JMHO Loc: Utah

:thumbup:

robmull Loc: florida

"Innocuous" to the "left" for sure, but if a conservative site has ANYTHING derogatory about their messiah, it's rendered inaccessible. That's "fair," to the Hugo Chavez's and liberal progressives of communist ideology.

Anigav6969

Straightup, I know that you already know this, but you're dealing with a moron....he can read proof and he would still say " I'm sticking with my opinion " duh ! In other words...." I'm in a bubble, please don't pop it...I don't want to learn anything "

It's gotta be exhausting.....dealing with these buffoons

JMHO Loc: Utah

Then leave...moron.

Anigav6969

You want me to leave the morons ? Okay.......bye

JMHO Loc: Utah

You worded it wrong, but bye, bye...moron.

straightUp Loc: California

JMHO - sorry for the blasting... I guess you came in blasting yourself with a vague reference to a 300+ page document swimming in the same old stream of over-the-top, knee-jerk, anti-government reaction that I see applied to any regulation not endorsed by Republicans and which so often turns out to be greatly exaggerated. I'll accept fault for initially dismissing the 300+ page document although I did eventually look into it and I am acknowledging the problem with it now. I still think the bulk of your posting is crude and inaccurate, such as your repeated assertion that whenever the government gets involved, the Internet get's screwed up somehow... The government has been getting involved in the Internet since the Clinton administration and all I am hearing from the FCC dissenters is how well the Internet has been doing under these earlier government interjections.


You're probably right JFlorio. It seems to come down to who we trust more. I actually spent a lot of my years dissenting government actions. I was appalled by a lot of government action under Bush when a common conservative argument was "we have to trust the government to do the right thing". At the same time, I have a fair amount of first-hand experience with corporate corruption and inefficiency... enough for me to realize that these vices are not limited to any one type of organization.

In truth, I don't "trust" either the corporation or the government, but I do generally feel more "comfortable" with the government, when it comes to critical issues, because of it's accountability to the people. There is no equivalent in the corporate world and I think this explains why so much corporate corruption and inefficiency goes unnoticed. To expose corporate faults we often have to depend on whistle blowers that are willing to risk their jobs and sometimes even their lives to tell us the truth. In contrast, it's by virtue of the fact that the government is accountable to the people that we hear so much more about their screw ups and corruption.

Personally, I would rather my world be caught up in the sluggish bureaucracy of a publicly exposed system of checks and balances than to be quickly determined by the silent interests of people I don't even know anything about.

Again... it's not that I trust one more than the other... It's just that only one of them is accountable to us... only one of them is required to show it's cards, with the exception of course being anything that falls under "National Security" which has always been more acceptable to conservatives than liberals.

JMHO Loc: Utah

I stay with my comments and predictions, they're far more accurate than yours. The internet will NOT function better under government control...the government will screw it up, just like they do everything else. Like I said, it will become slower...there will be higher prices...internet investment will decrease...and, censorship is coming. It will NOT be better...period.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Your assertion that Bush is a conservative is way off. Third worst president of my lifetime. Of course their is some corruption in the corporate world. Usually when exposed they face prosecution. Are you telling me the current administration is transparent like the liar and chief always sys? I have never heard conservatives anywhere say we have to trust the government to do the right thing. That is a liberal BS line. We do agree on one thing. I do not trust either entity either. We disagree on which entity we distrust the most.

straightUp Loc: California

It can be. But sometimes important things can be found in the piles of their bullshit. Such as the 332-page document. Keep in mind, they are often mere conduits for other people's opinions and depending on the issues their standard one-size-fits-all dogma sometimes carries a valid concern.

straightUp Loc: California

I think you're missing the point of the regulation. The point is NOT to make the Internet better. It's to prevent Internet Service Providers specifically from making it worse through blocking. Now, I agree with what you said earlier about delaying our final conclusions on this regulation until we can review the 332 page document, but it seems to me that YOU are already jumping to conclusions. Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me.
Go back and read through the thread so far... Only one of us is concluding how the regulation is going to impact prices, performance, investment and censorship on the Internet and it's not me.

I will say this... the language of the rules so far that I have seen is very clear on the distinction between Internet access and content. The term being used in the context of this regulation is "last mile"... basically, that means a pipe and nothing more. In my response to Auntie I provided an in-dept technical explanation where the "last mile" that is being regulated has nothing to do with content. The ISP can perform its function without knowing anything about the content being transmitted, just like a courier service can perform it's delivery function without knowing what's in the boxes. Censorship is related to content not the pipes the content is being transmitted through. I don't see any indication that this regulation provides any step toward censorship.

