Net neutrality is coming!!!!!

pumpingiron22

Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
It Only Takes Two Minutes for Ted Cruz to Explain Why He’s Against Net Neutrality

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ain-why-opponents-are-against-net-neutrality/
Nov. 18, 2014 12:25pm Jon Street

Share ThisTweet This

The term “net neutrality” has been flying around a lot lately. Not surprisingly, it can be a confusing topic. Luckily for opponents of the idea, Ted Cruz has released a two-minute video explaining why he and others are against it.

The administration has made its support for net neutrality increasingly clear in recent days as Obama called for the Internet to be regulated as a public utility just like water or electricity. Doing so would allow the Federal Communication Commission to oversee Internet accessibility for all consumers, without any so-called “fast lanes” for Internet service providers to give preferential treatment to higher-paying customers.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas speaks at the 2014 Values Voter Summit in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Sen. Cruz (R-Texas) railed against the president’s proposal in a YouTube video posted Monday.

“The worse thing that could happen is letting a whole bunch of politicians come in and regulate every aspect of what you’re doing,” Cruz said.

The reason the Internet has had the dynamism, opportunity, freedom and diversity it’s had, he added, is because the government hasn’t “plagued” it with many regulations.

“The innovation is happening without having to go to government and say ‘Mother, may I?’ What happens when the government starts regulating a service as a public utility is it calcifies everything and freezes it in place,” the Texas Republican said.

“The last thing you want is for five unelected bureaucrats in Washington to take charge of regulating the Internet as a public utility,” he concluded.
2015 TheBlaze Inc
 

pumpingiron22

Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said that Democrats were lining up with President Obama in favor of the F.C.C. position on net neutrality.

JABIN BOTSFORD / THE NEW YORK TIMES

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

FEBRUARY 24, 2015

WASHINGTON — Senior Republicans conceded on Tuesday that the grueling fight with President Obama over the regulation of Internet service appears over, with the president and an army of Internet activists victorious.

The Federal Communications Commissionis expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a public utility, prohibiting companies from paying for faster lanes on the Internet. While the two Democratic commissioners are negotiating over technical details, they are widely expected to side with the Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler, against the two Republican commissioners.

And Republicans on Capitol Hill, who once criticized the plan as “Obamacare for the Internet,” now say they are unlikely to pass a legislative response that would undo perhaps the biggest policy shift since the Internet became a reality.

“We’re not going to get a signed bill that doesn’t have Democrats’ support,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. “This is an issue that needs to have bipartisan support.”

RELATED COVERAGENews Analysis: The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice FEB 25, 2015F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet FEB 4, 2015Internet Taxes, Another Window Into the Net Neutrality Debate FEB 20, 2015F.C.C. Sharply Revises Definition of Broadband JAN 29, 2015


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/2...trality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?_r=0&referrer=
 

MindlessWork

Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
It's the big ISP's that are endangering the open Internet by trying to play tollkeeper and playing favorites with who pay more while blocking or slowing down those that don't have any sort of payment arrangement with said ISP's. Net neutrality's premise is solid as it makes a level playing field for everyone and for businesses of all sizes to make their presence on the Web without any sort of restrictions.

These big ISP's are forgetting the Internet was designed and the basic infrastructure built using taxpayers' money. While I am cognizant that it does cost a lot of money for an ISP to build and manage such a huge network there needs to be fairness. The USA has the slowest speeds of any developed country and that's totally pathetic as these ISP's are just moneygrubbers who fleece the public while providing subpar service.

Time for a change and Net Neutrality is a step in the right direction.
 

Voltrader

Member
It's the big ISP's that are endangering the open Internet by trying to play tollkeeper and playing favorites with who pay more while blocking or slowing down those that don't have any sort of payment arrangement with said ISP's. Net neutrality's premise is solid as it makes a level playing field for everyone and for businesses of all sizes to make their presence on the Web without any sort of restrictions.

