• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is worried net neutrality might help the terrorists

Renae said:
Translation "You don't agree with me so you are DUMB!"

That refuge of those insecure in their world view, thanks for showing us this about you.
Click to expand...

No, not dumb, just willfully ignorant. In the roughly twenty minutes you've spent in this thread you could have read the Wiki entry on net neutrality twice over. That you've pointedly chosen not to is telling.
 
Cardinal said:
No, not dumb, just willfully ignorant. In the roughly twenty minutes you've spent in this thread you could have read the Wiki entry on net neutrality twice over. That you've pointedly chosen not to is telling.
Click to expand...

I've read it dude, I know what it says. I know what NET NEUTRALITY is, I also know that what PASSED is not what NET NEUTRALITY is. Ergo, I'm not the one whose willfully ignorant.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
LOL. wow. that was helpful.
Click to expand...

They will pick winners and losers, then generally just get in the way of real progress as usual (always). The government loves doing things like this...not for the good of the people, but for the good of greedy politicians drunk on power.

Its all about control, always is...it ensures their crony capitalist revenue stream.
 
Renae said:
I've read it dude, I know what it says. I know what NET NEUTRALITY is, I also know that what PASSED is not what NET NEUTRALITY is. Ergo, I'm not the one whose willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

Not only do you not know what net neutrality is, you don't know how it differs from what the government passed, because first you'd have to know what net neutrality is. At no point in this thread have you presented anything resembling a cogent argument. You just keep shouting "It's government control!" and I guess we're supposed to agree because...you said so?
 
Renae said:
I've read it dude, I know what it says. I know what NET NEUTRALITY is, I also know that what PASSED is not what NET NEUTRALITY is. Ergo, I'm not the one whose willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...


link to what has passed, please.

not some false forbes article, etc.

something on a .gov website.
 
Renae said:
Your reliance on government is noted. You want substandard internet because you were told that is good.
Click to expand...

Your post is better suited for a bumper sticker than a coherent discussion. You don't even know what "standard" or "substandard" internet is because you don't understand what the discussion is about.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, so you've chosen ignorance then. So be it. I would never join a discussion that I literally knew nothing about, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

Opinion: The FCC's Net Neutrality Victory Is Anything But | WIRED

I'm quite versed on the idea, you're patronizing me is amusing, as you havent' said anything but "You aren't in agreement with me so you are DUMB".

First off, who cares about the "definition" as they DIDN'T PASS A DEFINITION they imposed a TITLE II Regulation on all ISP's, and opened a huge door of Government intrusion into the internet and how it works as we know it.

The DEFINITION of NN is basic: "Treat all traffic equally, regardless of source or content without pay barriers. I.E. Comcast cannot tell Netflix it has to pay more to stream over it's network or Comcast will "slow lane" netflix traffic all the while keeping it's affiliated content provider like say if Hulu and comcast teamed up, in a fast lan unfettered by higher costs. Thus giving Comcast and Hulu an "unfair" market advantage while harming netflix. This is merely one example that embodies the supposed need for it.

However as this situation never has played out, the Comcast Netflix disagreement was settled without the need for regulation on it's own, the monstrosity passed as NN by the FCC address problems that are not there and destroys the concept of NN in favor of Government Regulation which history has shown across the board to stifle innovation, increase costs and impose burdens on all ends of whatever is being regulated.

You're arguing semantics about an idea and demanding I discuss something irrelevant, what the definition of NN is, while I'm discussing what has been passed. Care to play more Cardinal, now get off that false pedestal of intellectual superiority you thought you were on, I just kicked that cardboard box out from under you.
 
Renae said:
I'm not playing this game with you, you like the governments answer, you think it's gonna be swell, nothing I say will change your mind. But I'm not writing a treatise on net neutrality so you can play "AH AH! See you said Then instead of THEN thus you don't know!" I'm not going down that road. I'll leave you with this.

Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea Supported By Poor Analogies
Click to expand...

This isn't a very well written article. The only arguments he makes are "more government less freedom" and "the free market would keep everyone honest". This is completely false. In most of the country there is ONE internet service provider available to you. There is absolutely no reason for them to innovate and if they decided to **** you, there's not really anything you can do about it.

We don't have multiple flavors of ISPs like we have multiple flavors of ice cream. That is the mother of all poor analogies.
 
Renae said:
Opinion: The FCC's Net Neutrality Victory Is Anything But | WIRED
I'm quite versed on the idea, you're patronizing me is amusing, as you havent' said anything but "You aren't in agreement with me so you are DUMB".
Click to expand...

Quote me saying you were dumb because you disagreed with me.

Renae said:
First off, who cares about the "definition" as they DIDN'T PASS A DEFINITION they imposed a TITLE II Regulation on all ISP's, and opened a huge door of Government intrusion into the internet and how it works as we know it.
Click to expand...

Those are empty buzz words. Explain cogently how this intrusion works.

Renae said:
The DEFINITION of NN is basic: "Treat all traffic equally, regardless of source or content without pay barriers. I.E. Comcast cannot tell Netflix it has to pay more to stream over it's network or Comcast will "slow lane" netflix traffic all the while keeping it's affiliated content provider like say if Hulu and comcast teamed up, in a fast lan unfettered by higher costs. Thus giving Comcast and Hulu an "unfair" market advantage while harming netflix. This is merely one example that embodies the supposed need for it.

