Another Fatal Attack on Free Speech, Copenhagen

[Coffee and TV]

Funny,... this Ststement a day after the guy nationalizes the Internet.

[FirefightnRick]

Nationalize the internet? You're all rhetoric and no substance, huh?

Your all about giving up more of your freedom for nothing huh?

Rick

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Your all about giving up more of your freedom for nothing huh?

Rick

A) You're*

B ) Have you read the new regulations? It's in response to internet service providers picking and choosing which content to provide bandwidth to. For instance, Comcast, who has a streaming service of their own, could choose to slow down the streaming speed of a competitor (like Netflix). It's a fairly non-partison issue if you ask me, but just say the word "government" and panic ensues.

Edited March 3, 2015 by ChristopherRyanWilkes

[All About UNT]

Freedom! Deh took our jobs!

[MeanGreenTexan]

A) You're*

B ) Have you read the new regulations? It's in response to internet service providers picking and choosing which content to provide bandwidth to. For instance, Comcast, who has a streaming service of their own, could choose to slow down the streaming speed of a competitor (like Netflix). It's a fairly non-partison issue if you ask me, but just say the word "government" and panic ensues.

Admittedly, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this...

This is how I've seen it explained before. But I'd be very interested to see what kind of evidence Rick has heard that would make this a bad thing and another step towards government taking our freedoms.

[Quoner]

Admittedly, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this...

This is how I've seen it explained before. But I'd be very interested to see what kind of evidence Rick has heard that would make this a bad thing and another step towards government taking our freedoms.

Don't be so quick to dismiss his thinking. It's not always easy streaming video and music at the same time and he definitely has a good amount of skin in the game here.

And at least if I beat off its with a woman and some Barry White playing in the background.

Rick

[Coffee and TV]

But I'd be very interested to see what kind of evidence Rick has heard that would make this a bad thing and another step towards government taking our freedoms.

His only evidence is that Obama is for it.

Seriously, I have pretty conservative friends who are basically championing net neutrality. A couple work in the IT industry and understand exactly what's at play here.

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Admittedly, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this...

This is how I've seen it explained before. But I'd be very interested to see what kind of evidence Rick has heard that would make this a bad thing and another step towards government taking our freedoms.

I'm sure he will give you a well thought out and researched opinion on the matter, and not just buzzwords like "nationalize," "freedom," and "socialist."

[FirefightnRick]

Admittedly, I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this...

This is how I've seen it explained before. But I'd be very interested to see what kind of evidence Rick has heard that would make this a bad thing and another step towards government taking our freedoms.

Just like everything else, it's more government control and more than likely be ruined under the guise of making it better, like our healthcare system, which we now fully know was sold to us as a lie. Under the Communications Act of '96 Broadband service providers have been deemed exempt from the regulations of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, and again deemed so in a 2002 review by the FCC. But because this Marxist president simply says so, and was told to do so, the FCC did an about face on a 3-2 vote to place it under Title II control, usurping congress and the rule of law, further growing this leviathan we call the federal government.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

I'm sure he will give you a well thought out and researched opinion on the matter, and not just buzzwords like "nationalize," "freedom," and "socialist."

Socialist Commie!!!

Rick

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Just like everything else, it's more government control and more than likely be ruined under the guise of making it better, like our healthcare system, which we now fully know was sold to us as a lie. Under the Communications Act of '96 Broadband service providers have been deemed exempt from the regulations of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, and again deemed so in a 2002 review by the FCC. But because this Marxist president simply says so, and was told to do so, the FCC did an about face on a 3-2 vote to place it under Title II control, usurping congress and the rule of law, further growing this leviathan we call the federal government.

Rick

1998 and 2002 were a very different time for the internet. Are we supposed to not address change as the way content is shared changes on the internet?

