Perhaps you opted not to discuss the politics of this here.
"Fight For The Future", ? Oh a feel good name, my decision is made, . What friggin' future ? The future of unelected hacks making 322 pages of law while denying the Americans it affects an opportunity to read and comment on them ?
Not the future I support. One that Move On . org does, .
It drives me nuts how many times we've encountered the "you'll he to pass it in order to read it" type of stuff. Do you know where there is a downloadable copy of this thing ?
It is sealed. The FCC is comprised of a number of commissioners. Seven I think. One of them (who plans to vote against it) did some interviews and wasn't liking what he read, nor the fact that it is sealed. There is supposed to be an outline released, , you know, "talking points".
Where can one read the 332-page draft order that was given to the FCC commissioners nearly three weeks ago so we can see what they are proposing?
No where. It is secret. Right now the commissioners are divided 4 Democrat and 3 Republican. And they vote the party line. So it is very likely that it will pass. What a hideous thing to do to the Internet. The Democrats want to control the Internet and probably try to keep conservative, constitutional ideas from being spoken, written or discussed. This is all about control of the population and the discussion.
Were all screwed my friends... It's gonna be rammed down everybody's throat just like socialized medicine was. It is amazing that we pay these people triple digit figures to do nothing but write bad laws that take away our freedoms and yet these toolbags give themselves raises three times a year. Back in the day it was voluntary because you loved your country now we pay them to legislate against the will of the people. Who knows whats next but I'm sure Obama is gonna try and have the guiness book of world records on executive orders passed... oh wait he already does lol.
Go figure the progressives.. I mean socialistic/commy Marxists want to control free speech. Next thing you know they'll be at our door steps trying to confiscate our guns
This about this....when you make a phone call to your local NAPA, but your phone company has a deal with Autozone and redirects your call to them instead. Or they limit your call to Napa by routing it through India and back, causing quality and lag issues. Or maybe your local phone company doesn't even allow you to call NAPA. Autozone paid your phone company for the right to do so.
Now, without net neutrality, the same thing could happen. Anytime you try to visit NAPA online, you are routed to Autozone, or the page loads so slow that you just give up, because NAPA wouldn't pay to have the same level of accessibility through your internet provider. Of course, there is nothing you can do, because in your contact, you agreed to this as you will only be able to access the information the ISP deems profitable. Goodbye to small online businesses, you will never have a chance, as the big companies will buy up all the access.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-26-2015).]
Nobody knows what "Net Neutrality" will do because we haven't read the legislation. All we know is what the idea of a "neutral net" is and what politicians have said in speeches.
Net Neutrality is awesome - IF your idea of what that means is what the legislation says and the FCC actually does.
The "Affordable Care Act" did *not* make health insurance more "affordable" to the vast majority of people. Don't be misled by what the title of the legislation says and what you hope it means.
This about this....when you make a phone call to your local NAPA, but your phone company has a deal with Autozone and redirects your call to them instead. Or they limit your call to Napa by routing it through India and back, causing quality and lag issues. Or maybe your local phone company doesn't even allow you to call NAPA. Autozone paid your phone company for the right to do so.
Now, without net neutrality, the same thing could happen. Anytime you try to visit NAPA online, you are routed to Autozone, or the page loads so slow that you just give up, because NAPA wouldn't pay to have the same level of accessibility through your internet provider. Of course, there is nothing you can do, because in your contact, you agreed to this as you will only be able to access the information the ISP deems profitable. Goodbye to small online businesses, you will never have a chance, as the big companies will buy up all the access.
What stops the government from doing the same thing based on whoever contributes the most to campaign coffers, once they hold regulatory control over the internet?
Have you had your head buried in the sand the past 6 years and have not seen everything that this administration has been changing via executive fiat in the name of "federal regulations"?
Nobody knows what "Net Neutrality" will do because we haven't read the legislation. All we know is what the idea of a "neutral net" is and what politicians have said in speeches.
Net Neutrality is awesome - IF your idea of what that means is what the legislation says and the FCC actually does.
