House Rejects Net Neutrality... the bastards

[Cole]

People keep saying, "They now can" etc... No they could have done it before to.
The rejection of this dosn't legalize or change anything. I'm sure if an ISP does go insane and starts doing things this a bill could easily be brought back up and passed.

 

[15357]

:/

You got it later than us. Some sites are said to be monitered by ISPs closely, and We even get arrested for flaming politicians.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

:/

You got it later than us. Some sites are said to be monitered by ISPs closely, and We even get arrested for flaming politicians.

Your shitting me right??! Unless your sending them emails thats just wrong.

 

[15357]

Under the Fair Voting/Elections Law, we are not allowed to flame politicians on public internet message boards, if the statement is within 20 months of election date you can get arrested.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

20months?? Christ, there is a campaigning blackout of the elections 24 hours before(No ads or going around the place) but more then a year before an election you can't say that some politician is an idiot?

 

[99.vikram]

I love this mentality. Opposing government "interference" for the sake of it. For your information, net neutrality denied your ISP the ability to screw around with what you can or can't visit and established a base of fairness for all users.

Capitalism is almost always less damaging than tight government controls over an industry/service. Governments can misuse their powers, and do the damage before being voted out. Capitalistic enterprises always try to give their consumers the best deal to lure them.

 

[15357]

20months?? Christ, there is a campaigning blackout of the elections 24 hours before(No ads or going around the place) but more then a year before an election you can't say that some politician is an idiot?

Well, you can, but you get to go to prison. (I might be wrong on the time, it might be 12 months.)

However, they don't really enforce it that much, they get the ones that are like: "*insert name here* is a ****ed up ****ing ****tard who shouldn't be alive" and post it a LOT (like 200 times).



And you can sue people for flaming you on the net.

And you need to use your real name on the 'net as well.

 

[Ludah]

Capitalism is almost always less damaging than tight government controls over an industry/service. Governments can misuse their powers, and do the damage before being voted out. Capitalistic enterprises always try to give their consumers the best deal to lure them.

Which will also consist of smearing/impeding competition and redirecting your customers to your partners and associates for the purpose of profit. When telecom giants have the ability to restrict you to a site or product of their choosing and impeding or outright denying access to alternatives or the competition, it's the customer getting screwed. I could switch ISP's, but then that would still be the same crap, just on the other side of the fence. I personally have no faith in some assumed benevolence in these companies.

What exactly in this amendment would give way to government abuse? I could understand your issue if they, for instance, proposed monitoring and filtering the internet for vaguely-labelled "dangerous content". But this just assures that a fair and equal flow of information is available to everybody.

 

[Kangy]

Congrats for ensuring that you live in a democracy Numbers.

Oh, and if you don't want Net Neutrality, I will fight you. With my fists.

 

[15357]

Congrats for ensuring that you live in a democracy Numbers.

Oh, and if you don't want Net Neutrality, I will fight you. With my fists.

We do live in a democracy, but due to the laws trying to ensure that we live in a democracy, democracy here is not the libertairian version that you guys seem to prefer..

 

[Kangy]

If you cannot criticise those you are electing, it is not democracy.

 

[Lucid]

Aw ****.

 

[gick]

Capitalism is almost always less damaging than tight government controls over an industry/service. Governments can misuse their powers, and do the damage before being voted out. Capitalistic enterprises always try to give their consumers the best deal to lure them.

Are you suggesting that corporations will not 'misuse their powers'?

*cough* Bhopal*cough*

TBH, I have more trust in a group of elected representatives who are ultimately responsible to the people, than a group of businessmen whose sole purpose is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time.

 

[kirovman]

Hitler got to power via Democracy.

But you couldn't say anything bad about him in the elections over fear of stormtroopers.

 

[theotherguy]

We do live in a democracy, but due to the laws trying to ensure that we live in a democracy, democracy here is not the libertairian version that you guys seem to prefer..

I'm starting to realize that you guys are not so much different than the north koreans....thousands of US soldiers died so that you guys could become....an authoritarian milatist state?

 

[Raeven0]

This thread started looking a lot better when the other people who understand that you can't trust big business arrived.

 

[Krynn72]

Im not too familiar with how the passing of this stuff works, but does this mean that it is rejected for good? Doesnt someone else have to vote on it before its official? Maybe we should all send emails and letters and unlabeled brown packages to our senators to get them to vote this in.

 

[kirovman]

I'm starting to realize that you guys are not so much different than the north koreans....thousands of US soldiers died so that you guys could become....an authoritarian milatist state?

It's not the democracy that's important, it's how they are alligned with respect to the US.

