I don't really understand net neutrality

[eyer]

easily done.

Hardly...

...so now I must, once more, educate you on Army rank:

5 stars = General of the Army

4 stars = General

3 stars = Lieutenant General

2 stars = Major General

1 star = Brigadier General


A "General" wears 4 stars...

...how many stars was Greene wearing when he was killed and, accordingly, what was his rank?

If he wore 4 stars, you got me...

...if he didn't, he couldn't be a "General".

Now...

...let's compare:

The DMCA made black magic markers illegal to manufacture, sell or possess because they could be used to defeat some CD copy protection.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost...1&postcount=71

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's a yes or no question fucktard....think you can manage?

I guess not.....

I don't have to quote you, it's irrelevant as I'm asking you to clarify your position. I'm extra nice to tards so I'll give you one more chance...

Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question fucktard....think you can manage?

I'm betting this one straight stops you in your tracks too.... If you need help figuring it out just pm me.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Think you can quote me instead of posting your very own words just to get off again by stirring the shit that's left of your brain matter?

How 'bout you...

...have you quit beating those little children yet?

"It's a yes or no question fucktard....think you can manage? "

Y'know Eyer, you're right, to a point. Botany Boy DOES occasionally ask those derpy "Have you quit beating your wife yet" questions.

This, however, is not one of those times.

He asked you a straightforward, unambiguous question about your position on net neutrality.

One that you seem to want to go out of your way to avoid answering.

Is Internet access being stifled by government policy?
Will the proposed FCC changes stifle internet access?

Seems pretty cut and dry.
I don't think it is. You seem to want to claim this without saying it explicitly, because you know you'll invite ridicule. So you're content to tap-dance around the edges.

 

[CandiCame]

One Dem on the FCC is sounding off now as well. I'm very concerned about the whole you'll find out what's in it after we pass it process here and think it should revealed to the public before votes are cast.

Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules - TheHill.com Article

Same. That always pisses me off.

 

[eyer]

Here is the FCC's current explanation of where all the fees and taxes imposed on your Title II-regulated phone bill goes to...

...if you wish to be further astounded, make an effort to follow the money trail of each of those fees and taxes and discover what much of those $$ are actually used for by the receivers of it.

Sample Wireline Phone Bill
http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/phonebills/samplePhonebill.html

Now understand, Title II regulates every connection of telephone service...

...and realize that Title II regulation of the Internet will cover every connection, too - not simply ISPs and companies like Netflix or Verizon, but all the way to an individual citizen who has a blog, or tweets, or has a website like literotica.com.

That's right...

...every connection on the entire Internet totally regulated by the federal government.

If President Obama is successful at rendering the Internet totally submissive to Title II, keep in mind the linked phone bill above to get a inkling of what your future Internet bill will most assuredly look like, too.

We have the D+ proof of how government regulation of utilities turns out, not even considering all the corruption and graft included with that grade with results in the billions of completely wasted dollars over so many years...

...we have the $$ proof of the increased taxes and fees federal government regulation always brings and will naturally bring to Title II regulation of the Internet, despite all the billions from those taxes and fees which are corruptibly used to pay for other purposes regulators and politicians decide.

It's like lemmings just love to get beat with the stupid stick, over and over and over...

...and over again.

 

[JohnnySavage]

LOL

And the answer is no, he can't.


In all fairness, Eyer is functionally illiterate and even if he did ever answer a question, nobody would understand what the hell he was trying to say.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's like lemmings just love to get beat with the stupid stick, over and over and over...

...and over again.

Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

These events usually extinguish competition for the big boys. Amazon will sail thru the licensing process, and Ma's Books wont. Ma's website will go away.

 

[Ishmael]

What real and identifiable problem is this 332 page reg. supposed to address? Well, there isn't any. Even the FCC can't identify a real problem.

This is going to cost the consumer approx. $7-9/month/customer. What are you going to get for this money? Absolutely NOTHING!!!!

What this is all about in reality is an attempt to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" on the internet. And that doctrine has nothing to do with access or bandwidth and everything to do with content control.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

Y'know Eyer, you're right...

"You know", "you're" a dweeb...

...ask me anytime whether I give a flying fuck what a piece of shit like you ever thinks.

He asked you a straightforward, unambiguous question about your position on net neutrality.

Bullshit, wannabe...

...he asked a purposely self-loaded, totally ambiguous question which had nothing to do with my position on "net neutrality", fabricated with his own words and commentary.

Is Internet access being stifled by government policy?
Will the proposed FCC changes stifle internet access?

Seems pretty cut and dry.
I don't think it is. You seem to want to claim this without saying it explicitly, because you know you'll invite ridicule. So you're content to tap-dance around the edges.

Really?

Me weary of GB "ridicule"?

Me "tap-dance around the edges" like a cunt like you?