The "Affordable Care Act" did *not* make health insurance more "affordable" to the vast majority of people. Don't be misled by what the title of the legislation says and what you hope it means.
We have people against Net Neutrality and yet they don't even understand the concept. They heard that there may be "regulation from the government" and they are immediately against it.
I agree, we need to know what is being passed to better understand the impact it may have.
We have people against Net Neutrality and yet they don't even understand the concept.
How can YOU even understand the concept (of what they are really going to do with it) when the 332-page document is secret and you don't even know what's in it???
Sounds just like what Nancy told us about Obamacare. "We have to pass it before we can see what's in it". How's that working out for everybody?
If you don't like it, then vote, rally other voters and inform people of the facts (not things like "net neutrality is a government takeover to steal all your money and your freedoms.... next they will take your guns"). When people go off topic like that, others just tune out. We are getting people with extreme viewpoints and leaving no middleground.
So, if you are unhappy with the current administration, then vote to change that in the next.
How can YOU even understand the concept (of what they are really going to do with it) when the 332-page document is secret and you don't even know what's in it???
Sounds just like what Nancy told us about Obamacare. "We have to pass it before we can see what's in it". How's that working out for everybody?
Then demand that it be released. Asking me that question doesn't do anything to open that document. Call your congressmen and complain.
If you don't like it, then vote, rally other voters and inform people of the facts (not things like "net neutrality is a government takeover to steal all your money and your freedoms.... next they will take your guns").
It's funny you brought up guns. Look at what Obama is doing right now with the BATFE regulations on a popular type of AR-15 ammo. They are moving to BAN it by reinterpreting the meaning of a long-standing regulation because they don't like what it originally said or meant. They're doing this on their own and without authorization of the congress or the American people. And you don't seem to have a problem with it at all.
The presidency is part of the executive branch. The definition of the executive branch of government is to enforce laws passed by congress, not make up their own laws or interpret laws differently than how they are actually written. The constitution does not give the president the authority to make up his own rules or laws, but that's exactly what he has done these past 6 years and is doing now.
And all you have to say is "work to elect someone different"??? He's violating the constitution! But you don't seem to care or have a problem with it...
That's a good idea. Meanwhile you and others are supporting it without knowing what it is. I'm against it primarily because I *don't* know what it entails. As you've described it, I'm completely in favor of "net neutrality." Without knowing if that's what the legislation actually does, I can't support it.
The video goes into good detail about the "idea" behind the legislation. But doesn't cover what the legislation actually does. It's no different than saying we need to pass the Affordable Care Act to make health care affordable.
Has this guy in the video actually gotten to read the 332-page net neutrality regulations that none else in the public have gotten access to? If not, how in the hell does he know what these new regulations are going to empower the government to do with the internet, now or in the future?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: With new regulatory control over the internet, the Obama administration may find a way to restrict access to websites that offer viewpoints that they don't agree with. This issue will be brought up on the web, but those voices of concern will have access to them restricted as well. If one or two voices of opposition manage to slip past the administration's watchdogs, and jaskispyder reads it, he'll simply say "If you don't like it, then vote, rally other voters and inform people of the facts".
Well jack, that's going to be damn hard to do on the internet if all opposing voices can be restricted by those in power on the federal level. But I guess you'll be ok with that because it's your guy in the white house, right?
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-26-2015).]
If you believe Obama doesn't have the authority and is violating the Constitution, then take him to court, or contact your congressmen and demand they act. There is a lot of talk about what Obama is doing, but no one has taken him to court. I am guessing because what he is doing is legal, but the anti-Obama sources don't want to admit it. Actions speak louder than words and so far, little action has been taken IN COURT.
As for your assumption that I don't care... well we have a Constitution and Obama is doing what is allowed (until someone can prove that he isn't)... so the next best option is to impeach and from there, just wait until the next election. You have options, but you act as if nobody is doing anything. Did you stop to think about the reason for that? It isn't because they don't care, it is because they know they don't have the legal means to do anything.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
It's funny you brought up guns. Look at what Obama is doing right now with the BATFE regulations on a popular type of AR-15 ammo. They are moving to BAN it by reinterpreting the meaning of a long-standing regulation because they don't like what it originally said or meant. They're doing this on their own and without authorization of the congress or the American people. And you don't seem to have a problem with it at all.