"You're either with us or against us"

 

[JNightshade]

I wish I could say that wasn't the case, but unfortunately, he's right :/

man, f*ck this country. I'm moving to Costa Rica.

 

[15357]

I'm starting to realize that you guys are not so much different than the north koreans....thousands of US soldiers died so that you guys could become....an authoritarian milatist state?

HA! I wish. If that were the case, our current president would have been sentenced to death for treason.

Oh wait, he did. But it would have actually been carried out, you see.

It's not the democracy that's important, it's how they are alligned with respect to the US.

"You're either with us or against us"

Oh yeah.


ANTI COMMUNISM IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY!

-Campaign Slogan, 1959


ACHIEVING PROSPERITY, DOING IT RIGHT.

-Campaign Slogan, 2002


LET US HAVE REVENGE UPON THE SCARECROW NORTHERN ARMY! NEVER FORGET!

REPORT SPIES. GO TO YOUR NEAREST POLICE STATION.

-Billboard (No highways at that time), 1955


PEACEFUL UNIFICATION IS OUR DREAM!

REPORT SPIES. CALL 113.

-Highway billboard, 2006.


South Korea is a democratic state.... in which the leader (president) is elected by votes.

-Encyclopedia


You see? We've changed a lot.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, now instead of reporting communist spies, you're just reporting "spies" in general.

Seriously, your hard-on for fascism is entirely inexplicable.

"I want less freedoms for some reason!"

 

[15357]

Yeah, now instead of reporting communist spies, you're just reporting "spies" in general.

Seriously, your hard-on for fascism is entirely inexplicable.

"I want less freedoms for some reason!"

Perhaps its because I think in binarical ways.

"There are only 2 types of people in this world. The good, and the communists"


Perhps its just nationalistic militarism combined with imperialism. :/

 

[Raeven0]

I wanted to come back to this thread after I had done significant research on the topic, so here I am.

People keep saying, "They now can" etc... No they could have done it before to.

It was the June 2005 case of National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services that gave cable ISPs their first taste of big-business orgasm. Since cable Internet service is (ridiculously) classified as an information service, not a telecommunication service, cable ISPs are exempt from many of the rules that previously governed the Internet.

The rejection of this dosn't legalize or change anything.

Technically, nothing new has been legalised. However, the rejection of this amendment is strong evidence that a significant portion of the US government doesn't care about the freedom of the Internet. Specifically, Republicans. Any fear that the ISPs might have had about exercising their newfound freedom from law has been effectively destroyed.

I'm not saying ther government should always intervene. That it's always a bad thing or a good thing. But just look at the amendment. There was NOTHING unreasonable about it.

Correct. Government intervention can be very good or very bad, conditionally. Evidently, though, the fact that there is NOTHING unreasonable about an amendment to ensure the freedom of the Internet means nothing to some of the posters here. Irony?

Here's a solution - Nationalise the ISP's.

I'm going to assume you were joking, because that's the most ridiculous "solution" it is possible to create--besides perhaps banning the Internet entirely...

And when this happens consumers will just switch to another ISP. The only true danger to freedom is letting the govt. control everything.

Surprisingly, forcing all broadband ISPs to treat all Internet content equally is not close to or even remotely related to "letting the govt. control everything".

But the world of ISP's isn't ruled by one conglomerate. It's a competitive world, and the competition will keep things in check.

Where is your precious competition when the CEOs of both AT&T and Verizon have said that they plan to charge Google and other Web sites for the privilege of operating on their pipes?

ISPs exist to make money. Without government regulation bandwidth will be distrubuted to the highest bidder. This is, in spite of what you're saying, a very bad thing. Internet will become like cable, and it will be a place devoid of small buisness and smalltime users. They can now legally charge us to access certain sites, and can keep us from acessing sites at all if its not in our internet plan.

This means speeds on most sites will go drastically down, while we will only get a small boost in speeds on ultramegasites. This also means, as ISP's now have the right to cater to any company and use bandwidth unfairly, that our internet bills will rise to cover these "extended service" sites.

Do you seriously beleive deregulation is a good thing for the consumer in a case like this? Just consider the energy market. In texas, when deregulation began in the energy market, our choices went from one government institution to one huge megacorporation, and our gas, electricity and heating bills rose by THREE HUNDRED PERCENT! It definatley does not help the market when you have absolutley no regulation and at the same time no competition.

You win the prize for Best Post In Thread.

For further reading:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060601-6959.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05238.html
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html [c'mon, you know something's wrong when Google is taking a political stance]
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, the law that previously prevented ISPs from randomly blocking whatever they felt like blocking
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, which allowed cable ISPs to bypass that law

 

[French Ninja]

Ha ha, America; you're ****ed.
That's what a general atmosphere of complacency gets you: a big heaping bowl of totalitarianism.

Welcome to Jesusworld. Population: You.

I know America bashing is a popular thing to do these days, but I must ask you something...

Do you live in America?
Really, I don't mean just visit but actually live here. If you were to live here you would know that we are far from a totalitarian government. We have multiple political parties, free elections and if I really did live in a totalitarian society, would so many American liberals be able to publish their left wing rhetoric? I didn't think so.

 

[99.vikram]

America is bashed for a reason. You have gone to war with more countries than most nations could dream of. And you elected Bush.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't know where I live, but I do know that people are all too willing to vote their freedoms away in your country.
Let's see what you've got:

Secret prisons? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_prison_system

People arrested and confined indefinitely without trial? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantánamo_Bay_detainment_camp

Widespread illegal spying on (and tracking of) its entire populace? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_wiretapping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_vs._AT&T

Crackdown on the media? Check.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html

And now the internet is no longer free from interference and restriction by telecom companies - the same companies who willingly told the government every website you've visited and every phone call you've made.
Check.

Oh hey, now we're conducting an illegal invasion of a smaller country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Iraq_War

Oh, and now here's an unconstitutional religious law (supported, as of 2004, by around 60% of americans).

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=107290

And here's another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

And another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Oh yeah, and torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition


But what would I know?
I don't live there.
After all, even if all these things irrefutably exist, you can still vote for them to keep happening.

Anyways, right now it's just the minorities getting hurt. Nothing is wrong unless it happens to you personnally.
Remember what I said about complacency?

Ha ha, America.

 

[French Ninja]

America is bashed for a reason. You have gone to war with more countries than most nations could dream of. And you elected Bush.

Really? You act like the only wars going on right now are caused by America, with 20 other wars going on right now, only 2 include the US. If I remember correctly, the shithole that is now the 3rd World was not caused by imperialist Americans but by the interests of imperialist Europeans(gasp!).
And since the current president which you hate as well as my country won the election by a very slim majority, that gives you the right to badmouth the entire country?

Give me a break.

 

[Jintor]

I, personally, like to think it's the image that your country, as a majority, presents, that makes the rest of the world look shifty-eyed at America.

Is freedom of the internet the same as freedom of the press? Should we start printing cartoons about Muhammad?

 

[Ludah]

I don't know where I live, but I do know that people are all too willing to vote their freedoms away in your country.

So. ****ing. True.

I am often astonished by how much the average American is ambivalent to the workings of his or her country. Or worse, supports a reduction of liberties for the sake of security, "family values", or because "Bush is a man of God".

If you ever brought up that list and applied it to another country, they'd shake their head, condemn them, and perhaps even condone an invasion. But when it pertains to their own homeland, it gets little more than a shrug of the shoulders. I actually attempted to explain the concept of net neutrality to somebody the other day. At the end of my five-minute explanation, he gave me this puzzled look and said "So?".

The US administration doesn't even need strongarm tactics, since the people don't give a crap one way or the other.

 

[15357]

I don't know where I live, but I do know that people are all too willing to vote their freedoms away in your country.
Let's see what you've got:

Secret prisons? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_prison_system

People arrested and confined indefinitely without trial? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantánamo_Bay_detainment_camp

Widespread illegal spying on (and tracking of) its entire populace? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_wiretapping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_vs._AT&T

Crackdown on the media? Check.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html

And now the internet is no longer free from interference and restriction by telecom companies - the same companies who willingly told the government every website you've visited and every phone call you've made.
Check.

Oh hey, now we're conducting an illegal invasion of a smaller country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Iraq_War

Oh, and now here's an unconstitutional religious law (supported, as of 2004, by around 60% of americans).

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=107290

And here's another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

And another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Oh yeah, and torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition


But what would I know?
I don't live there.
After all, even if all these things irrefutably exist, you can still vote for them to keep happening.

Anyways, right now it's just the minorities getting hurt. Nothing is wrong unless it happens to you personnally.
Remember what I said about complacency?

Ha ha, America.

Voting away the so-called 'freedoms' is a freedom in itself. Its their right to do so. In order to achieve better security, better social welfare, and better order, there must be some sacrifices.

 

[Solaris]

I'm going to assume you were joking, because that's the most ridiculous "solution" it is possible to create--besides perhaps banning the Internet entirely...

Nope I'm very serious. The internet could be very cheap, as it wouldn't be run for profit.