These big ISP's are forgetting the Internet was designed and the basic infrastructure built using taxpayers' money. While I am cognizant that it does cost a lot of money for an ISP to build and manage such a huge network there needs to be fairness. The USA has the slowest speeds of any developed country and that's totally pathetic as these ISP's are just moneygrubbers who fleece the public while providing subpar service.

Time for a change and Net Neutrality is a step in the right direction.
Actually not true there are only 5 countries that have faster speeds. France not by much. Sweden 55mbps, Romania 63.5, S. Korea 97.9 mbps and Japan 63mbps these 4 almost double or even triple ours which is 33mbps. Oh yea Latvia 44mbps.

I gaurantee you this NN will bring our speeds considerably lower.
 

pumpingiron22

Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
Yes it could possibly level the playing field. But the real question is at what cost? The cost is censorship! The internet is the biggest tool in getting people together to talk communicate and speak there freedoms on what we feel it right. Its today's version of freedom of speech and its being put in danger IMO with this move. But hopefully im wrong.
 

Voltrader

Member
Yes it could possibly level the playing field. But the real question is at what cost? The cost is censorship! The internet is the biggest tool in getting people together to talk communicate and speak there freedoms on what we feel it right. Its today's version of freedom of speech and its being put in danger IMO with this move. But hopefully im wrong.
This is what worries me PI nothing good comes from government control. They should of done the same thing they did to microsoft and broke them up not take control.
 

MindlessWork

Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
This is what worries me PI nothing good comes from government control. They should of done the same thing they did to microsoft and broke them up not take control.
Microsoft never gotten broken up by the govt, but surely they were threatened with that
 

Bender83

Member
This is what worries me PI nothing good comes from government control. They should of done the same thing they did to microsoft and broke them up not take control.

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more with this. Sadly I haven't read enough about net neutrality to really add to the discussion about it, but that doesn't change the fact that more government control is not a good thing.
 

Bender83

Member
Nobody knows what it entails it is one of those pass it and then find out things. Great.

Yea, that always turns out well doesn't it lol.

I heard some guy (mayor, governer, politicion, not sure of his position) being interviewed on the radio about a tax increase for something, one of the things he said was along the lines of "yes we know it might not be the best bill, but we had to do something and this is what it is"

I mean what the fuck? You have a problem that needs solving, and you have a half assed solution and that's good enough!?
 

bdg77

Member
Microsoft never gotten broken up by the govt, but surely they were threatened with that
They were clearly in violation of antitrust laws. Which is probably why they bailed apple out of bankruptcy some years ago. Just to keep them around so as not to make it completely obvious. I believe what I'm saying is correct but I heard it so long ago I can not remember the source. From what I understand they left Microsoft intact because they were a monopoly. They left them intact so they could put their backdoor code in windows. It would be more difficult if there were five or ten different operating systems. Anyone remember Norton dos? Sun tried to sue Microsoft which got little or no media coverage for some reason. So there are reasons for things.
 

MindlessWork

Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
They were clearly in violation of antitrust laws. Which is probably why they bailed apple out of bankruptcy some years ago. Just to keep them around so as not to make it completely obvious. I believe what I'm saying is correct but I heard it so long ago I can not remember the source. From what I understand they left Microsoft intact because they were a monopoly. They left them intact so they could put their backdoor code in windows. It would be more difficult if there were five or ten different operating systems. Anyone remember Norton dos? Sun tried to sue Microsoft which got little or no media coverage for some reason. So there are reasons for things.
I say bah Microsoft, I use Linux :)
 

bdg77

Member
I say bah Microsoft, I use Linux :)
Good for you, seriously. I've been wanting to learn Linux for a while now. I know ms-dos and have seen people use the Linux dos. I know there are many versions of Linux, some more user friendly than others. I'm trying to figure out what version to start with I have Ubuntu Linux which is very windows like. Any recommendations as to which Linux is a good start? I've heard you can run it using as little as 25KB of system resources. That makes it very appealing to me to run on a little asus eee, solid state drive. No moving parts to break and use energy.
 
Top