However as this situation never has played out, the Comcast Netflix disagreement was settled without the need for regulation on it's own, the monstrosity passed as NN by the FCC address problems that are not there and destroys the concept of NN in favor of Government Regulation which history has shown across the board to stifle innovation, increase costs and impose burdens on all ends of whatever is being regulated.

You're arguing semantics about an idea and demanding I discuss something irrelevant, what the definition of NN is, while I'm discussing what has been passed. Care to play more Cardinal, now get off that false pedestal of intellectual superiority you thought you were on, I just kicked that cardboard box out from under you.
Click to expand...

It was so unlikely that internet providers would favor companies that paid more that they sued the FCC specifically for the right to do just that. You are aware that they also lobbied to prevent local municipalities from setting up their own isps, are you not? Or is restricting freedom only okay when corporations do it?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This isn't a very well written article. The only arguments he makes are "more government less freedom" and "the free market would keep everyone honest". This is completely false. In most of the country there is ONE internet service provider available to you. There is absolutely no reason for them to innovate and if they decided to **** you, there's not really anything you can do about it.

We don't have multiple flavors of ISPs like we have multiple flavors of ice cream. That is the mother of all poor analogies.
Click to expand...

it starts out by redefining what NN is, to begin with. utter trash.
an hour later, and Renae still can't link to actual text on a .gov site
 
Or a single instance of some internet censorship on part of the government.
 
Anomalism said:
Please stay vigilant friends. Do not trade your freedoms for the illusion of security. We cannot let them take the internet from us.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is worried net neutrality might help the terrorists | The Verge

In a remarkable feat, internet providers have apparently succeeded in making the net neutrality fight about terrorism. In a newly-published letter delivered to the Federal Communications Commission in May, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) raised concerns that the new net neutrality rules might be used to shield terrorists. In particular, Feinstein was concerned that Dzhokar Tsarnaev had studied bomb-making materials on the internet — specifically, online copies of AQAP's Inspire magazine — and that many broadband providers had complained to her that net neutrality rules would prevent them from honoring any orders to block that content.
Click to expand...

Oh BS. That broad is no good from head to toe. What's giving "the terrorists" fodder is allowing their websites to run unmolested, twitter accounts etc. I guess the federalies seem to believe it's some sort of mouse trap, but they never consider that by applying a black out, teeenagers will stiop trying to go over there and blow up stuff over here.

Typical management: they let things go to hell and then scream that they to spend too much money to clean it up, so everybody has to take a pay (freedom) cut.
 
Cardinal said:
Quote me saying you were dumb because you disagreed with me.



Those are empty buzz words. Explain cogently how this intrusion works.



It was so unlikely that internet providers would favor companies that paid more that they sued the FCC specifically for the right to do just that. You are aware that they also lobbied to prevent local municipalities from setting up their own isps, are you not? Or is restricting freedom only okay when corporations do it?
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what you are talking about. They sued for the right to stay competitive and let the market work out the problems. Yes, I'm aware, municipalities tend to be backed by taxes and thus are not subject to the same rules of economics as free market entities, thus distorting the market.
 
Renae said:
Opinion: The FCC's Net Neutrality Victory Is Anything But | WIRED

I'm quite versed on the idea, you're patronizing me is amusing, as you havent' said anything but "You aren't in agreement with me so you are DUMB".

First off, who cares about the "definition" as they DIDN'T PASS A DEFINITION they imposed a TITLE II Regulation on all ISP's, and opened a huge door of Government intrusion into the internet and how it works as we know it.

The DEFINITION of NN is basic: "Treat all traffic equally, regardless of source or content without pay barriers. I.E. Comcast cannot tell Netflix it has to pay more to stream over it's network or Comcast will "slow lane" netflix traffic all the while keeping it's affiliated content provider like say if Hulu and comcast teamed up, in a fast lan unfettered by higher costs. Thus giving Comcast and Hulu an "unfair" market advantage while harming netflix. This is merely one example that embodies the supposed need for it.

However as this situation never has played out, the Comcast Netflix disagreement was settled without the need for regulation on it's own, the monstrosity passed as NN by the FCC address problems that are not there and destroys the concept of NN in favor of Government Regulation which history has shown across the board to stifle innovation, increase costs and impose burdens on all ends of whatever is being regulated.

You're arguing semantics about an idea and demanding I discuss something irrelevant, what the definition of NN is, while I'm discussing what has been passed. Care to play more Cardinal, now get off that false pedestal of intellectual superiority you thought you were on, I just kicked that cardboard box out from under you.
Click to expand...

The part that you are missing; intentionally I believe, is that the the ISPs were going to double down on the gouging by charging websites they way they charge advertising space and premium shelving in grocery stores.

Once again the market starts riding on our backs, people don't do anything about it, so big 'gummit is asked to step in and fix the problem.

The Civil Rights Act happened the same way.
 
jet57 said:
The part that you are missing; intentionally I believe, is that the the ISPs were going to double down on the gouging by charging websites they way they charge advertising space and premium shelving in grocery stores.

Once again the market starts riding on our backs, people don't do anything about it, so big 'gummit is asked to step in and fix the problem.

The Civil Rights Act happened the same way.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did you think you made a valid point or added to this conversation at all?
 
Renae said:
I'm sorry, did you think you made a valid point or added to this conversation at all?
Click to expand...

I did: I cut through all the mumbo jumbo you using to side step a very simple issue. You're all wound up in muckity-muck without considering how got here in the first place. I mean - there's your answer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom