Remember Net Neutrality?

[Vash]

Or "The Good Old Days," as we should now call them.

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_netneutrality_3things/?akid=3035.102964.K9DuHh&rd=1&source=e1-nonetflix&t=3

[Violent Designs]

don't care.

[Lucas]

I care if they put KFMO in the 'slow lane'

I'll riot.

[Violent Designs]

all i want to do is be amused.

and the people who will throw a riot tantrum amuses me.

[Lucas]

Hey! I dont throw riot tantrums. I throw riot PARTIES!!!!

and now you have to bring the nachos.

[SPJ]

Inter net should be free or toll and tax free

intra net on the other hand may be private or user limited.

:)

[Syn7]

Net Neutrality is Anything But Neutral

Net neutrality is an innocuous sounding term for what is really media Marxism. This is an ideological attempt by those on the left to control the greatest means for the distribution of information ever devised. It provides a playing field which the government does not control, and this is immensely troubling to those on the left.

There are two pieces to net neutrality:


Equal Access: Equal access says that everyone should always have equal priorities to the flow of information on the internet. In practice, this means that if I am updating my Twitter account, and my neighbor is downloading a movie, he shouldn't have access to more bandwidth than me. Right now, the large providers manage access, with some handling over one million URL requests a second. They are doing a phenomenal job. Net neutrality would prevent them from doing so, and would essentially "socialize" the internet.

This would also create some horrendous situations with the providers being unable to provide more bandwidth and priority to a hospital downloading an emergency transmission of an MRI, than they provide to me while I update my Twitter feed. We are obviously against this.

Equal Rates / Equal Service: Proponents of net neutrality are also trying to stop providers from offering "tiered" service plans. Think "first class," "business pricing plans for phone service etc." According to proponents, under net neutrality, everyone has to be charged the same, and provided the same services. This is the antithesis of capitalism, and would result in the stifling of technology development. Providers spend billions developing the technology; it is their right to charge as they see fit, and to create pricing plans that serve the needs of real customers in a real marketplace.

Our position is that net neutrality is simply government interference in the most important communications medium in history. Tea Party Patriots across the nation are very concerned about government regulation and interference in the internet, and we will be continuing to educate them about the reality of net neutrality, and the damage it will do to both the progress of technology and to the operation of the free market.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/


You would think the teabaggers would love net neutrality...


heres what net neutrality is:


Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), even blocking out competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.[5][6]

Opponents of net neutrality characterize its regulations as "a solution in search of a problem", arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.[7] Despite this claim there has been a case where an Internet service provider intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications.[8] Still other companies have acted in contrast to these assertions of hands-off behavior and have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[9] Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, the other co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[10] Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality



teabaggers:


Net neutrality is an innocuous sounding term for what is really media Marxism. This is an ideological attempt by those on the left to control the greatest means for the distribution of information ever devised. It provides a playing field which the government does not control, and this is immensely troubling to those on the left.


reality:


Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.[


the amount of bullsh1t that comes out of these teabaggers is absolutely staggering... its like they feel if they repeat their bullsh1t enough that it will become true... or maybe they are just trying to emulate joseph goebbels...

you would think the teabaggers would like the idea of a government free internet... but then net nuetrality also prevents companies from raping civilians with fees and overages etc etc... and of course that doesnt go over too well with their large telecom donors... another example of bought and paid for politics... and to be fair here, its not just the teabaggers that have been bought on this one... democrats and republicans have both sold out on this one... not all of them, but most of them... the ones that have infuence, anyways...




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Is_this_tomorrow.jpg/220px-Is_this_tomorrow.jpg



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[SnowDog]

Yeah, Net Neutrality is a huge topic at my workplace. With our Management constantly pushing out propoganda on how EVIL and HORRIBLE it is for everybody (mainly them)

But, then of course I work for an ISP :rolleyes:

And witnessing our management's mind and morals , if something is bad for the company......... it must be good for the people. LOL!!!!

[Syn7]

yeah, ironic...

i always wonder about how it is law that these people who run a corporation are legally bound to make as much profit as possible to their shareholders... they have to... no choice in the matter... yet in so many cases it runs contrary to the greater good... like maximizing profits is killing local economy and theres that trickle UP effect... globally, its just insane... these corporations wont stay on american soil and make pure american product because they wouldnt make as much money... although in so many cases they could still make alot of money... just not as much as if they do it india instead... so if bill gates wants to be a philanthropist and all save this help that, why doesnt he just make a 100% american product... imagine what just that one man could do for california and many other states for production and raw materials... but alas, it is not so... legally bound to make as much as possible within the means of the law... thats some sad sh1t... canada is the same as im sure a few other western european countries are as well...