Verified:

mdevol

Member

2997

Feb 24th 2015, 0:06:56

"Although such a proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate."

Senator Obama in 2007 in letter to FCC regarding a proposal he wanted delayed. Oddly enough, I agree with his 2007 stance. Where is that stance now that his proposal is up for bid? The vote is scheduled for Thursday, the proposal is 332 pages long and is being kept from the public until after the vote. It will fundamentally change how the internet is operated.


Discuss...

Edited By: mdevol on Feb 24th 2015, 0:09:40
See Original Post
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

locket

Member

6176

Feb 24th 2015, 0:48:55

I'd imagine his ideals got beaten out of him by the Republicans acting like children and just saying no to everything for no reason other than politics?

mrford

Member

21,100

Feb 24th 2015, 0:56:42

So now Obama is weak willed and republicans selfish?

Epic post there locket.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Hneftafl

Member

355

Feb 24th 2015, 1:20:59

If at first you don't succeed, reverse the polarity.

mrford

Member

21,100

Feb 24th 2015, 1:31:43

Don't like it don't click on it. Should be simple enough of a concept for even you.
Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Feb 24th 2015, 2:02:40

Originally posted by mrford:
Don't like it don't click on it. Should be simple enough of a concept for even you.


This is the smoking gun that Hneftafl has been looking for to prove you are a multi... enough with the lies about being a restart!


http://www.youtube.com/...?v=neEevCiZjfc&sns=em

mrford

Member

21,100

Feb 24th 2015, 2:03:28

Can't fix stupid.
Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Feb 24th 2015, 2:08:41

Hneftafl is to IQ as Bluewaffle is to sexy.

Leto

Member

170

Feb 24th 2015, 2:18:24

Its the American way

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Feb 24th 2015, 2:22:06

Mdevol - Remember the last heaping pile of fluff that Congress passed before the American public was able to view before passage. The ACA has been a disaster. I am pretty confident that our forefathers would be shooting by now. I'm disappointed to say the least...

Twain

Member

3320

Feb 24th 2015, 2:34:57

Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
Mdevol - Remember the last heaping pile of fluff that Congress passed before the American public was able to view before passage. The ACA has been a disaster. I am pretty confident that our forefathers would be shooting by now. I'm disappointed to say the least...


Instead of trying to derail the conversation with the ACA, why not stick to the current topic?

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Feb 24th 2015, 2:37:49

Originally posted by Twain:
Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
Mdevol - Remember the last heaping pile of fluff that Congress passed before the American public was able to view before passage. The ACA has been a disaster. I am pretty confident that our forefathers would be shooting by now. I'm disappointed to say the least...


Instead of trying to derail the conversation with the ACA, why not stick to the current topic?


The part about passing an unknown bill that the American public can't review is on topic. It seems like you like having giant turds jammed down your throat?

mdevol

Member

2997

Feb 24th 2015, 2:37:58

Actually, ACA doesnt bother me that much, it will kill itself in courts and in implimentation and has done NOTHING to lower the cost of healthcare and the dems have been exposed for lying and making false promises about it at every turn. And still americans want it gone and there hasnt even been a business mandate yet as its still being delayed. Its going to be funny to see them squirm when the SCOTUS rules the subsidies from healthcare.gov are unconstitutional and must end and be repaid.


As for other bills that are far worse. The patriot act and NDAA. Every american should be concerned about both of those bills.
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

Twain

Member

3320

Feb 24th 2015, 3:23:37

Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
Originally posted by Twain:
Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
Mdevol - Remember the last heaping pile of fluff that Congress passed before the American public was able to view before passage. The ACA has been a disaster. I am pretty confident that our forefathers would be shooting by now. I'm disappointed to say the least...


Instead of trying to derail the conversation with the ACA, why not stick to the current topic?


The part about passing an unknown bill that the American public can't review is on topic. It seems like you like having giant turds jammed down your throat?


That tangent isn't "on topic." mdevol's topic was net neutrality. Instead, you bring up the ACA, which arguably has been successful, with millions more getting insurance, many of whom couldn't previously afford it, not to mention the fact that premiums are rising at a slower rate this year than they were prior to the law being passed (yes, I'm fully aware that there are many people who argue that market conditions have just as much if not more to do with it than the ACA, but it's impossible to truly know what weight to put on any given variable).

But instead of talking about net neutrality, now we're talking about the ACA, and my guess is, instead of going back to Net neutrality, now you're going to feel the need to give rebuttal to what I just said about the ACA.

