LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Obamacare To Obamanet

Yup, exactly like Obamacare.

Except Obamacare hasn't been the "disaster" that you swore it'd be, has it?
 
Regulation bad. Markets always work best with no rules because we are all honest.
 
vetteman said:
Barack Obama and his commies are going to try and grab the Internet so the left can regulate it to it's advantage:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ress-ahead-net-neutrality-vote-andrew-johnson
Click to expand...

Net neutrality is rather the opposite of what you think it is.

Net neutrality is the concept that Internet users should be the ones who control what they see on the net, not internet service providers (ISPs) or the government. Among the specific rights lobbied for under net neutrality are:

* The deregulation of content (other than that which is criminal, such as child pornography);

* Open access to all sites and platforms;

* The prevention of ISPs from charging extra for access to "premium" sites.

Naturally, corporatists don't like the idea of net neutrality. For instance, Glenn Beck has compared net neutrality proponents to Marxists,[1] which is hilarious because by that "logic" the entirety of Silicon Valley would be Marxists.[2] This may be because opponents and paid shills have likened it to the Fairness Doctrine as applied to the Internet, even though it has nothing to do with political speech.

The "information superhighway"

Imagine the Internet as a big city. Houses, offices and businesses are connected to one another by a network of roads and streets. To be able to reach other locations in the city, you need to pay a small monthly fee for a company to add you to their road network and maintain the network. There's a few companies which own the road network, competing with one another to provide better, cheaper service.

Let's say one of these companies – let's call them Horizon – happens to own the only road which leads to the office of a really popular business called Gaggle Inc. That stretch of road gets a lot of traffic. Gaggle already pays for a ton of lanes to reach their office so that they can get customers in and out quickly. But Horizon sees an opportunity and turns this stretch of road into a toll lane, charging customers coming in for using that route. They can also choose to redirect customers who are trying to reach Gaggle to a competing business, like Ding, provided there's a financial incentive.

Another company – we'll call them Camcost – notices that they're losing clients to 80 and Tea, a competing company which offers a similar service for much less per month. Camcost decides this is unacceptable and so they cut down on the lanes leading to the 80 and Tea road network until there's only one route with one lane. While people using 80 and Tea's service notice no difference, people using Camcost's service notice it takes significantly longer to reach 80 and Tea's office and are thus discouraged from switching companies.

In perhaps the most disturbing application of this analogy, 80 and Tea has two clients. One is a major political candidate and the other is a journalist working out a small office. The journalist doesn't have a lot of traffic. But one day, 80 and Tea gets a call from their candidate who tells them that this journalist is about to write a story they don't want seen. The candidate can't order the story to be suppressed – that would be a violation of the First Amendment – but they can pay 80 and Tea to ensure the journalist's story can't be read. So 80 and Tea blocks all traffic to and from the journalist's office indefinitely.

Obviously the Internet is not a big city and packets are not cars. But this serves to illustrate what ISPs are capable of doing without net neutrality.

All packets are created equal

What net neutrality dictates is that all Internet traffic, regardless of source or destination, is to be treated equally. This means that Internet service providers cannot discriminate between packets sent from a competing ISP, or charge more for traffic to or from a specific source or destination, or block sites based on their content (an exception exists for illegal content). They can, of course, charge their customers for a bigger "pipe" (Google, for instance, has a massive link to a Tier 1 ISP) which equates to a better incoming/outgoing traffic capacity, but they cannot charge Google merely for connecting to a certain number of customers per day or for sending a certain volume of traffic through that pipe per month.

In relation to the Fairness Doctrine, net neutrality has no similarities. The Fairness Doctrine was a purely political framework dictating that a radio or television station promoting one viewpoint had to give equal time to the opposite viewpoint. So, if you were to host El Rushbo on your radio station for an hour, the next hour would have to feature a guaranteed timeslot for a liberal speaker. This was why pundits like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were almost unheard of before the 1990s, when the Fairness Doctrine was lifted – every hour hosting one political commentator required an extra hour hosting a second political commentator.

However, net neutrality opponents (ironically a lot of libertarians) argue that both net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are examples of the government's overreach into the free market, and the fact that the Fairness Doctrine failed should be seen as a reason to burn net neutrality. In reality, net neutrality isn't as simple as regulation versus deregulation; net neutrality ensures that Internet service providers cannot act as regulators themselves, in effect decentralizing the Internet by buffering their power against consumers and Internet companies. With or without net neutrality, the Internet will be regulated, but net neutrality ensures that the power to regulate is itself heavily regulated (to the point that it is de facto deregulation).

Why libertarians don't get this is beyond the scope of our imagination.

Who supports net neutrality?

Anybody who owns/rents a web server or pays for broadband Internet service, so about 99% of Internet users. And apparently the Chairman of the FCC and former cable company lobbyist, Tom Wheeler himself.[3]

Who opposes net neutrality?

Self-contradicting libertarians and ISPs. Oh, and Ted Cruz and Alex Jones.[4][5]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vetteman said:
Your belief in the term "net neutrality" is a joke. It has nothing to do with neutrality, it has everything to do with censorship of the right for the benefit of the left.
Click to expand...

Yep ... but then again we know that KingofAssTards, SeanH, SeanR, UD, and Rob had their balls removed years ago
 
vetteman said:
Your belief in the term "net neutrality" is a joke. It has nothing to do with neutrality, it has everything to do with censorship of the right for the benefit of the left.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Once again:

In relation to the Fairness Doctrine, net neutrality has no similarities. The Fairness Doctrine was a purely political framework dictating that a radio or television station promoting one viewpoint had to give equal time to the opposite viewpoint. So, if you were to host El Rushbo on your radio station for an hour, the next hour would have to feature a guaranteed timeslot for a liberal speaker. This was why pundits like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were almost unheard of before the 1990s, when the Fairness Doctrine was lifted – every hour hosting one political commentator required an extra hour hosting a second political commentator.

