Originally posted by Thoth
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Republicans: Net Neutrality is an attack on our "basic freedoms"
Collapse
X
-
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
-
Originally posted by DinoDoc View PostWhere does the FCC get the authority to enter into this arena after a court ruling last year that stripped it of the authority to regulate the internet?
Speaker Boner
Comment
-
Republicans are stupid, news at 11. Hell, I've been telling you for years they're drooling idiots ("Da Barack HUISSAN Obama is trying to kill granny by making sure people have health insurance!") but I guess people have to learn on their own.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asher View PostLack of net neutrality means your p2p downloads are throttled, so you get less animals per session.Libraries are state sanctioned, so they're technically engaged in privateering. - Felch
I thought we're trying to have a serious discussion? It says serious in the thread title!- Al. B. Sure
Comment
-
I think you're grossly overstating it -- congress isn't regulating the technical design of the Internet. They're simply trying to legislate high-level philosophy -- that you can't restrict or inhibit one form of legal traffic in favour of another."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment
-
I think they are trying to regulate what the owners of the last miles can do to people who do not have a lot of choices.
The significant issue in Canada recently was the major ISPs (telcos and cable cos) were trying to force independents to charge extra for things like netflix. They needed this to be able to charge the fees themselves, or large numbers of people would bolt to the indies.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asher View PostI think you're grossly overstating it -- congress isn't regulating the technical design of the Internet. They're simply trying to legislate high-level philosophy -- that you can't restrict or inhibit one form of legal traffic in favour of another.
Comcast giving its own VOIP priority and degrading the quality of other VOIP = bad.
Comcast giving large VOIP providers who pay some amount of money priority = possibly good.
Both seem to be excluded.
Comment
-
I'm not convinced we need internet-wide QoS. We can cross that bridge if we get to it.
The potential bad outweighs the potential good at this moment. It can be changed if circumstances change.
VOIP functions just fine now with a neutral internet, and it'll only get faster."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment
-
Why would it need to give up power? They retain the powers they had to regulate it, they can just clarify the laws as needs arise. There's tons of precedent (see crypto export restrictions)."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostWhich to me sounds like QoS is illegal.
Comcast giving its own VOIP priority and degrading the quality of other VOIP = bad.
Comcast giving large VOIP providers who pay some amount of money priority = possibly good.
Both seem to be excluded."In the beginning was the Word. Then came the ******* word processor." -Dan Simmons, Hyperion
Comment
-
It also depends how they write the law.
There could very well be a reasonable provision that upon FCC approval, they can implement QoS/paid prioritization for types of services rather than per specific providers.
Fact remains that some kind of insurance that the information continues to flow freely and without bias is required. The internet is far too powerful and ubiquitous to be completely controlled by questionable corporate interests of a few cableco/telcos, especially given their history of abuse."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asher View PostWhy would it need to give up power? They retain the powers they had to regulate it, they can just clarify the laws as needs arise. There's tons of precedent (see crypto export restrictions).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asher View PostIt also depends how they write the law.
There could very well be a reasonable provision that upon FCC approval, they can implement QoS/paid prioritization for types of services rather than per specific providers.
Fact remains that some kind of insurance that the information continues to flow freely and without bias is required. The internet is far too powerful and ubiquitous to be completely controlled by questionable corporate interests of a few cableco/telcos, especially given their history of abuse.
Comment
Comment