 

[Ludah]

Voting away the so-called 'freedoms' is a freedom in itself. Its their right to do so. In order to achieve better security, better social welfare, and better order, there must be some sacrifices.

Yes, it is a freedom to do so, in and of itself. It's just an extremely ****ing STUPID one.

How exactly a reduction in liberties achieves any of what you've described is something I'm curious to hear. To me, such a thing sounds like a desparate act from an incompetent government.

 

[15357]

Yes, it is a freedom to do so, in and of itself. It's just an extremely ****ing STUPID one.

How exactly a reduction in liberties achieves any of what you've described is something I'm curious to hear. To me, such a thing sounds like a desparate act from an incompetent government.

*secret police mode*

Shut up and enjoy freedom! *bashes Ludah on head*


As an example, the National Security Law prohibits communism. And therefore people do not get brainwashed by the evils of communism. And that will lead to social stability due to the lack of revolutionaries.

Hows that?

 

[ríomhaire]

*secret police mode*

Shut up and enjoy freedom! *bashes Ludah on head*


As an example, the National Security Law prohibits communism. And therefore people do not get brainwashed by the evils of communism. And that will lead to social stability due to the lack of revolutionaries.

Hows that?

It sounds like you've been brainwashed

 

[Raeven0]

As an example, the National Security Law prohibits communism. And therefore people do not get brainwashed by the evils of communism. And that will lead to social stability due to the lack of revolutionaries.

Unfortunately, the United States government made up the same kinds of laws after both World Wars so that it could prevent Communist activity within the country.

Anyway. I'm sure most people would agree that the "freedoms" to kill whomever you please, to **** babies in their sleep, and to drive an active battle tank to work in the morning are probably not very good freedoms to have. And so it is with the ability to permanently vote away all of your freedoms and subjugate yourself to brainwashing, propaganda, ignorance is strength, etc.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yay. One thing I find at least heartening is that some of the big businesses - Google, Yahoo - are against this. Any protest movement to this bullshit might have serious credibility if backed up by names like that. Still hope yet?

Nope I'm very serious. The internet could be very cheap, as it wouldn't be run for profit.

Solaris, you're even more naive than I thought if you believe any government could resist the temptation to use such a circumstance to clamp down on the internet and strangle all sites that oppose it.

As an example, the National Security Law prohibits communism. And therefore people do not get brainwashed by the evils of communism. And that will lead to social stability due to the lack of revolutionaries.

Except communism only gains popularity if your economy and the state of your nation is totally f*cking godawful. Do you have any idea how bad it had to get in Russia before the Revolution was able to take place? The only time you need laws like that are when your country is going down the tubes; in times of economic prosperity they're unnecessary. So in fact, claiming that you need them to ensure the stablity of society is bullshit - because if your society is stable then you don't need them.

Plus, banning outlets of speech only makes the voices angrier.

 

[Solaris]

Solaris, you're even more naive than I thought if you believe any government could resist the temptation to use such a circumstance to clamp down on the internet and strangle all sites that oppose it.

Private providers would still be aloud to exist, and the internet could be run by an Internet union of internet uses who vote on the regulations.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Note the 'would be'. In an ideal society. All you said was 'state-run internet'. If it was run with private providers and regulated by an independent committee, how would that be state run?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Voting away the so-called 'freedoms' is a freedom in itself. Its their right to do so. In order to achieve better security, better social welfare, and better order, there must be some sacrifices.

No, because then you would vote away your ability to vote, and that's clearly not in anyone's best interests.

See, your fatal flaw is that you (and many, many people like you across the world) don't understand the difference between "pure" democracy (which is a flawed system at least equally as evil as communism) and constitutional democracy.

In a "pure" democracy, it's essentially mob rule. The majority rules over the minority and senseless oppression is inevitable.
The irony is that, since people are being oppressed, the "pure" democracy instantly breaks down. There's simply no way the minority can win except through suddenly out-populating the others.
(Assuming that the majority hasn't disenfranchised them or put them in camps yet. Or captured them as spies.)

What you have is essentially a "pure" democracy.
What China has is a essentially a "pure" democracy.

So when you go around saying "OH WELL I GUESS I VE BEEN BRAINWASHED LOL I'LL KEEP SUPPORTING COMMUNIST-STYLE TACTICS LOL LOL" you sound like a right idiot.

When the majority controls the population to such a harmful extent, it is communism.

You may as well start kneeling in front of a poster of Mao.

 

[kirovman]

Note the 'would be'. In an ideal society. All you said was 'state-run internet'. If it was run with private providers and regulated by an independent committee, how would that be state run?

I suppose from that point of view, our railways are state-run.