|
Post by Incogayno. on Feb 4, 2015 13:31:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 4, 2015 13:37:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 4, 2015 14:12:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 4, 2015 14:15:34 GMT -6
No, Obama is right. It's a utility.
This is what freedom tastes like, tweety. Take a big swig.
BTW that WJS guy is full of shit. Our internet speeds suck a donkey cock compared to other developed countries.
Goddamn that article is so full of fail. "So much for the will of voters?" Seriously? LOFL
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Feb 4, 2015 14:25:24 GMT -6
Tweeter, on the wrong side of history, forever.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Feb 4, 2015 14:27:00 GMT -6
Tweeter, on the wrong side of history, forever.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 4, 2015 14:33:38 GMT -6
Tweeter, on the wrong side of history, forever. Honestly, it's not even worth engaging him. Except political tools who want to attract attention, and telecom lobbyists, no one should be opposed to this. This issue is as close to the "If Obama was pro-oxygen, Republicans would suffocate" joke you can find in real life.
|
|
Other
Sports Moderator
Interim Master of the Universe
Posts: 5,149
Tits or GTFO: GTFO
|
Post by Other on Feb 4, 2015 14:36:15 GMT -6
Is tweeter trolling or just straight up retarded?
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Feb 4, 2015 14:37:33 GMT -6
Tweeter, on the wrong side of history, forever. Honestly, it's not even worth engaging him. Except political tools who want to attract attention, and telecom lobbyists, no one should be opposed to this. This issue is as close to the "If Obama was pro-oxygen, Republicans would suffocate" joke you can find in real life. It is amazing how quickly the fox shrills were out in force on tech blogs trying to push the telecoms agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Feb 4, 2015 14:39:16 GMT -6
Is tweeter trolling or just straight up retarded? I think it is both. He knows his views get people going but he also believes what he says.
|
|
Other
Sports Moderator
Interim Master of the Universe
Posts: 5,149
Tits or GTFO: GTFO
|
Post by Other on Feb 4, 2015 14:39:24 GMT -6
Obama vs. the InternetThe President pressures the FCC to exert political control over the Web.So much for the will of the voters. Before last Tuesday’s elections, President Obama said that while he wasn’t on the ballot, his policies were. Now that the American people have rebuked those policies, Mr. Obama is attempting another federal power grab over an innovative U.S. industry. On Monday he urged the Federal Communications Commission to apply to the Internet century-old telephone regulations designed for public utilities. In a video posted on Youtube, Mr. Obama endorsed the regulation of Internet access providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. These rules weren’t at the cutting edge of innovation even in the 1930s. As former FCC attorney Randolph May notes, this regulatory framework was written into the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 to oversee monopoly railroads. The Communications Act drafters then copied the 1887 law, replaced the references to railroads and clarified that the new regulations would apply to telephones as well as telegraphs. Eighty years later Mr. Obama has decided, in his market wisdom, that these rules should apply to the Internet. When the FCC floated this idea in May, we called it “ObamaCare for the Web,” but that was too kind. The Obama Internet plan would treat cable, telephone and wireless broadband networks as common carriers subject to federal price controls and myriad other regulatory restrictions. Like the telephone companies of old, broadband providers would be required to “file a tariff” at the commission, meaning they would submit mountains of paperwork and ask the government to approve the prices they intend to charge for services. The bureaucrats would then consider whether the prices are fair. FCC bureaucrats would also hold sway over plans to expand or build digital networks. Under such conditions, who would invest to build the next generation of broadband technologies? In his breezy video, Mr. Obama said he is promoting such regulation to preserve “the idea of Net neutrality,” which he claimed has “unleashed the power of the Internet and given innovators the chance to thrive.” This is upside down logic. The Internet has thrived in large part because policy makers and judges have rejected nearly every attempt to enforce “Net neutrality.” That is the hazy concept generally defined as preventing network operators from discriminating against particular online content but—for its most zealous advocates—amounting to a ban on differentiated services, such as express delivery of information. Instead, a bipartisan consensus has allowed the Internet to grow relatively unmolested by Washington. The result has been intense competition among phone, cable and wireless companies to provide consumers with ever faster speeds, which in turn has allowed the U.S. to lead the world in digital innovations.Mr. Obama played the demagogic card that “cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at,” without naming any companies that are doing so, and without saying that the Federal Trade Commission already has the legal authority to combat such practices. Comcast and other Internet service providers have already agreed to abide by Net-neutrality rules as part of merger agreements. The President also had the nerve to assert, amid his public lobbying, that “the FCC is an independent agency and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.” But Mr. Obama might as well have painted a bull’s-eye on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who will now have to acquiesce or face a deluge of liberal abuse. Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Obama for his comments but noted potential problems with forcing broadband companies into Title II. “The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do,” said Mr. Wheeler, who we hope resists his patron’s bullying. Mr. Obama is trying to exert in his final two years in office the same political control over the Internet that he has already imposed on health care and banking. If he succeeds he’ll set a terrible precedent for despots around the world who also want to assert political control over cyberspace. The Obama Administration is already ceding greater control over the Internet registry ICANN to foreign outfits that could easily become fronts for repressive regimes. If the FCC caves under White House pressure, Congress has every right to defund this regulatory overreach before it becomes a clear and present danger to the U.S. economy and global freedom. I cannot believe anyone could say that with a straight face. This must have been written by some lacky at Time Warner or Comcast.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 4, 2015 14:41:10 GMT -6
