User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:37:21 AM EDT
[#1]
What they cannot pass; they will do by regulation through the back door with the 'appointees'.
It is a very dangerous path that they tread upon... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:40:16 AM EDT
[#2]
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.
 It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:47:09 AM EDT
[#3]
Never hold water if challenged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:51:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.
It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists. and yet they keep getting away with it. kind of like a child who keeps pushing, and pushing, and pushing that proverbial envelope. When are we, the taxpayers, going to bend them over our laps? I hope - for the betterment of our republic - that it happens in `10 and `12 as a clear and reasounding "GET OUT." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:55:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Rush, hannity, Beck, and Levin, along with Fox will focus on this. And that will lower the heat on whatever topic they would normally have been hitting. Takes the heat off healthcare, off acorn, off corruption and czars.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:56:10 AM EDT
[#6]
Holy shit.
THIS IS NOT GOOD |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:58:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.
It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists. The violence that nazi pelosi was talking about in San Fran in the late 70's WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS. A leftist murdered the mayor and that other guy. But for her to LIE and blame it on conservatives is par for a LYING LEFTIST CUNT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:59:27 AM EDT
[#8]
In a speech Monday, Mr. Genachowski is expected to lay out his rational for the new rules, which would extend so-called net neutrality principles over wireless companies and would set a new rule requiring all Internet providers to use "reasonable" network-management practices in dealing with Internet traffic, according to people familiar with the proposal.
The FCC currently has four net neutrality principles, which require Internet providers to treat legal Internet data equally and prohibit companies from deliberately blocking or slowing traffic. So what is wrong with this? Phone carriers don't get to decide who you can and can't call, or what you talk about, why should ISP's? Data is data, it shouldn't matter if its a torrent, chat, music or whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:02:17 AM EDT
[#9]
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:06:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing? I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:13:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing? I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate. This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:17:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing? I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate. This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine." 
We'll see what it leads to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:17:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Net neutrality means that your ISP cannot deliberately slow down traffic to any specific site. Why is this a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:18:45 AM EDT
[#14]
I don't know what I am missing, but I don't see this as a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:20:35 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing? I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate. This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine." You mean I have to put the Pmag covers back on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:22:12 AM EDT
[#16]
WTF?
Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:23:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Lmao; no, they didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:25:15 AM EDT
[#18]
FUCK THAT???
Edited...Ok, I just read it. While I disagree whole-heartedly with almost ANY Gubmint laws concerning most anything, I was hard-pressed to find something sinister-evil about "Net Neutrality" Please school me on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:25:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:25:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Yeah, I dont see anything wrong with this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:26:36 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:27:25 AM EDT
[#22]
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:30:54 AM EDT
[#23]
This may turn out to be a good thing for us lowly net surfers. Probably more consistent performance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:33:07 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with. The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do. Look, I found a problem with it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:35:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am confused. Where is the bad part? It states they must treat all legal data the same, with no restrictions. What am I missing? I think people are not reading the article and confusing it with that proposal where bloggers and other online news reports would have to present both sides on a political debate. This. Read it before going off folks––-it ain't the "fairness doctrine." You mean I have to put the Pmag covers back on? You made me chuckle, thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:35:47 AM EDT
[#26]
TO ARMS! TO ARMS!.............oh......hmm...... nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:36:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with. The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do. Look, I found a problem with it +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:38:31 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: No, i tis government telling a business that they provide the services which they said they would give us.Quoted: Quoted: WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with. The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do. Look, I found a problem with it Since some of us live in the sticks, some of us only have access to one internet company. Imagine what would happen if that company wouldn't allow us to access Drudge, Townhall.com, arfcom, FNC.com........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:41:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents? Oh dear.... The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too. You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:41:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved. Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:42:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, i tis government telling a business that they provide the services which they said they would give us.
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Yeah, I can't find anything in there that I have a problem with. The GOVERNMENT telling a BUSINESS what it MUST do. Look, I found a problem with it Since some of us live in the sticks, some of us only have access to one internet company. Imagine what would happen if that company wouldn't allow us to access Drudge, Townhall.com, arfcom, FNC.com........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:44:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved. Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it. 
Obviously you don't understand what you read. ARFCOM strikes again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:44:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Net Neutrality, I thought I was OK with that?
-JTP |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:46:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence.
It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists. The violence that nazi pelosi was talking about in San Fran in the late 70's WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS. A leftist murdered the mayor and that other guy. But for her to LIE and blame it on conservatives is par for a LYING LEFTIST CUNT. "Accuse the enemy of what you do." - Lenin |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:47:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents? Oh dear.... The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too. You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope. The problem with this logic is that it is very liberal. You are deciding what AT&T has to do with their money just as the liberals are deciding what we should have to do with our money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:47:57 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved. Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it.