[MeanGreenTexan]

Just like everything else, it's more government control and more than likely be ruined under the guise of making it better, like our healthcare system, which we now fully know was sold to us as a lie. Under the Communications Act of '96 Broadband service providers have been deemed exempt from the regulations of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, and again deemed so in a 2002 review by the FCC. But because this Marxist president simply says so, and was told to do so, the FCC did an about face on a 3-2 vote to place it under Title II control, usurping congress and the rule of law, further growing this leviathan we call the federal government.

Rick

It's my understanding though that if this did not occur, ISPs could regulate bandwidth for any/all websites that use their lines. So if this did not happen, as Christopher cited above, an ISP that is in competition with Netflix could severely limit the bandwidth for Netflix streaming... and that's not fair at all. I'm guessing that one example is just the tip of the iceberg. So if this needs to fall under Title II control (tbh, not sure what that is either) in order for the ISPs to be impartial to internet traffic, then so be it.

[forevereagle]

Just like everything else, it's more government control and more than likely be ruined under the guise of making it better, like our healthcare system, which we now fully know was sold to us as a lie. Under the Communications Act of '96 Broadband service providers have been deemed exempt from the regulations of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, and again deemed so in a 2002 review by the FCC. But because this Marxist president simply says so, and was told to do so, the FCC did an about face on a 3-2 vote to place it under Title II control, usurping congress and the rule of law, further growing this leviathan we call the federal government.

Rick

And since then, Verizon challenged the rules under which those decisions were made and had them thrown out. They promptly proceeded to set up a charge with Netflix for a "fast lane" to their customers. The telecom industry has proven that they cannot be trusted.

Additionally, the Internet landscape is radically different now than it was 13 years ago. You don't want government "control" (actually regulation) in favor of big business "control" (actually control). If you get your way, I sure hope that Harry is able to pay to play because if he can't, kiss this site goodbye.

Edited March 3, 2015 by forevereagle

[FirefightnRick]

All good points but I'd rather a business try to monopolize then fall before the court for it, than give control to the government.

If this was needed so bad now then why not have an oversight committee in congress review it and go from there?

Rick

[MeanGreenTexan]

And since then, Verizon challenged the rules under which those decisions were made and had them thrown out. They promptly proceeded to set up a charge with Netflix for a "fast lane" to their customers. The telecom industry has proven that they cannot be trusted.

Additionally, the Internet landscape is radically different now than it was 13 years ago. You don't want government "control" (actually regulation) in favor of big business "control" (actually control). If you get your way, I sure hope that Harry is able to pay to play because if he can't, kiss this site goodbye.

Remember a few months ago where Harry was having db issues for about a week or so and it took 20+ seconds to query/write posts on here? It was a virtual ghost town around here. Sounds like that would be the norm if this did not occur?

[Coffee and TV]

All good points but I'd rather a business try to monopolize then fall before the court for it, than give control to the government.

If this was needed so bad now then why not have an oversight committee in congress review it and go from there?

Rick

I'd like a nuclear power plant to dump waste in the river and sue them before giving regulation to the government too....

[FirefightnRick]

I'd like a nuclear power plant to dump waste in the river and sue them before giving regulation to the government too....

Yeah, intentional nuclear waste mishaps happen all the time don't they?

Rick

Edited March 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[MeanGreenTexan]

Yeah, intentional nuclear waste mishaps happen all the time don't they?

Rick

Do you think if there were no government regulations around it, and it would significantly cut the bottom line to do so, that it would not happen?

I think your distrust of the government should also be extended to money-hungry corporations. If you have 100% faith in the free market, then you're right where those corporations want you.

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Do you think if there were no government regulations around it, and it would significantly cut the bottom line to do so, that it would not happen?

I think your distrust of the government should also be extended to money-hungry corporations. If you have 100% faith in the free market, then you're right where those corporations want you.

I'm pro-business in a lot of ways, but most government regulation is in reaction to an unfair practice that corporations took advantage of. Their responsibility is to their stock-holders not the general public at large. They balance each other out and both are necessary to keep our system functioning.

[GreenMachine]

If you have 100% faith in the govt, then you're right where those politicians want you.