The presidency is part of the executive branch. The definition of the executive branch of government is to enforce laws passed by congress, not make up their own laws or interpret laws differently than how they are actually written. The constitution does not give the president the authority to make up his own rules or laws, but that's exactly what he has done these past 6 years and is doing now.
And all you have to say is "work to elect someone different"??? He's violating the constitution! But you don't seem to care or have a problem with it...
Well jack, that's going to be damn hard to do on the internet if all opposing voices can be restricted. But I guess you'll be ok with that because it's your guy in the white house, right?
Who is Jack ? If you are talking to me... I am sorry, I think I am done. I have tried to have a discussion, but your views are just too deeply entrenched and you would rather label people and make assumptions, instead of looking for viable solutions.
For anyone who has worked with the FCC they always put out a Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and accept comments from the telecommunications sector prior to making a ruling.
I am currently making comments on a different NPRM for 9-1-1 services.
They take the comments from the Industry and develop a ruling which may or may not change direction from the NPRM.
Pai's statements in the NPRM are the most disturbing. In this and other NPRM's he describes what can happen in the future if this ruling passes and tries to point out what has not been considered when making these rulings. His comments will scare you more than the others.
We will have to "wait and see" what is in the ruling. I am sure there will be objections.
Please remember one of the political "goals" of the FCC is make sure more of the population has access to the Internet. How that is accomplished has nothing to do with technology.
[This message has been edited by mike-ohio (edited 02-26-2015).]
That's a good idea. Meanwhile you and others are supporting it without knowing what it is. I'm against it primarily because I *don't* know what it entails. As you've described it, I'm completely in favor of "net neutrality." Without knowing if that's what the legislation actually does, I can't support it.
I didn't say I support THIS ruling. I said I support net neutrality. BIG DIFFERENCE, but I guess that doesn't matter.
So much for a conversation about this, you have already made assumptions about where I stand, and once again, they are wrong. It is getting harder and harder to have conversations on this forum when we have posts like yours. I am not being negative, it is just the way it is. You would rather try and cut me down or put words into my mouth, than have a meaningful conversation about this topic.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-26-2015).]
If you believe Obama doesn't have the authority and is violating the Constitution, then take him to court, or contact your congressmen and demand they act. There is a lot of talk about what Obama is doing, but no one has taken him to court. I am guessing because what he is doing is legal, but the anti-Obama sources don't want to admit it. Actions speak louder than words and so far, little action has been taken IN COURT.
As for your assumption that I don't care... well we have a Constitution and Obama is doing what is allowed (until someone can prove that he isn't)... so the next best option is to impeach and from there, just wait until the next election. You have options, but you act as if nobody is doing anything. Did you stop to think about the reason for that? It isn't because they don't care, it is because they know they don't have the legal means to do anything.
It's easy for you to offer those alternative actions knowing there's not a snowball's chance in hell the obama-nutswinging mass media will ever let anyone impeach this guy. Anyone who opposes him now gets labeled a racist. What do you think is going to happen if they try to impeach him? Public perception is everything, and as much as I don't like it, the mainstream media is where most people who have their heads buried in the sand get their news and opinions from.
At least I know where you stand now. No need to reply, I know where you're coming from. You're ok with someone violating the constitution as long as they hold the same views as you do.
At least I know where you stand now. No need to reply, I know where you're coming from. You're ok with someone violating the constitution as long as they hold the same views as you do.
Quite the contrary, I've listened to EVERYTHING you've said in every thread I've participated in. What you've said and, especially what you haven't said speaks volumes.
Quite the contrary, I've listened to EVERYTHING you've said in every thread I've participated in. What you've said and, especially what you haven't said speaks volumes.
Especially what I haven't said? LOL! Well, I haven't said that I like the color blue. Oh, wait, you already knew that. Dang... you are good!
Who is Jack ? If you are talking to me... I am sorry, I think I am done. I have tried to have a discussion, but your views are just too deeply entrenched and you would rather label people and make assumptions, instead of looking for viable solutions.
It was a type-o, sorry. I meant to say jask.
You're done? With what? You get on here and say you are in favor of "net neutrality" but you don't say what exactly that is and what you mean by it.
Net Neutrality is the term that is being used by everybody to describe this new 332-page FCC regulation on the internet. If you mean something different than that, then you should make that very clear from the beginning, not in your 7th post in a thread.
If, by "net neutrality" you mean a 100% free and fair internet, then I'm with you on that. But why do you need 332 pages to say "100% free and fair"???
Look, I know this is an alien concept to you, but anytime the Federal Government gets involved in something, it is no longer free and fair. I'm sorry if you can't see that, but that is indeed the case in everything they have their grubby fingers on.
The video goes into good detail about the "idea" behind the legislation. But doesn't cover what the legislation actually does. It's no different than saying we need to pass the Affordable Care Act to make health care affordable.
I just posted the video as a general overview of what net neutrality is as I know some people will click this thread not knowing what it is exactly.
I do agree with you on needing to know what is in the 332 page document. I think the vote was to soon and the document should be released before not prior to the vote. I'm about 70/30 on it given the information I have right now. To My understanding, with this vote it allows the FCC to regulate internet providers not the internet itself. I'm just making at best, an educated guess off of what I read on the Verge and Wheeler's Proposed Rules. I know Verizon has already threatened to sue the FCC, so even after this vote, there is going to be a long battle and we will most likely know whats in the 332 page document long before this is over.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Has this guy in the video actually gotten to read the 332-page net neutrality regulations that none else in the public have gotten access to? If not, how in the hell does he know what these new regulations are going to empower the government to do with the internet, now or in the future?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: With new regulatory control over the internet, the Obama administration may find a way to restrict access to websites that offer viewpoints that they don't agree with. This issue will be brought up on the web, but those voices of concern will have access to them restricted as well. If one or two voices of opposition manage to slip past the administration's watchdogs, and jaskispyder reads it, he'll simply say "If you don't like it, then vote, rally other voters and inform people of the facts".
Well jack, that's going to be damn hard to do on the internet if all opposing voices can be restricted by those in power on the federal level. But I guess you'll be ok with that because it's your guy in the white house, right?
No he has not read the document, like the rest of us. The video isn't about the Net Neutrality legislation but rather about what Net Neutrality is.
Net Neutrality isn't about the regulation of whats on the internet. Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring or blocking some sources. It also prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" or deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs.
I'll be ok with it because it's my guy in the white house?.... Go ahead and tell me who've I've voted for since I've been eligible to vote.
Net Neutrality will now be enforced, and thankfully very little will change. Netflix will not have to pay the ISPs but most everything else will stay the same.
And that's a good thing.
Some ISPs are not classified as broadband anymore in certain areas, which is also good. If they want to claim they're a broadband service they'll have to provide faster speeds.
Local municipalities in states that don't ban this will also be able to roll out their own ISP. This is good for the small and often neglected towns. If cheaper than the private companies, then it will be good for neighboring cities too as competition rises.
Originally posted by Fiero_Fan_88: I'll be ok with it because it's my guy in the white house?.... Go ahead and tell me who've I've voted for since I've been eligible to vote.
That comment was not directed at you.
quote
No he has not read the document, like the rest of us. The video isn't about the Net Neutrality legislation but rather about what Net Neutrality is.
Net Neutrality isn't about the regulation of whats on the internet. Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring or blocking some sources. It also prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" or deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs.
A principle has no teeth to prohibit anything. Only a law (or regulations) can.
I think the problem here is, yet again, our government has carefully chosen words to label a new law or regulations with, aimed at forming the kind of public opinion they want the public to think it is about. When the truth is, it could mean the very opposite.
? Oh a feel good name, my decision is made, 
.
(sort of joking)
