GTA
Politics and Religion => Politics And Religion Discussion => : geiger March 30, 2010, 06:16:29 AM
-
It was revealed to me that the manipulative troll that is Glen Beck recently assaulted net neutrality. I know a lot of people here are his fans, but that guy is willing to sell his own mother for money. No way in hell i'm gonna trust such a biased commentator.
Point being is that despite what you've heard, net neutrality is the single most important thing for the internet. It's basically for the internet, what the first amendment is to the USA. It allows anybody to gain and publish information without restrictions.
If you we loose this privilege then say good bye to all those small non-corporate websites you like to visit. This forum might very well be one of them and million of other pages who could not compete against media giants. Furthermore it might lead to the ISPs to charge you for accessing different content.
It would be a nightmare for small webmasters.
It is not communist or marxist as Beck likes to put it. If you think net neutrality is socialist, then the first amendment is also socialist and should be given up for sale. I repeat it is not a left or right issue, it's an issue of freedom of accessing information.
So vote for net neutrality if you happen to come across it, because otherwise say goodbye to the free internet.
-
Well Geiger, I feel good working with the net. There is no color or race to deal with. So one can speak and be heard without the fear of prejudice. But when you start talking about my brother Glen you are in the wrong arena...:)
-
Gene_SC - 3/30/2010 11:44 AM
Well Geiger, I feel good working with the net. There is no color or race to deal with. So one can speak and be heard without the fear of prejudice. But when you start talking about my brother Glen you are in the wrong arena...:)
This is not an issue about Glen.
However if you take his word without doing any research on your own, then it is a problem.
Personally i don't like Glen because of his bias and his style. Having pictures of Mao/Hitler/Stalin on a blackboard is not what i call serious information. Just some candy entertainment IMO.
But personal issues aside, Net neutrality is a must for the well being of the internet.
Glen pointed out that Obama wants to give everyone broadband. That is NOT what net neutrality is about, net neutrality is about giving everyone the freedom of information. Everything else is just appendages that got manipulated in.
And not that i agree with Obama, but giving everyone broadband (or at least some connection) is the best thing yet. If you recall one of the principles of a free market is the ability to get information.
Taking someones money to give another one the internet might not be the best way to do it, but despite how you paint it red or blue, black or white...net neutrality is essential for both sides.
-
Well Geiger, open your eyes boy..:) If you are a US Citizen and pay taxes you are getting fornicated without being asked first or even getting one Kiss..:) Look around you Geiger... Wake Up!!!!
-
Gene_SC - 3/30/2010 12:33 PM
Well Geiger, open your eyes boy..:) If you are a US Citizen and pay taxes you are getting fornicated without being asked first or even getting one Kiss..:) Look around you Geiger... Wake Up!!!!
A wise man said once "Two things are certain, death and taxes".
I don't mind taxes one bit...IF they are spent properly and in the benefit of the whole community. Sadly that is much too often not the case.
But that is a debate for another time. Point is...vote for net neutrality otherwise we'll be in some serious poop.
P.S. Please do take what commentators say with a grain of salt. Resorting to Ad hominem attacks is not the way to advance an argument.
-
I have news for you Geiger... Look on the harizon boy..:) Uncle Sam is close to changing everything we do on the net..:( How long do you think our freedoms will last?
-
Gene_SC - 3/30/2010 1:05 PM
I have news for you Geiger... Look on the harizon boy..:) Uncle Sam is close to changing everything we do on the net..:( How long do you think our freedoms will last?
I'm sorry, what? I'm not sure i understand.
Are you referring to the Obama administration, the upcoming police state, a secret evil organization, internet commercials,...
-
When a leftie cries for "neutrality" it's the last thing they want. It's a given that they're getting their a** kicked in the market place when they cry that. Go back to "radio neutrality" - The Fairness Doctrine - a complete load. It's all about "shutting up" the opposition - and NOTHING else. Heck, they tried to go "head to head" with Rush, by opening Radio America. Nice title alright, and all six listeners loved it. - Fox News is leading the pack because that's what folks want, - and NOT for any other reason. H*ll, folks could just as easily watch another channel, there are any number of channels available, - and they don't voluntarily choose to watch the "whining lefties". - Naturally, lefties being lefties, this is unacceptable, - folks should be FORCED to watch them. - In that matter of abortion, - the word "CHOICE" is the rallying cry of the left. However, - "CHOICE" is the last approach they want folks to have in any number of areas.
-
A rose by any other name . . .
Ever notice how the attack on our right of freedom of speech always comes shrouded in politically correct "newspeak" terms like "fairness doctrine" and "net neutrality"?
Horse manure by any other name . . .
-
Ever notice how when people oppose taking our rights away they are called extremists...:) So we are labeled extremust or whatever name they come up with...
-
You people don't have a clue what you're talking about, sorry but it's true
"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle) proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission) (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license) both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1949_Commission_Report&action=edit&redlink=1) served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
That is a world apart.
Just because some TV guy branded it leftist it doesn't mean it really is. Do some researching on your own and then criticize it.
The first amendment gives everybody the right to free speech, religion,... In your view that's socialist? I guess you should just give it up then. Stop being so gullible. By your standards even Jesus was socialist/marxist...due to him preaching sharing wealth, giving it up,...
-
It's nothing more than another "government program" - that down the road will lead to a blizzard of new regulations.
.
Proposals for network neutrality laws are generally opposed by the cable television and telephone industries, and some network engineers and free-market scholars from the conservative to libertarian, including Christopher Yoo and Adam Thierer. Opponents argue that - (1) Network neutrality regulations severely limit the Internet's usefulness; - (2) network neutrality regulations threaten to set a precedent for even more intrusive regulation of the Internet; - (3) imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks (e.g., wireless broadband) and deny network providers the ability to differentiate their services; and - (4) that network neutrality regulations confuse the unregulated Internet with the highly regulated telecom lines that it has shared with voice and cable customers for most of its history.
.
I'd say you should give up, - you come here to intentionally stir things up, and then bellyache after it happens.
-
Thanks for setting us straight, geiger. If it's on wiki, it must be unbiased and true beyond question. How could we possibly have been under the misconception it was the imposition of even more government regulations and restrictions? Let's see, 1949 Fairness Doctrine . . . Harry Truman, right? So it must have been a good idea. But then repealed by Ronald Reagan. . . Hmmm. Let me think about that . . . Truman . . . Reagan . . . Truman . . . Reagan. And today, it is supported by Barry Obama and opposed by Rush Limbaugh? Hmmm. . . Barry . . . Rush . . . Barry . . . Rush . .
Sorry, guess I have to go with Ron and Rush over Harry and Barry on this one. BTW, did I ever mention how glad it makes me that you are a Canadian, geiger? That works out so well for both of us.
-
North Pack - 3/31/2010 7:08 AM
It's nothing more than another "government program" - that down the road will lead to a blizzard of new regulations.
.
Proposals for network neutrality laws are generally opposed by the cable television and telephone industries, and some network engineers and free-market scholars from the conservative to libertarian, including Christopher Yoo and Adam Thierer. Opponents argue that - (1) Network neutrality regulations severely limit the Internet's usefulness; - (2) network neutrality regulations threaten to set a precedent for even more intrusive regulation of the Internet; - (3) imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks (e.g., wireless broadband) and deny network providers the ability to differentiate their services; and - (4) that network neutrality regulations confuse the unregulated Internet with the highly regulated telecom lines that it has shared with voice and cable customers for most of its history.
.
I'd say you should give up, - you come here to intentionally stir things up, and then bellyache after it happens.
1. Yes it will limit the internet usefulness because a lot of small pages will have their bandwidth limited and thus loose viewers, eventually shutting down
2. Net neutrality gives every person the right to unrestricted bandwidth, so they can't be filtered out without court order. How is that regulation any different than giving everyone the right to free speech? Or should only people who can afford free speech have it??
3. Competitive networks, yeah, effectively reducing the internet to a small narrow service like TV. If that's what you want, then god help us.
4. This regulation does not demand restricted content, but the exact contrary.
Let me remind you, if the USA wouldn't have regulations (US constitution) then it would be fair game for anybody who wanted to claim it. Face it, regulations are a part of a society and if you want to live in an anarchy go to Liberia or something, take my word for it...you won't like it there.
Net neutrality is the only thing that keeps the internet from becoming the next TV.
It would really be such a shame to loose a vast portion of US websites who could not compete due to low financial income.
-
Yawn - Zzzzz, ...
-
The best way to keep the net unrestricted, keep government out of it.
Your income is restricted because the government TAXES it.
Health care services in government run health care countries are restricted because why, governments got in it.
Keep the government out of our lives. Government should only be there for the minimal needs of the country,
not to supply every whim of its people like a Jeanie in a bottle. Rub the bottle and get free health care, this that or the other.
Every time some slacker is to lazy to get a good education or job, I don't want them rubbing my wallet.
That is where the bottle is at, in all of our wallets. If they want something, work for it. Its an old rule, you don't work,
you don't eat. You don't work, you don't play.
If otheres like the way their country is run, stay there and let us run ours.
-
ShadowShot - 3/31/2010 8:10 PM
The best way to keep the net unrestricted, keep government out of it.
Your income is restricted because the government TAXES it.
Health care services in government run health care countries are restricted because why, governments got in it.
Keep the government out of our lives. Government should only be there for the minimal needs of the country,
not to supply every whim of its people like a Jeanie in a bottle. Rub the bottle and get free health care, this that or the other.
Every time some slacker is to lazy to get a good education or job, I don't want them rubbing my wallet.
That is where the bottle is at, in all of our wallets. If they want something, work for it. Its an old rule, you don't work,
you don't eat. You don't work, you don't play.
If otheres like the way their country is run, stay there and let us run ours.
Government has it's place in society. It's true that is shouldn't try to act as a company and run it's own business with our money. But what government gives is the possibility that if you're rights are tramped upon by another member of the society then you can pursue justice in a civil manner.
Sure it's far, far from perfect...but you have to admit at least something.
That aside, free market CANNOT work on infrastructure that is limited to only a few participants. Not every ISP can lay cables to each home, or do wireless for that matter. It would be way to uneconomical. Leaving the whole network to a few providers that would surely form a cartel down the road, is a terrible choice for consumer.
Really, why can't you see that everything has it's limits. Free market is an awesome idea...but show me a proper free market in the world, no the US is not one...but a variant of it.
On the issue of net neutrality government can actually do some good.
I'm not trying to troll the forum, but this is really an important issue because if we loose the internet we loose everything, you and me...we're both in it.
Oh and btw, happy april fools' day. :)
-
Happy April Fool's day, indeed.
Say, if you have the stomach for a really truly thoughtful presentation on this issue, check out this presentation: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html (http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html)
It is a little long. It is not an easy issue. Almost halfway into it comes the very interesting comparison of the internet to the electrical grid. Have fun!
-
daveshoot - 4/1/2010 2:17 PM
Happy April Fool's day, indeed.
Say, if you have the stomach for a really truly thoughtful presentation on this issue, check out this presentation: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html (http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html)
It is a little long. It is not an easy issue. Almost halfway into it comes the very interesting comparison of the internet to the electrical grid. Have fun!
Oh yes, banning net neutrality would be heaven for the large ISP, because they could dictate where to allocate bandwidth. Allocating it to the most profitable service of course. Just like TV
The presentation also talks about network management, which i agree could work to a small degree. But The problem is mostly because ISP offer speeds they cannot maintain. Thus they want to use QoS for that which is most profitable.
Yes, without net neutrality innovation would die off. Want proof? Just look at any internet company when they started. They all could become successful because they didn't have to answer to anybody if they can start or not. They paid for their cable and put content online, then people from everywhere used their service. Without net neutrality any future Google wannabe must first get the green light from the ISP to market themselves, if the ISP would conclude that they are not profitable they just throw them in the slow lane. Just like TV.
Need more proof? Look at the video game industry, once where making games was cheap and easy to get out there there ware alot of innovation, nowadays where few publishers control the whole market and distribution, innovative games are nonexistent.
I could go on and on.
Oh and i think you don't yet understand what net neutrality really is. If the electric company analogy caught your attention then you're really weren't paying attention.
Net neutrality is basically a regulation that demands the internet to be unregulated...sound an oxymoron but it works.
I'm not completely denying that tiered networks wouldn't be running smoother, but that only goes for the services deemed profitable. Everything else would be dumped in the bin.
No thanks, i'd rather have a quirky but free internet than a smoothly running restricted internet. I don't have a TV at home by the way, precisely because TV is bollocks, undemocratic, restricted and very biased. Why's that...well because the major TV providers all have some sort of agenda or ties with that or this side. On the internet i can watch third parties making fun of Glenn as well as Olberman, where on TV can i do that?
Really, if you're against net neutrality, you probably don't know much about it...or are too blinded by propaganda from both sides.
I repeat...net neutrality isn't about everybody paying the same for your connection (it that wasn't obvious already) it's about having access to any information and data your connection can allow it.
In simple words...if you buy a 1Mbit connection, you can use use the whole 1Mbit to look at whatever you want and not pay the ISP for viewing certain content. If you want to download pr0n 24/7 with your 1Mbit connection you should be allowed to do so and not expect to pay the ISP to unlock pr0n content on top what you've already paid for your connection.
Net neutrality is no leftist agenda, but civilized common sense.
-
(yawn) (flatulence).
Gee, thanks for your your enlightened viewpoints of what "net neutrality" really means, and how to keep the internet "fair". If only we are lucky enough for the intellectual elites of the nanny state to "ban" unfair practices or regulate "fairness" doctrine, then maybe everything will be all better, right? Holy cow, how can we make sure the government has the power to do this immediately?
Here is the only regulation I want: free market enterprise and greed-driven, profit-based, free-wheeling capitalism.
-
TCups - 4/1/2010 5:47 PM
(yawn) (flatulence).
Gee, thanks for your your enlightened viewpoints of what "net neutrality" really means, and how to keep the internet "fair". If only we are lucky enough for the intellectual elites of the nanny state to "ban" unfair practices or regulate "fairness" doctrine, then maybe everything will be all better, right? Holy cow, how can we make sure the government has the power to do this immediately?
Here is the only regulation I want: free market enterprise and greed-driven, profit-based, free-wheeling capitalism.
If you see the world so bipolar and don't respond to reason then no point in arguing with you.
But i hope you at least realize that your economic model has it's deadly pitfalls, just like any extreme model.
Oh and, please don't equate the fairness doctrine with net neutrality, i've already established...it's worlds apart from each other.
-
You are really into polemics, aren't you? I don't think I made much of a stand either way, but pointed you to a thoughtful and rational discussion of the issues.
You have spent a page railing against "my" position.
Perhaps a class in persuasive writing should be one of your next electives. I have yet to see anyone won over by the "you're stupid, why can't you see I'm right" approach.
Virtually any proposal like this requires an analysis of precedent. There have been many such anti-trust vs. free market type of debates. "Regulation that demands the internet to be unregulated" is still regulation. ISPs who limit access must compete with those who don't. You seem to think that all ISPs have been successful, but the superhighway is littered with the wreckage of those who didn't make it. AOL is still determined to self-destruct and good riddance.
You insist that it "works" yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that. It is, however, the camel's nose under the tent- government regulations in one of the last free places on earth. And, which government? To whom does the internet belong? Should the US Congress decide how ISPs in the EU behave?
Love the video game analogy... I guess Call of Duty 5 is of the same complexity as the original Pong and Mario Brothers... do you think with today's expectations that a couple of geeks are going to produce world-class video games in the garage? Nowadays it is big business. The stakes are higher, the games are far more intense, and it requires a cast of hundreds to put one together.
Anyway, it is more your style than your substance that causes others to shun serious debate with you. If you get this worked up over a gray area like net neutrality, you must be lots of fun on the more emotionally-charged issues of the day.
-
Glen Beck is a "manipulative troll" and "biased commentator" -- no way you will let his comments pass? Look in the mirror, geoger! You don't like his style, but you start your "important" post with a personal attack that will immediately offend many of us? Well, I don't like your style much either, sir. That style is, by definition the style of a "troll" and your OP is. by definition, a great example of a troll's post.
There has been a wealth of good information on Glens blackboard other than pictures of Mao/Hitler/Stalin (another accusation by inference that Beck is engaging in hate speech and must be dismissed as a fringe kook) -- you just choose to ignore it because you don't want to hear it (in fact, you didn't even watch it, did you -- you said "revealed to you", probably second-hand by some like minded, left-biased friend or web site, I suspect, but that is only supposition), but on the other hand, you feel perfectly free to accuse and demean others for not "doing their own research".
Everyone will ultimately have to come to believe what they believe, whether they hear it on the news or opinion programs or on the web sites that they frequent, or the books they read. Your assumption that opposition to "web fairness" policy is based on ignorance is arrogant and biased on your part, sir. But you are at least correct about the fact you are wasting your time. Ours, too. So knock it off please. Thanks.
and, (yawn), just in case you want to do the research, here some additional stuff you can read:
http://techliberation.com/2008/08/23/fccs-comcastnet-neutrality-order-released-cmmr-mcdowell-at-his-best/
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/09/net-neutrality-throws-internet-into-legal-limbo/
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/15/the-net-neutrality-rorschach/
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/21/consumer-education-not-heavy-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-answer/
-
daveshoot - 4/2/2010 6:55 AM
You are really into polemics, aren't you? I don't think I made much of a stand either way, but pointed you to a thoughtful and rational discussion of the issues.
You have spent a page railing against "my" position.
Perhaps a class in persuasive writing should be one of your next electives. I have yet to see anyone won over by the "you're stupid, why can't you see I'm right" approach.
Virtually any proposal like this requires an analysis of precedent. There have been many such anti-trust vs. free market type of debates. "Regulation that demands the internet to be unregulated" is still regulation. ISPs who limit access must compete with those who don't. You seem to think that all ISPs have been successful, but the superhighway is littered with the wreckage of those who didn't make it. AOL is still determined to self-destruct and good riddance.
You insist that it "works" yet there is absolutely no reason to believe that. It is, however, the camel's nose under the tent- government regulations in one of the last free places on earth. And, which government? To whom does the internet belong? Should the US Congress decide how ISPs in the EU behave?
Love the video game analogy... I guess Call of Duty 5 is of the same complexity as the original Pong and Mario Brothers... do you think with today's expectations that a couple of geeks are going to produce world-class video games in the garage? Nowadays it is big business. The stakes are higher, the games are far more intense, and it requires a cast of hundreds to put one together.
Anyway, it is more your style than your substance that causes others to shun serious debate with you. If you get this worked up over a gray area like net neutrality, you must be lots of fun on the more emotionally-charged issues of the day.
Sure i might not be the most persuasive person ever. However you deem my arguments invalid because of that?
The video you posted doesn't really provide any good evidence.
Sure there could have been some ISP that didn't succeed, but that isn't proof of anything. Net neutrality doesn't inhibit new ISP.
Who owns the internet? Well initially it was from the governments research institutions and military, so technically they have the intellectual rights.
As for video games, yes they become an industry ran by only a few providers. The quality of games is *_*_*_*_*_*. The point i was trying to make is that once you let companies become monopolies, dictating and crushing competition then the service they once provided is lost. Government is here to prevent forming trusts and to punish if those companies are using illegal practices to prevent competition.
Now picture this...a small studio want's to market it's game, but the internet is content divided. That studio would have to pay for being allowed to market in a certain internet zone specifically designed for this, you can bet your behind that large studios have a huge investment in that area too, possibly making a deal with the ISP to prioritize their traffic. The small studio would either have to make a deal with the big one to get some leverage or just quit business.
Companies are not really malevolent, they just share a common interest...money. And despite if something is a good idea, if it's not profitable then it might as well not exist.
Capitalism in reality doesn't necessarily promote good ideas...but profitable ones. Huge difference there.
@TCups
Well in the event i might be a troll at least i'm not manipulative and not really biased. Since i base my opinion on actual cases and common sense and not on those who pay me the most. Personally i've seen video evidence of beck caught lying and misinforming...even if i would be a "conservative" i wouldn't trust that guy just because he's on "my side". I truly believe if the other side paid Beck more he'd switch in an instant.
-
Tcups, when are you going to write another poem?
-
Affordability is the hard part — because there is no competition pushing down prices. The plan acknowledges that only 15 percent of homes will have a choice in providers, and then only between Verizon’s FiOS fiber-optic network and the local cable company. (AT&T’s “fiber” offering is merely souped-up DSL transmitted partly over its old copper wires, which can’t compete at these higher speeds.) The remaining 85 percent will have no choice at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html
"Most bold and radical of the neutralists is Robert W. McChesney, founder of Free Press -- the leading advocacy group in Washington pushing for net neutrality. In an August interview with a Canadian Marxist online publication called the Bullet, McChesney rejoices that net neutrality can finally bring about the Marxist "revolution." "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," McChesney said. "We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
He's right: Net neutrality divests control over the Internet from the private sector to the government. And in typical Marxist fashion, innocuous words -- the language of neutralism and liberty -- cloak an agenda that would crush freedom.
That's the agenda President Obama's FCC is pushing.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html#ixzz0kGR80zT7
-
here's your poem:
What a tangled "web" we weave
when net neutrality, we perceive,
to be the FCC's domain
to regulate for the public's gain.
-
Most of what Obama (and other leftist "progressives") have wrought is in the name of "fairness". They decide what is fair, and use the power of the government to institute this "fairness".
I favor any inhibition of the progression towards the fairness of Karl Marx. That's where Obama would like to take us. I like insurance companies, internet providers, and other free enterprise institutions over the Medicare, FCC, and the other cancerous authorities that the bloated government has created. Stop them anywhere we can. The answer is NO.
We hope you Canadians enjoy your Socialism. Come on down when you need some real service and are ready to buy it.