'Net Neutrality'

[javacontour]

That was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaking on the ACA.

She was reported to say that you have to pass the ACA bill to see what was in the bill.

So much for the most open and transparent administration in history. (B.O. 2009)

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 02SE

This is not a bill to pass


You missed the point.


Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"


No bill is being passed.


No kidding.

Again, you missed the point.


I'm responding to your post. What does

Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"


mean?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
... There are two Republican commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly who refuse to submit any comments - thus we don't get to see what is in it.


Looks to me like their comments are up.

Still no obvious link to the text of the actual rule.

It's still secret from us plebes. I guess great things can only be accomplished in secret.

 

[Mystic]

Well, regardless if it is for the better or the worse we now have to live with it. My guess is the cost of using the internet will go up, and innovation may be slowed down.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: 02SE
"We need to pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it!"


Exactly no one got to vote on this it was just passed by a panel of political hacks.
300 pages and no one even knows whats in it.
Stupid bastar.s will never learn, you would think from the ACA catastrophe they would learn to read these things before shoving it down peoples throat for their own good.

That 300 pages could have anything imaginable in it.
Lets just call it hope and change.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
That was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaking on the ACA.

She was reported to say that you have to pass the ACA bill to see what was in the bill.

So much for the most open and transparent administration in history. (B.O. 2009)



You mean the taken out of context and incorrectly reported statement?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: javacontour
That was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaking on the ACA.

She was reported to say that you have to pass the ACA bill to see what was in the bill.

So much for the most open and transparent administration in history. (B.O. 2009)



You mean the taken out of context and incorrectly reported statement?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/


That's a nice spin on her part, after the fact. She (or more likely her advisers) realized she stepped in it, again, and tried to twist her statement into what she wanted us to believe she meant.

I also have to laugh at someone now coming to her defense, when they didn't even know what the quote meant, until it was explained to them today.

The point was and is: More regulation forced upon the populace by our all-knowing, benevolent (cough) Leaders, without the populace having the benefit of knowing what exactly is being foisted upon them.

 

[Trav]

Its a formula that works just fine for them. Look at the comments of some of the supposedly educated people in this thread, they think its the greatest thing since indoor toilets.
Its all for the good of the collective, comrade. LOL

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Its a formula that works just fine for them. Look at the comments of some of the supposedly educated people in this thread, they think its the greatest thing since indoor toilets.
Its all for the good of the collective, comrade. LOL


It warms my heart when vocal people show how upset they are when things don't go their team's way.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
It warms my heart when vocal people show how upset they are when things don't go their team's way.


They'd start whining even more when BITOG becomes one of those sites that slows to a crawl because Helen didn't pay your ISP for "premium bandwidth".

At least all they ever actually do is whine. Thank heavens for the internet, where they can whine less out loud and more harmlessly on web sites, beyond which their whining rarely extends.

 

[javacontour]

Combine her statements with those of, IIRC, Dan Gruber (the American people are not smart enough...) and I believe that's a more accurate view of how the policy makers view the citizens and voters of this nation.

Instead of saying the bill has to be passed to see it, why didn't the "honorable" speaker simply present the bill, quoting page, line, paragraph, etc if there was such mis-information out there?

Instead of using facts, she tried to be clever. It backfired big time.

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: javacontour
That was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaking on the ACA.

She was reported to say that you have to pass the ACA bill to see what was in the bill.

So much for the most open and transparent administration in history. (B.O. 2009)



You mean the taken out of context and incorrectly reported statement?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Trav
Its a formula that works just fine for them. Look at the comments of some of the supposedly educated people in this thread, they think its the greatest thing since indoor toilets.
Its all for the good of the collective, comrade. LOL


It warms my heart when vocal people show how upset they are when things don't go their team's way.


Wait 2 years then we will see who's upset. LOL

 

[Nick R]

The only people who should be upset by this are big ISPs because it means they can no longer do as they wish without any regard for the consumer.


Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Mykl
It warms my heart when vocal people show how upset they are when things don't go their team's way.


They'd start whining even more when BITOG becomes one of those sites that slows to a crawl because Helen didn't pay your ISP for "premium bandwidth".

At least all they ever actually do is whine. Thank heavens for the internet, where they can whine less out loud and more harmlessly on web sites, beyond which their whining rarely extends.


No see, they'd be HAPPY about that. They'd rather be subjected to higher fees from corporations, because it's all good right? It's capitalism! It's profit! So it's ok if they charge more because profit is the only thing that matters right? /sarcasm

 

[Trav]

Whats is in this 300 pages? Did you read it? Has anybody read it? How can you or anyone say this or anything about it is good?

 

[Nick R]

One other thing that wasn't really discussed was this part

Click to reveal..



Which is really important, because anything that helps competition is good for the consumer. Right now, other than sheer cost of fiber, is the difficulty new ISPs have in deploying fiber because oftentimes, poles are owned by the phone company (who are also utilities under Title II) like to charge higher rates for pole or conduit access. Google had a tough time in Austin, due to AT&T not wanting to release pole access to them to roll out fiber, because they didn't want the competition. Anti-competetive behavior is illegal, and it's great the FCC included this in the open net order.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Whats is in this 300 pages? Did you read it? Has anybody read it? How can you or anyone say this or anything about it is good?


The fact that the big ISPs hate it is clear enough reason that it's good for the consumer, as you'd be hard pressed to find companies which have less regard for their customers, are more anti-consumer, or act in more anti-competetive ways.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Everyone buys into these catchy names. This "net neutrality" ruing will make the net neutral about like the Affordable Care Act lowered medical care costs.


The government weren't the ones who came up with the name "net neutrality" It' a concept that has been around for years. It simply means that all traffic on the internet, all sites, are treated equally by ISPs and other carriers.

 

[Nate1979]

I'm wondering if on my next flight I should sit in first class without paying for first class fare and just say to the stewardesses that I want "flight neutrality."

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I'm wondering if on my next flight I should sit in first class without paying for first class fare and just say to the stewardesses that I want "flight neutrality."



Stop being stupid. I pay TWC $65/mo for 50/5. I should not have to pay extra to get faster speeds for specific sites. A $8 "streaming video" package, to take advantage of the 50mbps I already pay for.

Your argument is [censored] stupid, because it implies people should have to pay extra to take advantage of that which they are already paying for.

They sell us INTERNET. Not "we sell you the privilege of needing to pay us even more for access to pieces of the internet"

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: 02SE

I also have to laugh at someone now coming to her defense, when they didn't even know what the quote meant, until it was explained to them today.



I knew exactly what the quote meant, you'd have to be under a rock not to have heard it as the right has been repeating it at nauseam for 5 years. My point was that the comment had nothing to do with this thread. It's not a bill to pass - but sounds great to toss around. Might as well thrown in Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: hatt
Everyone buys into these catchy names. This "net neutrality" ruing will make the net neutral about like the Affordable Care Act lowered medical care costs.


The government weren't the ones who came up with the name "net neutrality" It' a concept that has been around for years. It simply means that all traffic on the internet, all sites, are treated equally by ISPs and other carriers.
Doesn't matter how it came around. It's now being used to do whatever the 300+ page secret ruling says. Clearly they didn't need 300+ pages to say that ISPs need to be "neutral." So clearly there's going to be [censored] loads of [censored]. We'll see when the stuff is finally released. Unfortunately you guys will have invested so much time defending some utopian idea you'll never be able to admit you were totally wrong.