies like it. If you want to do away with it, fine. Go lobby your congressman. But in this specific instance, the FCC has taken a (small) step in the right direction.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-23-2010, 11:10 AM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,631
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
"Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree."
The FCC had handled crap like this since its inception. That's the point behind agencies like it. If you want to do away with it, fine. Go lobby your congressman. But in this specific instance, the FCC has taken a (small) step in the right direction.
Incorrect. The US District Court out of DC, in April, ruled that the FCC lacks the authority.

Quote:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558...ence-security/


And again, without knowing what the details are, being that the government has yet to make the information public, how can you say its a step in the right direction?

Wrong on both counts.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-23-2010, 11:50 AM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

They absolutely have the legal basis. It's unfortunate the dingbats judges ruled as they did, but there's plenty of law that the FCC can base their judgements on. What they need to do is simply classify internet service as a communications service (which it obviously is) and be done with it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...C-303745A1.pdf

While not the full order, it's a pretty good synopsis.

Again, what happened was a small, tiny step in the right direction.

You may be happy being force-fed content by your ISP. I am not.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-23-2010, 12:37 PM
UBFRAGD UBFRAGD is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shotspotter on every roof
Posts: 2,704
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I half expected to see that pdf authored by George Orwell by the time I read it through.

If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

Kind of OT, but I did want to mention, I live next to pulic housing in SF, and the residents enjoy free unlimited wifi.

I think the internet is one of the few things in America that actually works and shows signs of continual improvement while adding value to my life. What in hell do I want the feds tampering with something like that? They have a very small track record of succesful improvements via regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-23-2010, 1:13 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this. "
Because last mile connectivity is LEGALLY MONOPOLIZED.

"And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media."
Who needs 30 round mags? Who needs semi-auto rifles? Who needs bayonets?

"They have a very small track record of succesful improvements via regulation."
Uhm....the internet was a product of the DOD. Not of private enterprise.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-23-2010, 1:54 PM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

Because the big players all but have a monopoly and are constantly working on eliminating whatever competition they have by acquiring them. I'm afraid the idea of a free market taking care of anything in cases like this is a myth. Doesn't work when the cards are held by such few players.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

That reminds me of...who really needs thirty rounds as opposed to ten. So you are happy with the scenario of having your internet viewing manipulated by your ISP? Not me. Where do you make the connection of wanting equal internet access and copyright infringement??

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

If we don't get net neutrality with closed loopholes you can count on your fees going up when providers either start charging for what they consider "premium" sites or start charging certain sites fees that are then passed on to us. Ever see what is constantly going on with cable and satellite fees?
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-23-2010, 5:20 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,057
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

Because the big players all but have a monopoly and are constantly working on eliminating whatever competition they have by acquiring them. I'm afraid the idea of a free market taking care of anything in cases like this is a myth. Doesn't work when the cards are held by such few players.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

That reminds me of...who really needs thirty rounds as opposed to ten. So you are happy with the scenario of having your internet viewing manipulated by your ISP? Not me. Where do you make the connection of wanting equal internet access and copyright infringement??

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

If we don't get net neutrality with closed loopholes you can count on your fees going up when providers either start charging for what they consider "premium" sites or start charging certain sites fees that are then passed on to us. Ever see what is constantly going on with cable and satellite fees?
The pretense is up already so you may want to give it a rest. That hand has already been played and the intentions are known so your comments are comical. It's pretty obvious at this point why Obama's appointed FCC chairman is ignoring congress and the courts. Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-23-2010, 10:58 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content."
That's total and utter crap.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-23-2010, 11:23 PM
FreedomIsNotFree's Avatar
FreedomIsNotFree FreedomIsNotFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,631
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike82 View Post
They absolutely have the legal basis. It's unfortunate the dingbats judges ruled as they did, but there's plenty of law that the FCC can base their judgements on. What they need to do is simply classify internet service as a communications service (which it obviously is) and be done with it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da...C-303745A1.pdf

While not the full order, it's a pretty good synopsis.

Again, what happened was a small, tiny step in the right direction.

You may be happy being force-fed content by your ISP. I am not.

I think the US District Court Judge has a more complete grasp of the law on this matter than you do...no offense.

How could you possibly know the linked press release is a good synopsis when the full text has not been released?

What content have I been force fed by my ISP?
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-23-2010, 11:34 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,052
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

"I think the US District Court Judge has a more complete grasp of the law on this matter than you do...no offense."
The lawyers of the FCC obviously disagree, and have shown what basis they have for making their decision. It's right there.

"How could you possibly know the linked press release is a good synopsis when the full text has not been released?"
It's straight from the horses mouth. While its certainly possible that the FCC mentioned aliens and anal probes, I'm not going to give that notion any credence until I've seen something to support it. There's no evidence that the FCC is leaving out any material statements.

"What content have I been force fed by my ISP?"
Currently...not much. But that's only because consumer outcry stopped Comcast from doing much more than screwing with torrent traffic. When you do away with Net Neutrality, there's *NOTHING* stopping Comcast from accepting money that will allow Huffington Post to display in a matter of miliseconds, and Calguns from failing to display for a few seconds.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:56 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.