Yes, the Internet might get slower as ISPs continue to increase the load by signing up more customers. Yes, prices may go up with inflation. Yes, investment in telecom at the ISP level is already decreasing because their is more potential for growth higher up on the protocol stack. Applications and content is where investment dollars will be going for the foreseeable future... and yes, censorship is bound to happen when Republicans get back in the driver seat.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

[quote=straightUp]I think you're missing the point of the regulation. The point is NOT to make the Internet better. It's to prevent Internet Service Providers specifically from making it worse through blocking. Now, I agree with what you said earlier about delaying our final conclusions on this regulation until we can review the 332 page document, but it seems to me that YOU are already jumping to conclusions. Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me.
Go back and read through the thread so far... Only one of us is concluding how the regulation is going to impact prices, performance, investment and censorship on the Internet and it's not me.

I will say this... the language of the rules so far that I have seen is very clear on the distinction between Internet access and content. The term being used in the context of this regulation is "last mile"... basically, that means a pipe and nothing more. In my response to Auntie I provided an in-dept technical explanation where the "last mile" that is being regulated has nothing to do with content. The ISP can perform its function without knowing anything about the content being transmitted, just like a courier service can perform it's delivery function without knowing what's in the boxes. Censorship is related to content not the pipes the content is being transmitted through. I don't see any indication that this regulation provides any step toward censorship.

Yes, the Internet might get slower as ISPs continue to increase the load by signing up more customers. Yes, prices may go up with inflation. Yes, investment in telecom at the ISP level is already decreasing because their is more potential for growth higher up on the protocol stack. Applications and content is where investment dollars will be going for the foreseeable future... and



Hmm...when the NYT states this administration is the least transparent, has set back freedom of the press, I would be very careful about throwing that kind of defecation around.

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

regulation
General: Principle or rule (with or without the coercive power of law) employed in controlling, directing, or managing an activity, organization, or system.

Law: Rule based on and meant to carry out a specific piece of legislation (such as for the protection of environment). Regulations are enforced usually by a regulatory agency formed or mandated to carry out the purpose or provisions of a legislation. Also called regulatory requirement.

Here is my problem with our government. We have one agency after another that makes thousands of new rules and regulation without any accountability. There is no congressional oversite, they just make one regulation after another without anyone telling them they can't. Not until a court rules against any said regulation.

And I disagree with whoever said there is no corporate oversite, it's called consumers which has on numerous occasions forced Internet providers change the way they were doing business. Yes, they are only concerned about profit, without customers there is no profit so we have significantly more power over them than we do gov agencies.

straightUp Loc: California

Actually, I didn't say Bush was a conservative, but he was a Republican and conservatives did defend the actions of his administration more than liberals ever did.


:) - the worst by a wide margin as far as I am concerned.


*some* corruption? You must be referring to the relatively few cases where they get caught. Did I mention that I've had first hand experience with corruption? The nature of my business puts me in a place where I actually see how rampant corporate corruption is on nearly a daily basis. Most of it is what I call "low-level corruption"... as in unethical but "loop-hole" legal and not worth loosing my job over, that same level of corruption in the government easily becomes headline news - especially if the loyal opposition can leverage the exposure.


Usually for corporate corruption to be exposed, it had to have been bad enough that someone was willing to sacrifice his/her career to blow a whistle. Yes, of course these cases usually face prosecution. But I seriously don't think you're seeing an accurate comparison. You seem to be suggesting that corporate corruption is limited to what get's heard by the courts. If government was as closed as the corporation regarding internal matters the only exposure we would see to government corruption would depend likewise on those willing to blow the whistle like Eric Snowden did.


If by "liar and chief" you mean Obama (I don't understand the childish need to be derogatory) then no. I don't think the current administration is transparent. I think the recent NSA exposure should have made that obvious to anyone who thought otherwise. I *so* think there have been some very real actions taken by the current administration to make it more transparent than it was before.


Call it what you like, but I have actually been told that directly by conservatives during the Bush administration... on numerous occasions. I've noticed that conservative can be very devoted to the government when they think the right people are running the show.


Nah... not really. It's not a relative thing for me. I don't trust either one any more than the other, which is the same as saying I don't distrust either one more than I distrust the other.

All I said is that the government's accountability to the people gives me reason to feel more comfortable with the government, but only because that accountability makes it more difficult for the government to get away with it, not because I trust them more.

If you're saying you distrust one more than the other it means you actually do trust the other one more... And the only reason for that from what I can tell... is that your understanding of corporate corruption is limited to the few cases where they got caught. I could be wrong on this one but I also sensed an apologist lean from you when you said that when corporations get exposed, they are usually prosecuted. Are you suggesting that this somehow reverses or erases the corrupt character of the action that lead to the prosecution? It's seems when a government official is prosecuted the case becomes a slap in the face confirmation of the corruption.

Anigav6969

I couldn't ignore this incredibly ignorant statement....the govt screws up everything??? ....are you on medicare ? ...give it up......social security? ..give it up ....what about the National Institutes for Health ? The Centers for Disease Control ? They've practically eradicated Polio...Consumer Protection.....Clean water, Clean Air, National Weather Service, the FDA.....I could go on....but why bother? You probably use things every day that's run by the government...you are just oblivious to it.....you live in a bubble