Obama vs. the InternetThe President pressures the FCC to exert political control over the Web.So much for the will of the voters. Before last Tuesday’s elections, President Obama said that while he wasn’t on the ballot, his policies were. Now that the American people have rebuked those policies, Mr. Obama is attempting another federal power grab over an innovative U.S. industry. On Monday he urged the Federal Communications Commission to apply to the Internet century-old telephone regulations designed for public utilities. In a video posted on Youtube, Mr. Obama endorsed the regulation of Internet access providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. These rules weren’t at the cutting edge of innovation even in the 1930s. As former FCC attorney Randolph May notes, this regulatory framework was written into the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 to oversee monopoly railroads. The Communications Act drafters then copied the 1887 law, replaced the references to railroads and clarified that the new regulations would apply to telephones as well as telegraphs. Eighty years later Mr. Obama has decided, in his market wisdom, that these rules should apply to the Internet. When the FCC floated this idea in May, we called it “ObamaCare for the Web,” but that was too kind. The Obama Internet plan would treat cable, telephone and wireless broadband networks as common carriers subject to federal price controls and myriad other regulatory restrictions. Like the telephone companies of old, broadband providers would be required to “file a tariff” at the commission, meaning they would submit mountains of paperwork and ask the government to approve the prices they intend to charge for services. The bureaucrats would then consider whether the prices are fair. FCC bureaucrats would also hold sway over plans to expand or build digital networks. Under such conditions, who would invest to build the next generation of broadband technologies? In his breezy video, Mr. Obama said he is promoting such regulation to preserve “the idea of Net neutrality,” which he claimed has “unleashed the power of the Internet and given innovators the chance to thrive.” This is upside down logic. The Internet has thrived in large part because policy makers and judges have rejected nearly every attempt to enforce “Net neutrality.” That is the hazy concept generally defined as preventing network operators from discriminating against particular online content but—for its most zealous advocates—amounting to a ban on differentiated services, such as express delivery of information. Instead, a bipartisan consensus has allowed the Internet to grow relatively unmolested by Washington. The result has been intense competition among phone, cable and wireless companies to provide consumers with ever faster speeds, which in turn has allowed the U.S. to lead the world in digital innovations.Mr. Obama played the demagogic card that “cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at,” without naming any companies that are doing so, and without saying that the Federal Trade Commission already has the legal authority to combat such practices. Comcast and other Internet service providers have already agreed to abide by Net-neutrality rules as part of merger agreements. The President also had the nerve to assert, amid his public lobbying, that “the FCC is an independent agency and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.” But Mr. Obama might as well have painted a bull’s-eye on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who will now have to acquiesce or face a deluge of liberal abuse. Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Obama for his comments but noted potential problems with forcing broadband companies into Title II. “The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do,” said Mr. Wheeler, who we hope resists his patron’s bullying. Mr. Obama is trying to exert in his final two years in office the same political control over the Internet that he has already imposed on health care and banking. If he succeeds he’ll set a terrible precedent for despots around the world who also want to assert political control over cyberspace. The Obama Administration is already ceding greater control over the Internet registry ICANN to foreign outfits that could easily become fronts for repressive regimes. If the FCC caves under White House pressure, Congress has every right to defund this regulatory overreach before it becomes a clear and present danger to the U.S. economy and global freedom. I cannot believe anyone could say that with a straight face. This must have been written by some lacky at Time Warner or Comcast. Explain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 14:41:21 GMT -6
I for one am just glad the guvment is fixing a problem that didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 4, 2015 14:44:26 GMT -6
No, Obama is right. It's a utility. This is what freedom tastes like, tweety. Take a big swig. BTW that WJS guy is full of shit. Our internet speeds suck a donkey cock compared to other developed countries. Goddamn that article is so full of fail. "So much for the will of voters?" Seriously? LOFL you have your nose so far up Obama's socialist ass it's scary. The Internet is not a utility -- your first complete fail. None of the companies we rely on today -- Google, Yahoo, Amazon, retailers, Internet providers, message boards, fuck, even Obama's NSA -- would have come into existence in government regulated environment. But here's the real scary part -- broadcast and cable radio and television as we know it will cease to exist in a matter of years. Content will all move to the Internet. Who do you want in charge of that? Who's going to come up with the best solutions at the most effective costs? Free market entrepreneurs unafraid to take a risk? Or slothful, progressive-minded bureaucrats? Just admit it: net neutrality is just one more way Obama wants to separate you from your money in order to fund his socialist agenda. Minimum trollinng
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Feb 4, 2015 14:46:22 GMT -6
No, Obama is right. It's a utility. This is what freedom tastes like, tweety. Take a big swig. BTW that WJS guy is full of shit. Our internet speeds suck a donkey cock compared to other developed countries. Goddamn that article is so full of fail. "So much for the will of voters?" Seriously? LOFL you have your nose so far up Obama's socialist ass it's scary. The Internet is not a utility -- your first complete fail. None of the companies we rely on today -- Google, Yahoo, Amazon, retailers, Internet providers, message boards, fuck, even Obama's NSA -- would have come into existence in government regulated environment. But here's the real scary part -- broadcast and cable radio and television as we know it will cease to exist in a matter of years. Content will all move to the Internet. Who do you want in charge of that? Who's going to come up with the best solutions at the most effective costs? Free market entrepreneurs unafraid to take a risk? Or slothful, progressive-minded bureaucrats? Just admit it: net neutrality is just one more way Obama wants to separate you from your money in order to fund his socialist agenda. Someone sounds.....Mad?