However, net neutrality opponents (ironically a lot of libertarians) argue that both net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are examples of the government's overreach into the free market, and the fact that the Fairness Doctrine failed should be seen as a reason to burn net neutrality. In reality, net neutrality isn't as simple as regulation versus deregulation; net neutrality ensures that Internet service providers cannot act as regulators themselves, in effect decentralizing the Internet by buffering their power against consumers and Internet companies. With or without net neutrality, the Internet will be regulated, but net neutrality ensures that the power to regulate is itself heavily regulated (to the point that it is de facto deregulation).
Click to expand...

And one point of all that is to prevent censorship:

In perhaps the most disturbing application of this analogy, 80 and Tea has two clients. One is a major political candidate and the other is a journalist working out a small office. The journalist doesn't have a lot of traffic. But one day, 80 and Tea gets a call from their candidate who tells them that this journalist is about to write a story they don't want seen. The candidate can't order the story to be suppressed – that would be a violation of the First Amendment – but they can pay 80 and Tea to ensure the journalist's story can't be read. So 80 and Tea blocks all traffic to and from the journalist's office indefinitely.

Obviously the Internet is not a big city and packets are not cars. But this serves to illustrate what ISPs are capable of doing without net neutrality.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vetteman said:
Your belief in the term "net neutrality" is a joke. It has nothing to do with neutrality, it has everything to do with censorship of the right for the benefit of the left.
Click to expand...

Will never in a million fucking years ever explain how exactly.....but never stop trumpeting that it does.

vetteman said:
Yes. Add taxation to that term as well. Add government manipulation of Internet speeds to accomplish "fairness" as well. It's far from neutral.
Click to expand...

How exactly? :confused:

I'm betting you cower like the fucking bitch you are from that question too....
 
vetteman said:
Have you read the rules? No you haven't, they are being held in secret until after the vote. Why do you think that is? You have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...

They'll have to enact the regulations so we can find out what's in them. Sound familiar?
 
vetteman said:
Obamacare To Obamanet
Click to expand...

Well, we know where vette is getting his talking points.

Anyway, if you’re still here and you’re not clear on what net neutrality is, it’s basically a principle that says you are the person who determines the content you access on the Internet. There’s an important discussion to be had about the role Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon play in determining the online content you consume. They are extraordinarily powerful entities who control the infrastructure of the modern economy and are highly motivated to use that influence exclusively for their own benefit. But we can’t really have that conversation, and it’s because of people like Ted Cruz.

Senator Ted Cruz ✔ @SenTedCruz
Follow
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

10:43 AM - 10 Nov 2014

3,408 Retweets 1,598 favorites
Click to expand...

Liberal reporters, tech journalists, healthcare wonks, and basically the entire Internet were quick to point out that Cruz was absurdly wrong on the substance and demonstrated an ignorance of both healthcare and tech policy that is genuinely worrisome given that he’s a member of Congress who actually gets to vote on laws and regulations.

But Cruz doesn’t give a damn about being right or about looking stupid in the eyes of journalists. He cares about riling up Tea Party-types and the conservatives who form his base of support, and there’s no better way to do that than to stimulate the rage centers of their brains by dropping a reference to Obamacare. A subject like net neutrality, steeped as it is in opaque technical jargon, is highly susceptible to this sort of reductive treatment. What he’s accomplished here is he’s turned the net neutrality argument into a “Barack Obama versus Ted Cruz” argument, and that’s how it will be covered by reporters who prefer personality clashes over complicated substance.

But in a certain sense, Cruz was on-point, albeit unintentionally. Healthcare and Internet service in America do share some common features – specifically, we pay a lot for both, and the product we get in return kinda sucks relative to how much we spend. Head to Europe or Asia and chances are that you’ll be able to purchase faster Internet access for far less money than you’d pay here. Also, Internet connections abroad are getting faster and cheaper, while prices and speeds are pretty much staying the same in the U.S.

The reason for this is that Internet providers in the U.S. enjoy local monopolies and can get away with charging you more for crappier service because, on a town-to-town basis, they’re the only game in town. Internet providers like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are wildly successful companies, but they consistently get terrible customer service ratings because they don’t really have to worry about their customers switching to another provider. The notion of robust broadband Internet competition in the U.S. is a joke, and now that Comcast and Time Warner are trying to convince regulators to allow them to merge, Internet providers are signaling that they’ve grown tired of even pretending to compete.

The most important feature of President Obama’s net neutrality plan is actually a proposal that (some people argue) will boost competition among Internet providers. The principles he laid out for how ISPs can treat Internet traffic – no blocking of content, no throttling of content, no paid prioritization – were all part of the Open Internet Order that the FCC approved in 2010, and which was struck down by the courts earlier this year. With his new plan, Obama is going a step further by calling for the FCC to reclassify broadband Internet to make Internet service providers abide by “common carrier” regulations that apply to phone companies and other public utilities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vetteman said:
Before you all expose your ignorance here is a Reason Magazine interview with the Commissioner of the FCC, Ajit Pai, on the implications of the new rules:


FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"
Nick Gillespie & Todd Krainin | February 25, 2015

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/
Click to expand...

That's The Fraud in a nutshell....creating solutions to problems that don't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
House Republicans unveil Medicaid cuts
Replies
11
Views
286
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
Rotadom
Here are 11 things Trump has promised to carry out on Day 1 of his presidency
3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
3K
Oyster69
Oyster69
M
MAGAs try to pass a budget
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
R
The DNC is broke.
Replies
22
Views
254
HumpDayHoratio
HumpDayHoratio
1
When i was young
Replies
3
Views
61
ll74
ll74
Back
Top