 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
edit:
November 28th, @10:06AM
| Bullhorns? I am sure the industry has cornered the markets in all sorts of bovine-generated products, for this one:
DEATH AND DESTRUCTION! FLAMING AND MELTING FIBER! TERRA-ISM! CHILD PORN! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!
New heights of mind-roasting tedium await. | |
|  | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: Bullhorns? agreed, the internet has to get a whole lot worse before it gets better | |
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
 ·Cruzio Internet
| Re:Bright green flashing Bullhorns? Now thatsa some hOOpla!
Hopefully this site can help wade through it to get the heart of the matter.
History
“ In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority. "
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ne···utrality
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
| 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
edit:
November 28th, @10:12AM
| Sadly, they are right. said by Article :
The new push will certainly revamp the obnoxious PR battle waged by both sides, who apparently believe the public isn't bright enough to understand the issue without the use of stick figures, dancing men in green tights, cartoons and/or flying saucers. I would have to agree that stick figures and cartoons are the only way the general public will ever get it. Lets face it; the American Public, as a group, is just dumb as sh*t. | |
| | 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Re: Sadly, they are right. That's just simply untrue.
In this case, the American public just doesn't give a sh*t, which is vastly different than being dumb as sh*t. | |
| | | 
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH
| Re: Sadly, they are right. Most people have no clue what net neutrality is. I have attempted conversation about it with "regular" people(average computer users), clueless. Because of that there is little chance a leader with a face will stand up for it, let alone bring it up as something that needs attention. It seems we as a country will fall to corporate lobbyists and most will not know......
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Definitely requires some type of oversight-if they can't keep their hands off the data and the delivery thereof-Knowledge is power and we cannot have a select few controlling this. | |
| | 
blitz
@WYOMING.COM | Re: Definitely requires some You mean like the technologically retarded , err, technologically disabled, dang, um technologically differentially abled in congress? | |
| | | bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Re: Definitely requires some PULEEEEEEZE!- I never mentioned any gov agency-But to answer your question, it very well needs to be some of the experts-maybe some of the oldsters whom have actually have had some substantial experience in the creation of the web. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Net Neutrality Already the Law The recent episodes involving Comcast and another cable ISP screwing around with Bit Torrent are not things which require Congressional action, as it is already existing law that ISPs not engage in such actions.
Any complaint about Net Neutrality should be directed to the FCC. The last thing we need are more misguided laws from a technologically illiterate Congress.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | 
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
Blacklick, OH
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by pnh102  :The recent episodes involving Comcast and another cable ISP screwing around with Bit Torrent are not things which require Congressional action, as it is already existing law that ISPs not engage in such actions. Any complaint about Net Neutrality should be directed to the FCC. The last thing we need are more misguided laws from a technologically illiterate Congress. You mean the same FCC with the butt-boy chairman who's controlled by the telcos? | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by digitalfreak :You mean the same FCC with the butt-boy chairman who's controlled by the telcos? I guarantee you that if Congress gets involved, the end result will be a blessing of such activities. Take a look at how CAN-SPAM if you don't believe me.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by pnh102 :said by digitalfreak :You mean the same FCC with the butt-boy chairman who's controlled by the telcos? I guarantee you that if Congress gets involved, the end result will be a blessing of such activities. Take a look at how CAN-SPAM if you don't believe me. So what is your alternative...to allow the fun & games to continue with providers arbitrarily blocking/throttling certain kinds of traffic and when they get caught to cite half assed reasons such as "traffic shaping" or just pleading stupidity as in Verizon's many Oopsies we didn't mean to censor/block politically active bands like Pearl Jam?
Secondly, where is this mysterious "law" which you allude to above that already stops providers from doing what they're doing? If it's a law, how is it that providers are getting around it? And if it's a law, then where is your citation?
| |
| | | | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law it appears as if you silenced a pro-corporate member with the truth | |
| | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by rit56 :it appears as if you silenced a pro-corporate member with the truth That's the way it usually works. Until the next day after said corporate dittohead has gotten his approved talking points from Fox News et al.
| |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by SilverSurfer :So what is your alternative...to allow the fun & games to continue with providers arbitrarily blocking/throttling certain kinds of traffic and when they get caught to cite half assed reasons such as "traffic shaping" ... The alternative is to enforce existing laws. One ISP was fined for blocking access to Vonage. Similar action can be taken against ISPs which block Bit Torrent. Last time I checked, Congress is not in the business of law enforcement, and if existing law isn't being enforced, what makes you think a new law will be enforced?
said by SilverSurfer :... or just pleading stupidity as in Verizon's many Oopsies we didn't mean to censor/block politically active bands like Pearl Jam? You're comparison of the actions of one website (and it was AT&T, not Verizon) to the actions of Comcast, which was impacting all users, is invalid. Comparing the management decision of one website to an across-the-board action by an entire ISP is the same as comparing apples to oranges. At least in the case of the ISP is billing itself as providing a pipe for Internet access, not a pipe for selected content transfer mechanisms.
said by SilverSurfer :Secondly, where is this mysterious "law" which you allude to above that already stops providers from doing what they're doing? »www.news.com/2102-7352_3-5598633···il.print
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by pnh102 :The alternative is to enforce existing laws. One ISP was fined for blocking access to Vonage. Similar action can be taken against ISPs which block Bit Torrent. A pissant, backwoods, little ISP from NC is nowhere even in the same universe as a multi billion dollar player like Verizon and Comcast. A $15k fine is a lunch tab to Verizon et al.
said by pnh102 :Last time I checked, Congress is not in the business of law enforcement, and if existing law isn't being enforced, what makes you think a new law will be enforced?
1. How is the passing of NN by Congress considered law enforcement? Congresses passes laws, that is its entire reason for being.
2. This alleged "law" you keep referring to is not a law at all. It was a one-time action taken by the FCC to compel a tiny ISP in North Carolina to pay a fine.
said by pnh102 :You're comparison of the actions of one website (and it was AT&T, not Verizon) to the actions of Comcast, which was impacting all users, is invalid. It's essentially the same song different verse.
said by pnh102 :Comparing the management decision of one website to an across-the-board action by an entire ISP is the same as comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about blocking/censoring/throttling certain kinds of traffic for whatever half assed reason said provider cites. This is not peculiar to a single mgt board or a single website.
That is a not a law. It was a one time action taken by the FCC against a single provider. If it were a law, then where is it codified? In which section of the United States Code would I find that particular action that you are calling a law? | |
| | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by SilverSurfer :A pissant, backwoods, little ISP from NC is nowhere even in the same universe as a multi billion dollar player like Verizon and Comcast. A $15k fine is a lunch tab to Verizon et al. When did I claim that it was? The point is that this sort of blocking is already illegal.
said by SilverSurfer :1. How is the passing of NN by Congress considered law enforcement? Congresses passes laws, that is its entire reason for being. Congress passes laws. Congress does not enforce laws. At the federal level, enforcing the laws is done by the executive branch and its associated agencies.
said by SilverSurfer :2. This alleged "law" you keep referring to is not a law at all. It was a one-time action taken by the FCC to compel a tiny ISP in North Carolina to pay a fine. You do know that the FCC would not have been able to impose such a fine if no law, as passed by Congress, had not already existed, right? Do you really think the FCC can just go and make up things as it goes along, without a mandate from Congress?
said by SilverSurfer :That is a not a law. It was a one time action taken by the FCC against a single provider. If it were a law, then where is it codified? In which section of the United States Code would I find that particular action that you are calling a law? The FCC action was taken under its interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934, a law currently on the books that is the FCC's basis for mandating that ISPs cannot block certain types of traffic. If it wanted to, it could take the same action against other ISPs which block other types of traffic.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law said by pnh102 :When did I claim that it was? By citing the NC case and otherwise stating that blocking is "illegal."
said by SilverSurfer :
said by pnh102 :Congress passes laws. Congress does not enforce laws. Didn't I just tell you that when you stated that -and I quote- the last time you checked, Congress did not enforce laws. Are you going to tell you didn't say that when all you have to do is scroll above to what you previously wrote?
said by pnh102 :You do know that the FCC would not have been able to impose such a fine if no law, as passed by Congress, had not already existed, right? Are you seriously that obtuse or are you just being argumentative to make it seem like you actually know what you're talking about.
said by pnh102 :The FCC action was taken under its interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934, a law currently on the books that is the FCC's basis for mandating that ISPs cannot block certain types of traffic. If it wanted to, it could take the same action against other ISPs which block other types of traffic. That's nice, but where is that law codified in the U.S.C.? Where does it actually state that it is a NN law as you have claimed since the beginning of this discussion? You have consistently maintained that blocking is "against the law," and I have consistently asked you to cite the portion of the United States Code and you come back with a Communications Act of 1934 that has zero to do with Net Neutrality. | |
| 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
02101
| Of course the public isn't bright enough Hell, many BBR posters aren't bright enough, and we're generally a pretty smart group. Every network neutrality article that comes up includes people who think that network neutrality means an flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed network.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Of course the public isn't bright enough said by Cabal :...Every network neutrality article that comes up includes people who think that network neutrality means an flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed network. well, if that is the only way to keep the camel's nose out of the tent... | |
| | | |
|
|
