74 Democrats defy Obama man's net neut plans Seventy-four Democratic members of the US House of Representatives have sided with telcos in the ongoing dust-up over the Federal Communications Commission efforts to preserve net neutrality. "We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and the jobs that come …
Regardless of it's apparent merits, I would always be suspicious of anything that eBay is prepared to support, because they certainly have no concept of looking after anyone but themselves.
And for anyone interested in eBay’s deviousness generally, and in particular eBay’s demonstrable and deliberate criminal facilitation of the rampant shill bidding fraud being perpetrated by many unscrupulous professional sellers on buyers, particularly on nominal-start auctions, an introduction thereto (along with some PayPal horror stories thrown in for good measure) can be found at
auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502877
Because of the enormous public outcry against Wall Street, Congresscritters are being forced to (in public, anyway) endorse "financial reform". That leaves only the MPAA and telcos as money sources for the Democrats, so you can bet they're going to suck up to those industries for dear life.
These bottom feeders don't need a reason to sell us out. In their own minds every dollar they can scam is fair game. People need to wake up to the fact that a large portion of our elected representatives are sociopaths "with the morals of a Styrofoam cup".
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/81/81bbizarro.phtml
We've been here before.
Generally, we have the Democrats and the Republicans.
(Two party system, some Moron must have thought that up.)
Aside, back in the 1950s they were called Commies and NAZIs, life goes on.
Then in the background we have the Sell Outs; our third party; our minus two fifth column.
(Not that our Newspeakers aren't doing this; well it is all lies then.)
Just saying we are as f**ked over as you are.
These people have sold out.
I think they are intelligent enough to understand the issue.
But they get paid to sound stupid.
We need more of a 'Three Stooge's style government.' Like you English chaps.
I have looked at this thing.
Except where that asshole Blair did so much damage to the House of Lords (I am thinking, are you people stupid or what; political takeover and just bend over?) For the most part you are sane. (Except for the Margaret Thatcher thing.)
We, meaning the US, need the political confusion that goes on over there.
So, can you send us some of your rejected politicos (Except Blair; sellouts are not allowed.)
"Give me your pissed off, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched politicos of your teeming shore.
Send these, the useless as hell, tempest-tossed to me,"
Better than what we got and have to spend a while figuring out where the bribes come from.
In return we will send you our latest round of nuthatches and both of us could benefit.
Where is Darpa in all of this?
They invented and they should say something like:
Information is supposed to be free.
IF I was to use a DARPA engineer brain emulator then I would assume that the FCC
is doing the right thing and to have companies have corporate ownership of data is totally wrong.
What if one day packet inspection will lead to censoring any data containing the words of competitors. Companies would call that strategic manuvering and not some kind of silencing of communication. Companies will create and invent new terminology just to get their way for newer technology just in order for them to control it even though the rail they ride it on is the internet.
We should pass a law that states you can do what ever you want on your own networks but if you dare try to impress your technology to the internet as a whole then you should be fined and a class action lawsuit should be in order.
That would be like having the majority of cisco routers intently knocking off home routers made by linksys or dlink..... So it is easy to seee that in this regard captialism will fail the internet.
The internet is for all people and devices and nobody should discriminate hardware/software/communicationspeed over the internet.
To deny FCC this would mean the internet is not as we know it today.
By allowing companies this will be the further fracturing of their own ideology of what the internet should be but that should be the consumers choice and not the company.
Let the internet remain open. Anything less and you destroy a good thing.
The fact is that the FCC is merely using "Net-Neutrality" as a smoke-screen... I.E. "the carrot"... offered to lure the uninformed into accepting sweeping -new- "regulatory" powers being given to the FCC.
Specifically, the FCC is (and has been) desperate to assume the power to regulate "the Internet" (including; "content", "use", and "applications). In fact, the, alleged, "Net-Neutrality regulations" that the FCC has actually already been touting would, very specifically (and by design), actually allow exactly the very discriminatory, anti-consumer, overbearing, traffic-throttling, content-monitoring, and connection-terminations, that Comcast committed (and were repeatedly caught lying about)... as long as an "ISP" deceptively called it "...network-management" (...exactly as Comcast did).
...So much for protecting "consumers".
No... what the FCC is currently doing only has one real goal, and that is, empowering the FCC's (arbitrary, and legislatively-unchecked) -regulatory- authority over the Internet. The simple fact is that, If... "Net-Neutrality" (and, not, blanket, "regulatory" authority over the Internet) was the real goal, the U.S. Congress does, already, have the legal-authority to pass a comprehensive, and binding, statute to that effect.
...So, "Net-Neutrality" (...which I, whole-heartedly, support) is, simply, not the real issue, here.
And the FCC's FAILED and MISSING mission statement was:
Under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged
with allocating spectrum space to maximize "the public interest, convenience,
or necessity. The Communications Act and its revisions mandate
promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity
of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.
no way they should get more authority.
This whole issue is very funny to watch. When a huge wealthy industry needs some laws passed, they just buy the right people in Washington, and it gets done. But when another huge wealthy industry opposes those laws, things must get confusing, which party to bribe? Maybe with the mid-terms coming up they're better off bribing some Republicans? Oh, now who am I kidding? In a one party state, it makes no odds.
I posted while drunk.
What I really meant to say is.
Jesus Fucking Christ, how stupid can people get?
I do not need my MTV, what I need is some ISP or Telco to be honest and aboveboard.
We have assholes here in the 'states' that are screwing with the IP packets.
We have to tell our customers that they 'have to get secure servers'. well what is up with that?
(this was a kind of horror from beyond space kind of thing; mfs were using deep packet inspection to drop adds into the web page. Hello stupid MFs, do not kill the host.}
Pay twice.
That is what 'net neutrality' is all about; pay some assh*le telco twice.
And here in the states we have a bunch of.
Goddamn sell out politicians; right you f*cking assholes.
Give the country to the Goddamn Republicans.
Really, retire to your country estates.
Paid for by the Goddamn assholes that you. . .
You know what?
F*ck it.
I am going to run for office.
Why not?
Every one else here is getting money to be useless.
We actually need some honest people to supply us with Internet access.
Let's talk about that one.
Google is a multi-national entity, with so many servers and sysadmin requirements that they design their own datacenters and a lot of the hardware that is used therein.
It takes the likes of IBM to do that, nobody else has the clout.
Google is now over 10,000 employees (if you trust their corporate page, and why not on that matter) worldwide. Google is the single most important search engine on the Web, no other can even start to threaten it.
Whatever its faults, Google has brought a raft of useful tools (toys ?) to the general user, and that free of charge. Nobody has done so much to make the Web so useful, not even Microsoft.
All of that happened under a regime of Net Neutrality.
I'd like those congressrats to tell me how Google would have become what it is now if, in 1998, there had been no Net Neutrality.
And I'd like even more for someone to explain to me why I should see a tiered service when everyone who is connected pays full price for their bandwidth. Seems to me that there should be more than enough bandwidth to spare for whatever is supposed to be going through the pipes.
And as for network infrastructure costs, well cry me a river. Those telcos are practically printing money, so it's not a measly million bucks for a fiber-optics line that is going to keep the CEO from getting his $100 million yearly bonus, now is it ?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