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 4, 2015 14:50:32 GMT -6
No, Obama is right. It's a utility. This is what freedom tastes like, tweety. Take a big swig. BTW that WJS guy is full of shit. Our internet speeds suck a donkey cock compared to other developed countries. Goddamn that article is so full of fail. "So much for the will of voters?" Seriously? LOFL you have your nose so far up Obama's socialist ass it's scary. The Internet is not a utility -- your first complete fail. None of the companies we rely on today -- Google, Yahoo, Amazon, retailers, Internet providers, message boards, fuck, even Obama's NSA -- would have come into existence in government regulated environment. But here's the real scary part -- broadcast and cable radio and television as we know it will cease to exist in a matter of years. Content will all move to the Internet. Who do you want in charge of that? Who's going to come up with the best solutions at the most effective costs? Free market entrepreneurs unafraid to take a risk? Or slothful, progressive-minded bureaucrats? Just admit it: net neutrality is just one more way Obama wants to separate you from your money in order to fund his socialist agenda. You're gonna have to do better than that to get an optimal slapdown from me. That's liek DEFCON 4 trolling, brah.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 4, 2015 17:22:34 GMT -6
Dear tweets. You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Plz shut your pie hole. Thanks you.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Feb 4, 2015 17:33:54 GMT -6
Time Warner cable for the win.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Slick on Feb 4, 2015 18:37:15 GMT -6
Is tweeter trolling or just straight up retarded? There's no troll in his roll.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 4, 2015 23:35:55 GMT -6
Ok, now that I'm at a computer and not my cell phone I'll type out why this is a good thing in plain English. #1. You don't have a fucking clue about what this means for the "freedom" of the internet. The government isn't taking it over or anything of that nature. It's giving the power back to the people who utilize it, not the companies that use their greed to screw over the people. The government actually established the internet YEARS ago. Not Time Warner. Not Comcrap. Not AT&T. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet ARPANET, which was a government program set up the internet protocol as we know it today. So if you don't understand it, or know what it is, just shut it. #2. You don't have a fucking clue about Title II classification. The internet is a utility. Phones are a "Utility". This won't cost Comcast/TWC/etc anything more than what they have now. Without that classification the major broadband providers could charge companies with sites, as well as the consumers even more money if they want the "fast lane". They want to fuck over everyone they can to make the shareholders happy. Apparently you want them to fuck you over even harder. #3 You don't have a fucking clue about anything related to the internet. All you know about it is that it's a way for you to get your right wing news quickly and to spread that nonsense on message boards and farcebook to the other low information people who believe any shit they see. Title II classification has NOTHING to do with Google, yahoo, messageboards, netflix, etc. It has to deal with the companies that provide that connection to consumers. Google is expanding out it's fiber network and they are for it, even though they are slowly breaking into the internet game of providing that service to people. TWC/COX/Comcast have some rather aggressive steps to prevent municipal internet programs as many states have banned that in the favor of the big ISP's. Cedar Falls is one example of one being successful. They lobby the shit out of states and federal to work the game in their favor. Why is it that there may be 3 providers in a city, yet there are few overlapping areas of coverage? Because they want it that way. They know that people want/need the internet at home. They are losing out on their cable tv business by the exploding number of cord cutters who are sick of paying $100+ for tv and instead pay $50 plus netflix, etc. But those folks still need the internet from them no matter how much they may hate mediacom or whomever. #4. You don't know shit about the internet. And fuck you. /Meant with all the love in the world
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Feb 4, 2015 23:42:22 GMT -6
Too long, and way too ghey...
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 4, 2015 23:43:33 GMT -6
Imma email you penises now Icehide. You look at them and study them, and tell me who's the fag.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Feb 4, 2015 23:45:48 GMT -6
Uhh.....
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 4, 2015 23:56:45 GMT -6
What shade of brown do you prefer? Light, or midnight black?
|
|
|
Post by Earl Slick on Feb 5, 2015 6:28:37 GMT -6
#4 Kenyan socialist terrorist will take away our guns, then our internet.
|
|