FIFY

[forevereagle]

All good points but I'd rather a business try to monopolize then fall before the court for it, than give control to the government.

If this was needed so bad now then why not have an oversight committee in congress review it and go from there?

Rick

I would rather be proactive than reactive here. The potential economic damage is not worth the risk to trust a group of companies that has proven through past behavior that they cannot be trusted.

These companies have already been granted a virtual monopoly and new competitors in the space are unlikely due to the cost of entry into the market. These companies have terrible customer support as a direct result of this virtual monopoly.

It holds back innovation as small start ups are prevented from generating digital business due to lack of funds to pay the toll.

My biggest fear is the potential to double charge consumers for use of a service. Netflix is a perfect example. ISP charges Netflix for fast lane, Netflix passes cost to customers. ISP charges customer for use of Netflix and other "special services". Consumer is charged twice for a service that should be part of their service. This would be very damaging to the economy and stifling to growth of the digital space.

What happens when ISPs start signing exclusive fast lane agreements? Microsoft doesn't compete well in the search business right now, but they could buy their way to the front of the line. Like Google search? Too bad, it runs ridiculously slow, making it impossible to use, so Bing becomes your go to search engine regardless of quality.

All of these are the behaviors that I fear would come from a lack of regulation and by the time we react, the impact of bad behavior could have already decided the winners and losers in the digital space and recovery could take decades. If you are in favor of the free market, these regulations should be something that you are in favor of as they keep the digital market a free market, not one that is ruled by the ISPs.

Remember a few months ago where Harry was having db issues for about a week or so and it took 20+ seconds to query/write posts on here? It was a virtual ghost town around here. Sounds like that would be the norm if this did not occur?

Very possibly, but could even be slower.

[FirefightnRick]

Here's the perfect example of how some folks have to learn what they have done to themselves. Sometimes it's the hard way. You can apply the gov overreach of net nuetrality issue to this example as well.

http://twitchy.com/2015/03/03/i-am-going-to-stab-a-bitch-liberal-journalist-discovers-the-joys-of-obamacare/

Laura Krantz, a former NPR editor & producer, is a Scripps Fellow in environmental journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Late last week, she discovered to her dismay that Colorados Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange, Connect for Health Colorado, had inexplicably canceled her health and dental insurance.

Hey @C4HCO - why did you cancel my health insurance over two weeks ago? And why did I just find out today

Still on hold with @C4HCO. It's been almost an hour. Extremely frustrated. When do we get a single payer system? #cohealth

5:13 PM - 27 Feb 2015

@boonelsj I am going to stab a bitch. The live chat woman is useless.

5:57 PM - 27 Feb 2015.......

LOL!

Rick

Edited March 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[MeanGreenTexan]

FIFY

Pay attention homie. I know. Don't get me started...

[forevereagle]

Here's the perfect example of how some folks have to learn what they have done to themselves. Sometimes it's the hard way. You can apply the gov overreach of net nuetrality issue to this example as well.

http://twitchy.com/2015/03/03/i-am-going-to-stab-a-bitch-liberal-journalist-discovers-the-joys-of-obamacare/

LOL!

Rick

Healthcare and Internet are very different.

Did you not like how the Internet operated before? The "new" rules are basically the old rules in a different package. And you haven't given a real reason why this regulation is a bad thing, just that you don't trust the government. If you cannot articulate beyond Frankensteinian "government BAD" then I don't know that you have a good reason beyond not liking the president.

Edited March 3, 2015 by forevereagle

[FirefightnRick]

Healthcare and Internet are very different.

Did you not like how the Internet operated before? The "new" rules are basically the old rules in a different package. And you haven't given a real reason why this regulation is a bad thing, just that you don't trust the government. If you cannot articulate beyond Frankensteinian "government BAD" then I don't know that you have a good reason beyond not liking the president.

.

So it's kind of a... "We have to pass the law to see what's in it",... thing, right?

Rick

Edited March 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick