Big Brother at Walmart is Nothing, LOOK AT THIS!!!

[stormrider54]

I am now considering throwing away my computers and internet. It depends on what happens Nov. 20th.

I would imagine this will be the end of Forums like BS.

http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2011/09/tell-congress-to-stop-fcc-internet.html

I also got an email from Americans for Prosperity today, if Congress doesn't do the right thing we are all screwed.

 

[Crimson]

****ing commies

 

[sandman7925]

I can't believe this. How is this not all over the media

 

[Yrdawg]

Call what you will...but ask yourself why this admin is showing NO fear of its low standing with the american people...I think they have a lock on the 12

 

[sandman7925]

I think you're right

 

[sparky_benton]

buy ammo.....

 

[SpeedRacer]

Anyone have a legitimate source for this info? Not saying it isn't true, but I don't get worked up over Blogs.

 

[sandman7925]

Anyone have a legitimate source for this info? Not saying it isn't true, but I don't get worked up over Blogs.

A quick google search turned up plenty

 

[SpeedRacer]

A quick google search turned up plenty

Link? All I got was articles from 2010.

 

[Takuan]

Did you know that one of the most vocal Senators opposing these regulations is... wait for it... Al Franken!

 

[stormrider54]

Anyone have a legitimate source for this info? Not saying it isn't true, but I don't get worked up over Blogs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/ap/business/main20114139.shtml

All of this sounds like the old Holloween story "He's on the first step!"
There are a mulitude of companies now threating to sue FCC.

Go to Goggle type net neutrality then after entering on the left side you will see that you can get stories from NOW, Past 24 HRS, Past Week etc.

 

[sandman7925]

Link? All I got was articles from 2010.

Here are a few. But read the wiki one first to understand what net neutrality really means and why some want this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2011/09/26/the-true-cost-of-net-neutrality/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/09/28/55/
I'm all for as little regulation as necassary but it seems that this may exist to prevent racketeering and limiting on what we are allowed to see on the internet. The idea is less censorship.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Here are a few. But read the wiki one first to understand what net neutrality really means and why some want this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2011/09/26/the-true-cost-of-net-neutrality/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/09/28/55/
I'm all for as little regulation as necassary but it seems that this may exist to prevent racketeering and limiting on what we are allowed to see on the internet. The idea is less censorship.

Where is the connection between that and the tin foil crowd? I understand the "less regulation is better" mentality (that's generally where I'm at with it), but don't see why this is getting regular Joes up in arms? Am I missing something? Honest question, I'm not tryin to stir the pot.

 

[sandman7925]

Where is the connection between that and the tin foil crowd? I understand the "less regulation is better" mentality (that's generally where I'm at with it), but don't see why this is getting regular Joes up in arms? Am I missing something? Honest question, I'm not tryin to stir the pot.

I'm with you. The first I heard of it was this thread and see my first post. But with further research it just looks like a bunch of BS coming from the republicans that are upsetting people and they don't know what's going on. They are saying things like this could be a "job killer" and the gov is gonna be watching every move you make on the net and it's just not true. All that is just a "media" move to try upset the sheeple.

 

[Shikkapow]

anyone have a like to the federal register?
nevermind

http://www.fcc.gov/document/advisory-guidance-open-internet-transparency-rule

thats the plain english version of the rulemaking, I'm looking for the original.


hell if Verizon is suing the gov't over this, im betting its a good thing for the consumer.

once again fear mongering and chicken little politics are running the rumor mill 24/7 and giving out half the story.

christ people do little research... throwing away your computer might be a good thing and make you think for yourself instead of believing what you read in some random blog


and now the rest of the story:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/preserving-open-internet-broadband-industry-practices-1


Looks like there is some pretty clear language in there about your intranetz provider being able to filter your intranetz to make you see what THEY want you to see, and the FCC is making a rule to put a stop to it. IE. looking for an internet provider because you are sick of Verizon might put you on their web page at an agonizing bandwidth so you dont switch.

gee they wouldn't do that, would they?

 

[stormrider54]

I'm glad some thought enough to do a little research but being the trusting individual I am, I am always leary of government trying to "protect us." If you trust them with a little regulation then what is the problem with the little regulation we now have on guns and why are some so opposed to gun control? After all the government is simply trying to protect us from those firearm makers. The stuff they make can be harmful to your health, gee just look at cigarette/tabacco industries.

My point is, let me remove my tin foil hat first, that they seem to be never satisfied with a little, they always want more. If one doesn't believe that this isn't about power as opposed to "protection" then all I can say is you'll have more Obama healthcare, taxes and complaints about what regulation is costing us. Remember FCC = FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. I will trust the feds as long as I can keep an eye on them not as long as they keep an eye on me.

It's like Herman Cain said about the EPA " Now they want to regulate how much dust is in the air." The question is just how much regulation are you willing to live with?

 

[22doberman22]

I can't believe this. How is this not all over the media

You won't find this on main stream media. Better yet this is not the only thing the FCC is trying to control. Mark Loyd is the president of the FCC ( a guy thats in B.O. back pocket). He wants to charge any conservative radio show to pay out of pocket what it cost them to run there show yearly and give it to liberal shows that no one listens to. There is a reason why no one listens to them because they SUCK! This has been going on for a couple of years that I know of. So if I had a radio show that cost me 100k a year to run I have to fork out 200k, 100k goes to pay for my broadcast and they other 100k goes to someone like Tom Joiner who doesn't have much of an audience and listening to him you might actually see brain cells leave your head. They say its unfair and we should have a liberal point of view to every conservative one. What is happening to this country?

 

[sandman7925]

I'm glad some thought enough to do a little research but being the trusting individual I am, I am always leary of government trying to "protect us." If you trust them with a little regulation then what is the problem with the little regulation we now have on guns and why are some so opposed to gun control? After all the government is simply trying to protect us from those firearm makers. The stuff they make can be harmful to your health, gee just look at cigarette/tabacco industries.

My point is, let me remove my tin foil hat first, that they seem to be never satisfied with a little, they always want more. If one doesn't believe that this isn't about power as opposed to "protection" then all I can say is you'll have more Obama healthcare, taxes and complaints about what regulation is costing us. Remember FCC = FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. I will trust the feds as long as I can keep an eye on them not as long as they keep an eye on me.

It's like Herman Cain said about the EPA " Now they want to regulate how much dust is in the air." The question is just how much regulation are you willing to live with?

I agree. But it is a sad day when a bill like this has to be proposed to keep back room deals, racketeering and censorship form the internet providers taking place. If I pay an internet provider for access to the internet that's all I want, access. I will choose what sites I want to visit and which ones I don't.

 

[Knave]

I basically never say this about any other subject, but this is big-business faking a "grass roots" type backlash against net neutrality. Net neutrality is in Joe Blow's best interest, and the evil gub'mint is actually right to protect Joe Blow's neutral access to the internet.

Without net neutrality being protected by law..let's say you use Cox for internet access. Now let's say Cox doesn't want you buying Netflix, they want you buying Cox On Demand. So Cox decides that they will block you from accessing Netflix on their network. Now let's say Cox is mad at Microsoft because Microsoft doesn't want to pay Cox for Cox customers to access Xbox Live/Windows Live. The examples are never ending. Net neutrality means your service provider can't decide what legal content and services you have access to, they can only provide you with a connection and you get to connect to whatever legal content you want.

Naturally companies like Verizon hate that idea, because Verizon wants to sell you a connection, then they want to only allow you to connect to content created by companies or individuals that have payed Verizon to allow their customers to access.

 

[sandman7925]

exactly