That's friggin' funny...

Here's exactly what I posted:

My issue is making and keeping all Americans' access to the Internet as unrestricted as possible while, at the same time, establishing America as having the fastest and most dependable Internet speeds and service the world offers...

...but where I live, I cannot work on that goal until I'm successful at getting State regulation law overturned, law that dictates that local governments and private citizens cannot conceive ideas of their own and put them into free market practice to make their own communities leaders in the world Internet race.

The Internet market needs to be totally opened up...

...not so draconianally regulated.

There will be no more vital American economic/employment issue in the next 50 years than to make the Internet the awesome tool it has the potential to be for so many people. Today in America, we are stifling ourselves of that grand opportunity...

Fuckwad bozo lemmings like you have to fantasize the illogic that regulation can surely affect more "access" than freedom...

...I mean, how could a twathole lemming like you fantasize anything else but such statist dogma?

Can you tell the Board about the stifling legislation in at least 19 states - including your own - that prohibit municipalities and private companies from developing and implementing their own Internet capabilities, free of both draconian state regulation and the dictates of the crony capitalist broadband companies that sleep and sup with those same state regulators?

You know: a crony capitalist broadbander like FCC Chairman Wheeler was before personally raising $500,000 for President Obama's campaigns, the same President who designated Wheeler as Chairman, the same President who is now determined to render the Internet under draconian Title II regulation through his fund-raiser Wheeler...

...government and business in bed together, crony capitalism and government regulation, and a lemming like you rah-rahing all the way.

No. surprise. at. all. to. anyone.

And speaking of projecting "tap-dance around the edges", you twatwaffling intellectual property thief...

...remember your threats to "ridicule" me here on the GB about all the stuff Grace told you about me?

Well, where is it, cunt?

What happened to that big mouth you love to blow off with?

And, just so we're crystal clear...

...get this clue, wannabe:

Don't ever imagine for even a second that you may post a single fucking word to me without me immediately recognizing you for the piece of total human shit you are.

 

[eyer]

Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.

Can you or can you not read what I literally post...

...rather than continue to jerk yourself off mentally?

 

[Lancecastor]

The wikipedia article on net neutrality in the USA is long and dense.

And contains more regulatory and political bullshit than most could ever understand.

i worked in telecom and IP for a decade or so at a fairly senior level...so i understand enough about the playing field to have a leg up on most of those posting here.

But like most of you , i am a devout netizen... So trust me when i cut through the shit and reassure you that the easy answer is this:

If vinton cerf and tim berners-lee are in favor of NN, then so am i.

And you should be, too.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What real and identifiable problem is this 332 page reg. supposed to address? Well, there isn't any. Even the FCC can't identify a real problem.

This is going to cost the consumer approx. $7-9/month/customer. What are you going to get for this money? Absolutely NOTHING!!!!

Absolute bullshit.

What this is all about in reality is an attempt to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" on the internet. And that doctrine has nothing to do with access or bandwidth and everything to do with content control.

Ishmael

Ah, Ishmael's gotten desperate and is throwin' a "but...but...FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!" Hail Mary pass.

 

[Lancecastor]

By the way.... Props to johnny savage for two excellently classic trolltastic threads.

Neither could ever be "won" and drags out all the fucking whackos, putting them on full boil.

Nicely done.

 

[Que]

The wikipedia article on net neutrality in the USA is long and dense.

And contains more regulatory and political bullshit than most could ever understand.

i worked in telecom and IP for a decade or so at a fairly senior level...so i understand enough about the playing field to have a leg up on most of those posting here.

But like most of you , i am a devout netizen... So trust me when i cut through the shit and reassure you that the easy answer is this:

If vinton cerf and tim berners-lee are in favor of NN, then so am i.

And you should be, too.

I say again: If a huge wad of papers has that title, but it turns out to not have that effect, then what?

Why are the contents of the proposal not available for comment?

 

[eyer]

What real and identifiable problem is this 332 page reg. supposed to address?

It's purpose is exclusive:

To render every single facet of the Internet in America submissive to Title II...

...just as President Obama has always wanted.

Chairman Wheeler himself believed that move was much more draconian than he preferred, but after losing two court cases trying to bring total Internet regulation under control of the FCC without the FCC branding the Internet with Title II, and with the knowledge that the new Republican Congress was addressing the issue itself...

...President Obama "changed" the mind of the man who personally raised $500,00 for him and whom he nominated and designated as his personal choice for Chairman of the FCC.

Again: the President nominates every single person as either Chairman of the FCC or one of its 4 Commissioners. It's a politically-partisan game: if the President is Democrat, the Chairman and 2 of the Commissioners will be Democrats; the majority simply reverses if a Republican is President.

All this entire deal is about is exactly what I posted it is about in my very first post in this thread, and exactly about what all politically-partisan games are about:

Power...