Obviously you don't understand what you read. ARFCOM strikes again. I'm fairly sure that I understand this better than you do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:48:21 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents? Oh dear.... The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too. You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope. So those greedy ISP's should continue to outlay money for network improvments till they make a reasonable profit? Or maybe they should make no profit and just keep upgrading the network for a minority of their user base? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:49:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Apparently not.... WASHINGTON – Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will propose new rules that would prevent Internet providers from selectively blocking Internet traffic, a move that could set off a battle between open-Internet proponents and phone and cable companies which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.
In a speech Monday, Mr. Genachowski is expected to lay out his rationale for the new rules, which would set a new rule requiring all Internet providers, including wireless carriers, to use "reasonable" network-management practices in dealing with Internet traffic, according to people familiar with the proposal. View Full Image Getty Images FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at his June confirmation hearing The FCC currently has four net neutrality principles, which require Internet providers to treat legal Internet data equally and prohibit companies from deliberately blocking or slowing traffic. President Barack Obama had pledged to the technology community that he would support net neutrality. Mr. Genachowski's proposal is designed to give the agency's net neutrality principles more legal heft in the face of possible challenges by Internet providers. Last year, Comcast Corp. challenged an FCC decision that it had violated the agency's net neutrality principles on the grounds that the FCC had never formally adopted such rules. That case is still pending in a federal appeals court. The FCC proposal would essentially codify its existing principles and erase any uncertainty over whether the rules apply to wireless carriers. Wireless companies have argued that net neutrality rules don't apply to them and that they shouldn't, since some data-heavy applications can slow their networks. Mr. Genachowski is expected to announce plans for the agency to open a formal rulemaking on the issue at its October meeting. The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the FCC's five-person board. Its three Democratic commissioners support net neutrality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:51:01 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Pelosi must have known this was coming, thus her fear of conservative violence. It's only half sarcasm; even the ultra-liberals know they are acting like extremists. The violence that nazi pelosi was talking about in San Fran in the late 70's WAS COMMITTED BY LEFTISTS. A leftist murdered the mayor and that other guy. But for her to LIE and blame it on conservatives is par for a LYING LEFTIST CUNT. I thought a councilmen murdered Milk. ETA Dan White was a city supervisor and not a left extremist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:51:05 AM EDT
[#40]
Hers a few scenarios to choose from. Youtube pays for its internet connection. You pay for your internet connection. Many users on comcast start watching youtube which uses up alot of bandwidth. Comcast tells youtube they want money to help pay for youtubes content or comcast will block youtube. The problem is comcast is upset because you are using the bandwidth you paid for. Comcast doesn't expect everyone to use their bandwidth at once. Its called oversubscribing. Comcast pays for 100mbps of bandwidth and then sells it to 100 customers advertising 10mbps speed. See the problem? They just sold 1000mbps of bandwidth when they only have 100mbps. This is how its done throughout the industry.
But see where this is going? Maybe vontage pays comcast money to give their traffic priority on comcasts network and degrade skype. Aside from asking content providers for money some ISPs like comcast have started throttling specific internet services. If I pay for 10mbps you should get 10mbps no matter what you are doing with it. Boo hoo to comcast if they don't like it. They are using heavy downloaders as a scape goat as to not provide the bandwidth they are selling. This deep inspection of network traffic may disqualify them from common carrier status. This is widely argued. But if you provide telecom service you are not liable for bad things transmitted across your lines such as viruses, illegal content, etc. BUT if you become aware of such things and you allow them through then you are liable for allowing it to happen. If ISPs start using deep inspection technology that provide them this information then they may be required to stop it or report it to the authorities. To stop or otherwise report it would require more resources than they are willing to put into it. ISPs only need to pay attention to the destination IP (and maybe the source) and route the packet. IMHO. -Foxxz |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:53:15 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
TO ARMS! TO ARMS!.............oh......hmm...... nevermind. But but ..... "President Barack Obama had pledged to the technology community that he would support net neutrality." WE MUST RESIST IT !!! OBAMA SUPPORTS IT !!!! I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS , OPPOSE IT !!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:53:24 AM EDT
[#42]
When we start seeing Mark Lloyd's name in some articles, be worried.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:54:40 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to see what the proposed rule changes are before sounding off. However, would you still have no issue with this if 30% of your users were utilizing 95% of the available bandwidth? Y'all bitch when arfcom goes down for 30 seconds what if you couldn't even check your email because all network resources were tied up downloading bit torrents? Oh dear.... The ISPs are raking in money left and right. They are starting to come up with new charges too. You would think that with all this money they could buy more switches and lay some more "wire", but nope. So those greedy ISP's should continue to outlay money for network improvments till they make a reasonable profit? Or maybe they should make no profit and just keep upgrading the network for a minority of their user base? They are running to the government for "help". Think a little man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:55:14 AM EDT
[#44]
My friends:
When you see something like this, ask yourself first and foremost: WHO/WHAT is the governmental entity is adopting this legal rule. DO THEY have any right to be exercising compulsive force of the state into THIS SUBJECT MATTER? And, If a precedent for this kind of regulatory action on the subject matter in question is set, how easy would it be to twist or abuse that power in future actions that may be related to the same subject matter but used for bad purposes? Here, I say that the FCC regulatory process (i.e., not Congressional action subject to democratic accountability) is entering into a topic –– the control of what ISP's transmit over their wires –– that once established as a precedent in terms of use of power will be likely to lead to abuses. Some day in the future you will hear someone say "THE FCC HAS HAD AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ISP TRANSMISSIONS OF CONTENT FOR A DECADE. THIS BILL REQUIRING THEM TO FILTER SUBVERSIVE SITES IS SIMPLY A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT POWER." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:55:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Did any of you brilliant revolutionaries read the article? Actually yes, and the gov should not be involved. Exactly. It is my network. You should not be telling me how to manage it.
Obviously you don't understand what you read. ARFCOM strikes again. I'm fairly sure that I understand this better than you do. You own AT&T? Or does being a network tech make it your network? It's not a liberal thing but people here always manage to twist anything they don't like that way. Liberalism opposes the free market. NN ensures a free market. A free market requires regulation of anti-competitive practices, always has, always will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:57:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Hers a few scenarios to choose from. Youtube pays for its internet connection. You pay for your internet connection. Many users on comcast start watching youtube which uses up alot of bandwidth. Comcast tells youtube they want money to help pay for youtubes content or comcast will block youtube. The problem is comcast is upset because you are using the bandwidth you paid for. Comcast doesn't expect everyone to use their bandwidth at once. Its called oversubscribing. Comcast pays for 100mbps of bandwidth and then sells it to 100 customers advertising 10mbps speed. See the problem? They just sold 1000mbps of bandwidth when they only have 100mbps. This is how its done throughout the industry. But see where this is going? Maybe vontage pays comcast money to give their traffic priority on comcasts network and degrade skype. Aside from asking content providers for money some ISPs like comcast have started throttling specific internet services. If I pay for 10mbps you should get 10mbps no matter what you are doing with it. Boo hoo to comcast if they don't like it. They are using heavy downloaders as a scape goat as to not provide the bandwidth they are selling. This deep inspection of network traffic may disqualify them from common carrier status. This is widely argued. But if you provide telecom service you are not liable for bad things transmitted across your lines such as viruses, illegal content, etc. BUT if you become aware of such things and you allow them through then you are liable for allowing it to happen. If ISPs start using deep inspection technology that provide them this information then they may be required to stop it or report it to the authorities. To stop or otherwise report it would require more resources than they are willing to put into it. ISPs only need to pay attention to the destination IP (and maybe the source) and route the packet. IMHO. -Foxxz Also this prevents this such as Comcast removing all the Ads from say .... ARFCOM , and replacing them with their own if you are a Comcast subscriber. How would ARFCOMers feel about that ? I work with this technology every day Arbor , Cloudshield, Narus (particularly scary) , you would be amazed at what we can do now . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:59:21 AM EDT
[#47]
What am I missing here?
Does this mean that I don't have to use "JobRelatedStuff.com" to get onto Arfcom when I'm sitting in an airport any more? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:04:00 AM EDT
[#48]
Net Neutrality is a good thing. The major telcoms have for a while been scheming to turn the internet into TV - where basically if you have a website you have to pay the telcom provider to 'carry' your site otherwise they throttle bandwidth to it. Net Neutrality tells them that they can't do that. The government (DOD) invented and built the internet specifically so that American computer networks can reliably communicate in the event of a disaster - they have the authority to tell the telcoms to fuck off with their schemes.
ETA: I typically hate the government, but the FCC is one of the 'good' government agencies IMO, like the FAA and NWS. They try to encourage public communication and related technology. Anything bad they do is generally attributable to Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:08:11 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
What am I missing here? Does this mean that I don't have to use "JobRelatedStuff.com" to get onto Arfcom when I'm sitting in an airport any more? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:11:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Too bad the FCC has no jurisdiction over the internet... HA HA.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
