• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Live feed to the FCC vote on Net Neutrality.

Ockham said:
And you think you will BENEFIT by that regulation? Oh what a wonderful world you believe you live in where there is no government regulation that isn't just rainbows and candycanes. :lamo
Click to expand...

Conversely, you must hate every government regulation and think that every single regulation causes absolutely nothing but harm.

You think there should be no airline safety regulations at all, right? This is the clear implication of your post.
 
Samhain said:
No packet prioritization based on protocol or saturation. In order to ensure there is enough room for everything on the backbones, everything will be throttled.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality does not prevent quality-of-service throttling. Instance #4076 of people against net neutrality not knowing what it is.

edit: and there goes Ockham with #4077.
 
Deuce said:
Net neutrality does not prevent quality-of-service throttling. Instance #4076 of people against net neutrality not knowing what it is.
Click to expand...

Correct, which means in order to provide quality of service, they will throttle everything.
 
Deuce said:
Conversely, you must hate every government regulation and think that every single regulation causes absolutely nothing but harm.
Click to expand...
A majority of it yes.

Deuce said:
You think there should be no airline safety regulations at all, right? This is the clear implication of your post.
Click to expand...
Airlines are not the topic - tell me about all about how these new regulations will make everyone's internet so much better, because according to you, regulation that hurts Verizon is a good thing for the rest of us. Tell us how rainbows and candycanes will shoot out of our internet service now.
 
Samhain said:
Correct, which means in order to provide quality of service, they will throttle everything.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Some peoples' reading comprehension, man.

You are wrong. If network saturation occurs, they can still throttle the larger consumers of bandwidth to maintain service quality for other users. They don't have to throttle everything.

Hope this clears up your misconception.
 
Ockham said:
A majority of it yes.
Click to expand...
Nope. You went absolute. You don't get to backpedal to "a majority" when you went and declared I must love every regulation.

Airlines are not the topic - tell me about all about how these new regulations will make everyone's internet so much better, because according to you, regulation that hurts Verizon is a good thing for the rest of us. Tell us how rainbows and candycanes will shoot out of our internet service now.
Click to expand...

Only when you start posting like an adult. If you want to discuss net neutrality, this attitude of yours is not going to make that happen. Stop extrapolating everything to absolutes, stop making **** up that other people never said.
 
tacomancer said:
1. That wasn't the point of the ruling, if you think it is, you misunderstood it
2. Why should what be equal?
3. Because the telecommunications and medical industries are the same thing, right?
Click to expand...

its the same thing to Obama and the libs... the raping of our freedoms for their control...
 
Deuce said:
Nope. You went absolute. You don't get to backpedal to "a majority" when you went and declared I must love every regulation.
Click to expand...
I went absolute on your love of government regulations... you do love all regulation. I did NOT go absolute nor did I say I disagree with ALL regulation. You and I are not the same - see?

I'll give you an opportunity..... Can you search for a regulation that you railed against on DP in the past 4 years? Post the link and I'll take back my accusation that "you've never met a regulation you didn't love" comment.


Deuce said:
Only when you start posting like an adult. If you want to discuss net neutrality, this attitude of yours is not going to make that happen. Stop extrapolating everything to absolutes, stop making **** up that other people never said.
Click to expand...
And you stating "Then you went and ****ed it up. Now you're getting regulated.

Get ****ed," is an adult way to make a statement to Verizon huh? You and I obviously have a very different view of the definition of "adult". And I'm sorry you're too think skinned to actually provide ANY benefits these regulations will make - THAT total failure of yours is just wonderful! :lamo
 
Samhain said:
Just imagine how great its going to be when they apply the same data prioritization for email and video!
Click to expand...

They may not be able to discriminate on source or destination but they will route protocols as always however they need to for performance reasons.
 
Verax said:
We'll have to see, I'm pretty certain there won't be any surprises, that would be pretty strange.
Click to expand...


i will be flabbergasted if there are NO surprises

Otherwise why keep it all so secret?

What was the rationale for that?

Why couldnt there be a debate on the topic?

What i am seeing is an agency of the federal government, basically rewriting regulations with no congressional oversight

Something about that scares the bejeezus out of me.....i am surprised it doesnt to more people

I guess once they actually release the whole thing, we can dissect it and find out if you are right....no surprises

Or those of us who distrust government are.....big and bad surprises
 
radcen said:
As an issue unto itself, regardless the specific subject matter, yes, that does bother me. Greatly.
Click to expand...

Except it's not exactly as though we don't have title ii utilities already, and we're not all living in concentration camps as a result.
 