...when the FCC renders the Internet submissive to Title II the day after tomorrow, that total regulatory power will immediately be in effect. It will stay in effect as long as a Court doesn't rule differently, although I don't believe a final Court ruling will find that because it seems in the earlier two Court cases the FCC lost, the Court was basically saying the FCC had to declare Title II to enact the regulations it was seeking; and since it hadn't done so, it didn't have the authority to enact that regulation. But the FCC declaring the Internet subject to Title II fixes that objection.

And even though there's bipartisan legislation working in Congress to address "net neutrality", too (whatever "net neutrality" is), and part of that legislation specifically bars the FCC from regulating the Internet under Title II...

...the President holds the veto pen and he will most definitely use it for his Title II pet.

The FCC was created by an Act of Congress as an independent federal government agency, totally different than an executive federal government agency...

...whereas the President has total authority over executive agencies (even go so far as to liquidate them if he so chooses), A President intentionally influencing an independent government agency is forbidden, as demonstrated by Congress' current investigation of President Obama and the FCC over this Title II issue.

The Internet has simply fallen victim to the rabid political corruption which has infected the entire federal government occupied by the United Socialist State of America today:

Whatever partisan flavor, whatever majority, whatever mob in political power at the time, makes all the partisan rules...

...it's all nothing now but a diseased and fatal game.

Obamanet takes effect this Thursday, unless 3 Commissioners say, Wait a minute...

...and if 3 don't, Obamanet is what we'll live under probably forever because federal regulations enacted hardly ever become federal regulations retracted.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can you or can you not read what I literally post...

I did, but you did not answer my question.

Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.

If this makes it easier for you....

1) yes _____A)yes
2) no _____B)no
3)YES ____C)YES
4)NO _____D)NO

Pick one of the above.

 

[eyer]

... So trust me...

Now that's friggin' funny...

...you have absolutely no idea how what a fool you truly are for even thinking of posting that, do you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Eyer??.........Eyer?????..................Eyer????
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfgsj5EkvA1qgxm4ao1_500.gif

 

[eyer]

I did, but you did not answer my question.

Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.

If this makes it easier for you....

1) yes _____A)yes
2) no _____B)no
3)YES ____C)YES
4)NO _____D)NO

Pick one of the above.

My issue is making and keeping all Americans' access to the Internet as unrestricted as possible while, at the same time, establishing America as having the fastest and most dependable Internet speeds and service the world offers...

...but where I live, I cannot work on that goal until I'm successful at getting State regulation law overturned, law that dictates that local governments and private citizens cannot conceive ideas of their own and put them into free market practice to make their own communities leaders in the world Internet race.

The Internet market needs to be totally opened up...

...not so draconianally regulated.

There will be no more vital American economic/employment issue in the next 50 years than to make the Internet the awesome tool it has the potential to be for so many people. Today in America, we are stifling ourselves of that grand opportunity...

Can you read, wannabe?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can you read, wannabe?

Can you answer a direct and simple question?


Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Does anyone know how to simplify my question further? I think I'm confusing the poor ol' guy....

 

[eyer]

Can you answer a direct and simple question?


Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.

My issue is making and keeping all Americans' access to the Internet as unrestricted as possible while, at the same time, establishing America as having the fastest and most dependable Internet speeds and service the world offers...

...but where I live, I cannot work on that goal until I'm successful at getting State regulation law overturned, law that dictates that local governments and private citizens cannot conceive ideas of their own and put them into free market practice to make their own communities leaders in the world Internet race.

The Internet market needs to be totally opened up...

...not so draconianally regulated.

There will be no more vital American economic/employment issue in the next 50 years than to make the Internet the awesome tool it has the potential to be for so many people. Today in America, we are stifling ourselves of that grand opportunity...

Yw, wannabe.

 

[eyer]

Does anyone know how to simplify my question further? I think I'm confusing the poor ol' guy....

My issue is making and keeping all Americans' access to the Internet as unrestricted as possible while, at the same time, establishing America as having the fastest and most dependable Internet speeds and service the world offers...

...but where I live, I cannot work on that goal until I'm successful at getting State regulation law overturned, law that dictates that local governments and private citizens cannot conceive ideas of their own and put them into free market practice to make their own communities leaders in the world Internet race.

The Internet market needs to be totally opened up...

...not so draconianally regulated.

There will be no more vital American economic/employment issue in the next 50 years than to make the Internet the awesome tool it has the potential to be for so many people. Today in America, we are stifling ourselves of that grand opportunity...

Hope that helps your , wannabe.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hope that helps your , wannabe.

That's not an answer to my question eyer.

Are you or are you not stating the internet as a market is currently being stifled by draconian policy?

It's a yes or no question eyer....I repeat....it's a yes or no question.