Personally, I'd rather hear what people have to say about net neutrality.

ssewellusmc

Member

2431

Feb 24th 2015, 3:25:48

Originally posted by mdevol:
Actually, ACA doesnt bother me that much, it will kill itself in courts and in implimentation and has done NOTHING to lower the cost of healthcare and the dems have been exposed for lying and making false promises about it at every turn. And still americans want it gone and there hasnt even been a business mandate yet as its still being delayed. Its going to be funny to see them squirm when the SCOTUS rules the subsidies from healthcare.gov are unconstitutional and must end and be repaid.


As for other bills that are far worse. The patriot act and NDAA. Every american should be concerned about both of those bills.


Oh I am not concerned about it other than the way in which it was passed. Kings have passed laws in less secrecy than the ACA.

As for the Patriot act and NDAA... the need repealed as well. The powers granted to the government by PA and NDAA are clearly unconstitutional and against the spirit our forefathers presented to King George with the Declaration of Independence.

mdevol

Member

2997

Feb 24th 2015, 3:41:10

As for net neutrality...i would like to see the proposal before i weight too heavily but fast lanes are a good thing. common sense simple legislation barring discrimination or retalitory throttling and letting the market do its thing is best course imo.

We dont know the future of the internet in 5-10-15 years where it will be. But we do know that the vast majority of things govt tries to run, they fail.
Surely what a man does when he is caught off his guard is the best evidence as to what sort of man he is. - C.S. Lewis

Requiem

Member

5819

Feb 24th 2015, 4:24:18

 Voted against increasing the debt limit; then supported raising it.

 Campaigned against the Bush tax cuts; then extended all of them.

 Promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term; then proposed trillion dollar deficits.

 Vowed the unemployment rate would be below 8% if his stimulus was passed; but then it broke 10%.

 Promised shovel ready jobs; then admitted they weren’t shovel ready.

 Said if you like your health plan you can keep it; but then threw seniors off Medicare Plus and employers are now saying they’ll dump people onto the public exchange.

 Promised to have health care negotiations on live TV, but then reversed himself.

 Indicated Bush violated the Constitution; then carried out warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions, secret renditions, quadrupled drone attacks, and kept Guantanamo Bay open. Voted against the Patriot Act, but then supported its extension.

 Said lobbyists wouldn’t work in the White House; then gave them waivers to work there.

 Vowed to take public financing for his 2008 campaign; then refused public financing when he realized he would receive more money without it.

mrford

Member

21,100

Feb 24th 2015, 4:43:01

blaming a politician for lying is pretty silly. they literally have to do it to get elected. you need support more than you need the truth, and truth doesnt garner support like it should. the public eye is strong as fugg.

the system is so broke it isnt even funny. it is also all but impossible to fix.
Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Symac

Member

606

Feb 24th 2015, 5:55:16

Fast lanes are good?!? For who?
So you want to be charged more for less? You want the internet for sale to highest bidder?
You want to have to wait constantly for web pages to load while premium services eat up all the bandwidth?

Internet should be free from control, free from privatization, free from meddling, free from profiteering, and certainly free from prioritizing who paid more for the same bandwidth.

Twain

Member

3320

Feb 24th 2015, 12:59:52

I know the concept of net neutrality sounds good. I've read just enough to have some skepticism over whether the rules being put in place are as good as the idea is in theory.

That's actually a reason I want to see what people here have to say about it.

Schilling

Member

455

Feb 25th 2015, 0:49:41

The president doesn't run anything so his stance doesn't matter. I'm sure there's some panel of advisers or lobbyists that have been running this thing for years.

We can't know whether or not Net Neutrality Law is a good thing unless we get a look at those 332 pages. Any and all debates on the matter are conjecture until we see what's going to change. Personally, I don't think the issues surrounding the commercial exploitations of the internet are viable arguments in favor of the law. There are several laws on the books, already well enforced and upheld in the face of very large amounts of money thrown in an effort to evade them.

I see two other potential problems with the law being passed:
1. Several reps from from the Anit-Net Neutrality Camp (telecoms, ISP, computer hardware companies) have stated passing the law will cause things like, "... stifle innovation and curb growth...", "...that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet", and " this new classification [Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act] will discourage broadband providers from investing in their networks."
I'm not sure that's really true (see 'Potential Problem 2'), but I see those statements as more of a declaration of intent than anything else. They may do those things as part of the normal "Corporate fluff-Fit, Blame The Government For The Issues But We Wanted To Cut Costs To Improve Profits Anyway" policy. Why are they concerned? -->

2. Title II allows for the FCC to fix prices and force line sharing between competitors. It also has provisions for additional taxes (short version). The people behind this idea say that the government will ignore those provisions (yeah, right). These companies will inevitably pass these new expenses on to customers as part of their CBFBTGFTIBWWTCCTIPA policy.

In a lot of places I looked the main issue seems to be the assignment of broadband under "Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act" but 332 pages seems like an awful lot to add something that essentially is the same as defined in the above mentioned act.

Additional side note: The original 1934 Communications Act is 333 pages long. Maybe "Net Neutrality Law" really boils down to nothing more than a refactoring of that law???

http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
http://www.cnet.com/...ons-about-net-neutrality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_law (lists similar laws in other countries).

Hneftafl

Member

355

Feb 25th 2015, 3:46:02

Originally posted by mrford:
Can't fix stupid


Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
heaping pile of fluff


Originally posted by ssewellusmc:
giant turds jammed down your throat


Originally posted by mrford:
strong as fugg


You two really should apply with MENSA.
If at first you don't succeed, reverse the polarity.

Twain

Member

3320

Feb 25th 2015, 16:39:50

Schilling: Thanks for a thoughtful post. I'll try to come back and read your links later.

TAN

Member

3173

Feb 25th 2015, 19:18:49

Obama loves net neutrality...as long as the government is allowed to spy on whatever it wants.
FREEEEEDOM!!!

Requiem

Member

5819

Feb 26th 2015, 4:05:12

Originally posted by Symac:
Fast lanes are good?!? For who?
So you want to be charged more for less? You want the internet for sale to highest bidder?
You want to have to wait constantly for web pages to load while premium services eat up all the bandwidth?

Internet should be free from control, free from privatization, free from meddling, free from profiteering, and certainly free from prioritizing who paid more for the same bandwidth.


AMEN BROTHA

hoop

Member

319

Feb 26th 2015, 6:53:29

Originally posted by mrford:
blaming a politician for lying is pretty silly. they literally have to do it to get elected. you need support more than you need the truth, and truth doesnt garner support like it should. the public eye is strong as fugg.

the system is so broke it isnt even funny. it is also all but impossible to fix.


Holding people accountable is never silly. It isn't productive...but what is?

Twain

Member

3320

Feb 26th 2015, 23:19:38

Originally posted by hoop:
Originally posted by mrford:
blaming a politician for lying is pretty silly. they literally have to do it to get elected. you need support more than you need the truth, and truth doesnt garner support like it should. the public eye is strong as fugg.

the system is so broke it isnt even funny. it is also all but impossible to fix.


Holding people accountable is never silly. It isn't productive...but what is?


Fair enough. Put it this way. By being in the actual position of President, there are certain things that are just likely to happen:

1) The President (whoever it would be) would learn more about a topic for various reasons (either due to new readily available info or due to classified info they didn't previously have info on) that might change their stance.
2) The President may not have the ability to accomplish their goals.
3) The President may not prioritize a particular issue and may have to compromise on secondary issues in order to achieve his or her primary issues.

Or of course:

4) The President could just have completely (or partially) lied to try to win office.

Settling on #4 alone each and every time is certainly disingenuous though.

Cerberus

Member

3546

Feb 27th 2015, 3:14:06

This is to allow the FCC control over content of the internet. I know most of you don't remember the early days of television when the FCC controlled everything about it, and you were spoonfed pre=approved crapola on a regular weekly basis by the 3 major networks.

What they are ostensibly doing is allowing the main infrastructure of the internet to be controlled by limiting bandwidth usage so that people who could possibly afford more, cannot get it because obviously, they'd have to "rob" somebody else to get their increase.

It's a typical communist "re-assignment" of "property" according to the idea that the state owns all of it.

Does anyone remember the original butchering of "Ma Bell"?
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

elvesrus

Game Moderators
Game Moderator
4943

Feb 27th 2015, 3:26:40

Must be getting it from Faux News
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

Aphrodite

Member

642

Feb 27th 2015, 4:02:16

So if m getting this right president Obama will be making internet completely free? No more paying for it? I don't quite understand net neutrality that well this is my first time hearing about it
***Aphrodite***
SOTA Secretary of FA
iMag AFA
Derrick <3

http://sota.ghqnet.com

Trife

Member

5781

Feb 27th 2015, 15:43:17

Originally posted by Aphrodite:
So if m getting this right president Obama will be making internet completely free? No more paying for it? I don't quite understand net neutrality that well this is my first time hearing about it


no, he's making it neutral. it's not called the internet is free for everyone act. it's called net neutrality. instead of allowing the internet to remain positive or negative, obama is removing their charge. the internet is now kinda like switzerland. neutral with no strong opinions on anything.

p.s. - it looks like a few people need their metal hats tightened in this thread :D