Deuce said:
Nope. You went absolute. You don't get to backpedal to "a majority" when you went and declared I must love every regulation.


Only when you start posting like an adult. If you want to discuss net neutrality, this attitude of yours is not going to make that happen. Stop extrapolating everything to absolutes, stop making **** up that other people never said.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your 2% taxes and fees on your future internet bills, komrade.
 
Cardinal said:
Except it's not exactly as though we don't have title ii utilities already, and we're not all living in concentration camps as a result.
Click to expand...
Why does it need to be portrayed as the extreme of a concentration camp?

I'd be willing to bet that in your life you have also found some government doings to be not quite what you expected or wanted, so I'm failing to understand your defending of the secrecy. If it's so benign, why not just put the specifics out there... and maybe have some public debate prior to the vote?
 
radcen said:
Why does it need to be portrayed as the extreme of a concentration camp?

I'd be willing to bet that in your life you have also found some government doings to be not quite what you expected or wanted, so I'm failing to understand your defending of the secrecy. If it's so benign, why not just put the specifics out there... and maybe have some public debate prior to the vote?
Click to expand...

It's not "total secrecy," it's a utility. We have utilities...they're not new.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, extremes are the raison d'être of these threads.
 
Fenton said:
You mean when Clinton signed the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act ?
Click to expand...

Yea the one the that Republican SOB Phil Gramm wrote. Ole' Phil is now on the board at UBS bank for his trouble. He should be in jail.
 
Cardinal said:
It's not "total secrecy," it's a utility. We have utilities...they're not new.
Click to expand...
Circles back to my original question: If it's so benign, why not opt for full and open disclosure instead?

I'm not generally a fan of , "If you have nothing to hide..." arguments/questions, but sometimes they are apt. This is an example of where the it would be apt.


Cardinal said:
And in case you haven't been paying attention, extremes are the raison d'être of these threads.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately true. Doesn't mean we need to accept them or lower ourselves to their use. I prefer to call them out instead, as they have no legitimate purpose, and only serve to muddy the discussion.
 
gdgyva said:
i will be flabbergasted if there are NO surprises

Otherwise why keep it all so secret?

What was the rationale for that?

Why couldnt there be a debate on the topic?

What i am seeing is an agency of the federal government, basically rewriting regulations with no congressional oversight

Something about that scares the bejeezus out of me.....i am surprised it doesnt to more people

I guess once they actually release the whole thing, we can dissect it and find out if you are right....no surprises

Or those of us who distrust government are.....big and bad surprises
Click to expand...

You want Congress involved because they know so much about the internet? They are lucky if they can tie their shoes in the morning. This is a matter for the FCC not the lobbyist tainted Congress.
 
Ockham said:
I went absolute on your love of government regulations... you do love all regulation. I did NOT go absolute nor did I say I disagree with ALL regulation. You and I are not the same - see?
Click to expand...
QED.

That will be all.
 
Deuce said:
QED.

That will be all.
Click to expand...

Summary: You couldn't find a post in 4 years on DP where you railed against a regulation. Thank you for proving me right.
 
Ockham said:
Summary: You couldn't find a post in 4 years on DP where you railed against a regulation. Thank you for proving me right.
Click to expand...

Who's in your avatar and who's it painted by?
 
radcen said:
Circles back to my original question: If it's so benign, why not opt for full and open disclosure instead?

I'm not generally a fan of , "If you have nothing to hide..." arguments/questions, but sometimes they are apt. This is an example of where the it would be apt.



Unfortunately true. Doesn't mean we need to accept them or lower ourselves to their use. I prefer to call them out instead, as they have no legitimate purpose, and only serve to muddy the discussion.
Click to expand...

A more productive line of thinking would involve questions such as "In what ways has title ii utilities led to less freedom and lower quality service in the past?" Anything else is hysteria, imho.
 
Cardinal said:
Who's in your avatar and who's it painted by?
Click to expand...

It is a painting by Rubens, in the baroque style, painted in the early 1600's called "The Head of a Franciscan Monk", currently housed in the Hermitage gallery in St. Petersburg Russia. It's a depiction of a monk of which William of Ockham, my DP namesake, is named after though Ockham lived 300 years earlier in Surrey, England.
 
Ockham said:
It is a painting by Rubens, in the baroque style, painted in the early 1600's called "The Head of a Franciscan Monk", currently housed in the Hermitage gallery in St. Petersburg Russia. It's a depiction of a monk of which William of Ockham, my DP namesake, is named after though Ockham lived 300 years earlier in Surrey, England.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I collect great art for my image library.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom