Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 93

Thread: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

  1. #51
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    People in his administration have though. That should bother everyone.
    Source? Not sure what you are referring to here.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #52
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    The real target, or at least one of them speaks out over this horrible display of unAmerican government from within.





    j-mac
    Rush doesn't seem to understand at all what net neutrality is.

    I mean literally no ****ing idea what he's talking about.

    Rush is literally arguing in favor of censorship, and he doesn't even know it.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-22-10 at 01:33 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    FCC set to back Internet traffic rulesThis thread is not about Amy Goodman. Stick to the topic of this thread.
    Thank you!

    I'm trying to learn something here. It's hard enough trying to weed through the details of the OP itself. It's worse when BS posts start to hijack the thread.

    Thanks for brining the topic back around! Much appreciated...

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    The real issue here should be where does the FCC get the authority to regulate or make Internet policy. Sure you can point to the Telecomm Act 1996 where Congress invested the Commission with authority, but a tool such as the Internet is outside the realms of even the Federal government.
    Have you looked at the bottom of your modem? Router? Your cable converter box? How about the coaxial cable or the cabling from your modem/router that plugs into your wall jack? Notice the "FCC" label on your modem, router, cable box or the package your cables came in?

    Internet access is made via telephone and/or cable lines or radio signals (wireless services or satelite) which the FCC regulates. The World Wide Web/Internet may be an "open" information source, but you still have to gain access to it via traditional "wired" telecommunications services or radio telecommunications frequencies both of which are managed (regulated) by the FCC.

    'Nuff said on that front. Now, back to this net-neutrality issue...

    From what I'm learning on this net neutrality issue, it looks like it's more of a win for ISPs and a loss for consumers. (Do I atleast have the aspect right?)

    Zyphlin, you once again have the floor.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-22-10 at 01:40 PM.

  4. #54
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post

    From what I'm learning on this net neutrality issue, it looks like it's more of a win for ISPs and a loss for consumers. (Do I atleast have the aspect right?)

    Zyphlin, you once again have the floor.
    Absolutely correct. It lets telcoms plant toll booths on the internet wherever they want. They can charge you an additional fee for getting 10GB of data from Netflix instead of 10GB from their own video service. They can charge you an additional fee for going to foxnews.com instead of msnbc.com. They can charge you an additional fee for going to walmart.com instead of bestbuy.com.

    With net neutrality in place, 10GB of data is 10GB of data, regardless of where it comes from, so they can only charge you for 10GB of data. (if you pay for unlimited data, you get unlimited data)

    Net neutrality does not guarantee that "the little minorities get equally heard," despite what Limbaugh says. He's an idiot who thinks radio and the internet are somehow comparable in this situation.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #55
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,787
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Source? Not sure what you are referring to here.
    PolitiFact | Cass Sunstein once considered a "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts for the Internet, but then thought better of it

    Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar wanted a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet where he suggested the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later pulled this from his re-work of the book because it would be "too difficult to regulate" and "almost certainly unconstitutional". Almost certainly? How about most definitely. I could go on and on about Cass Sunstein, but that's for a different thread.

    Sure, he no longer feels this way, or does he? I am a huge supporter of repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. I realize that in all likelihood it will never happen, but my belief in what our founders wanted and how the 17th Amendment goes vehemently against that hasn't and will never change. I'm not going to stop supporting the repeal because it would be "too difficult to accomplish". The fact that Sunstein stated openly that he believed government should require sites to link to opposing views should trouble everyone.
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Great. More government intervention on behalf of the big corporations and at the expense of the People. I suppose it is no surprise in the end; but at some point I think government shouldn't work so much just for the corporations and aristocracy it protects; but rather on a general principle of what it was allowed to do and regulate.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #57
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    PolitiFact | Cass Sunstein once considered a "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts for the Internet, but then thought better of it

    Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar wanted a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet where he suggested the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later pulled this from his re-work of the book because it would be "too difficult to regulate" and "almost certainly unconstitutional". Almost certainly? How about most definitely. I could go on and on about Cass Sunstein, but that's for a different thread.

    Sure, he no longer feels this way, or does he? I am a huge supporter of repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. I realize that in all likelihood it will never happen, but my belief in what our founders wanted and how the 17th Amendment goes vehemently against that hasn't and will never change. I'm not going to stop supporting the repeal because it would be "too difficult to accomplish". The fact that Sunstein stated openly that he believed government should require sites to link to opposing views should trouble everyone.
    The fairness doctrine is not net neutrality, despite what Limbaugh will tell you, so this is getting off on a tangent.
    The only people in favor of this ruling are telcoms.

    edit: Also, why are you in favor of taking power away from the people?
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-22-10 at 02:05 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #58
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    3 reasons why it's a bad thing
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  9. #59
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,787
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The fairness doctrine is not net neutrality, despite what Limbaugh will tell you, so this is getting off on a tangent.
    The only people in favor of this ruling are telcoms.

    edit: Also, why are you in favor of taking power away from the people?
    Deuce, Redress and I are having a conversation and I don't listen to Limbaugh. Any time the federal government decides to "regulate" something, it is taking power away from the people. Maybe you should let the adults converse while you go play in the backyard with the other little boys and girls.
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  10. #60
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    PolitiFact | Cass Sunstein once considered a "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts for the Internet, but then thought better of it

    Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar wanted a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet where he suggested the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later pulled this from his re-work of the book because it would be "too difficult to regulate" and "almost certainly unconstitutional". Almost certainly? How about most definitely. I could go on and on about Cass Sunstein, but that's for a different thread.

    Sure, he no longer feels this way, or does he? I am a huge supporter of repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. I realize that in all likelihood it will never happen, but my belief in what our founders wanted and how the 17th Amendment goes vehemently against that hasn't and will never change. I'm not going to stop supporting the repeal because it would be "too difficult to accomplish". The fact that Sunstein stated openly that he believed government should require sites to link to opposing views should trouble everyone.
    I would absolutely oppose any kind of "fairness doctrine" internet or not. It is to my mind absolutely unconstitutional.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •