Looks like Net Neutrality is going to pass, could have been a major game changer for many!

[Wizzo]

WASHINGTON ? New rules aimed at prohibiting broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers of Internet traffic now have just enough votes to pass the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday.

The rules would prohibit phone and cable companies from abusing their control over broadband connections to discriminate against rival content or services, such as Internet phone calls or online video, or play favorites with Web traffic.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski now has the three votes needed for approval, despite firm opposition from the two Republicans on the five-member commission. Genachowski's two fellow Democrats said Monday they will vote for the rules, even though they consider them too weak.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101221/...net_neutrality

[MetaMan]

We are all fucked that is for sure.

[Agent 488]

it's toothless so who cares? look forward to an internet down to the top 100 current sites and everyone here going back to what they did 10-15 years ago.

[pristine]

just went out of business forever. merry christmas.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Woohoo! More regulation! Let's fix what ain't broken.

War on the Mexican border? What war?!

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Woohoo! More regulation! Let's fix what ain't broken.

From the way I read it they are making sure the big broadband companies don't break it and keep it the way it is...

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by Wizzo

From the way I read it they are making sure the big broadband companies don't break it and keep it the way it is...

Many people say it doesn't go far enough. I guess I'll have to read the whole thing and come to an educated opinion of it for myself since there's so much spin.

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by Wizzo

From the way I read it they are making sure the big broadband companies don't break it and keep it the way it is...

"Genakowski" do the math.

The government is giving itself an excuse to monitor ALL content delivery.

America + Canada + Britain = Socialist > Communist

[CIVMatt]

I'm confused that sounds like a good thing you posted

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by CIVMatt

I'm confused that sounds like a good thing you posted

America is supposed to be a free market and you see no problem with government regulating it?

we are doomed honestly. nothing like some fancy wording to "sound like a good thing".

shouldn't the consumers get to decide who they use and not have government come in and regulate it?

are you a socialist?

[Vendzilla]

Yeah government regulation works so well in the past

[CIVMatt]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

America is supposed to be a free market and you see no problem with government regulating it?

we are doomed honestly. nothing like some fancy wording to "sound like a good thing".

shouldn't the consumers get to decide who they use and not have government come in and regulate it?

are you a socialist?

The goal of the regulations is to prevent powerful phone and cable companies from rigging the online marketplace by giving priority to their own offerings or those of deep-pocketed business partners, such as TV shows or movies streaming through the Internet, or by slowing down those of competitors.

It sounds like what you're fighting against?

I don't fully understand it, but that reads like they are protecting customers

[vanillaice]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

America is supposed to be a free market and you see no problem with government regulating it?

we are doomed honestly. nothing like some fancy wording to "sound like a good thing".

shouldn't the consumers get to decide who they use and not have government come in and regulate it?

are you a socialist?

I'm also confused. It sounds like this is to help companies like comcast not screw over smaller blogs/sites who can't afford to pay premium fees to be on the web.

I don't know much about the bill, however.

[babymaker]

Just passed by 3 votes So guess this is goodbye too everyone

[Farang]

So... is the sky falling or not?

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by babymaker

Just passed by 3 votes So guess this is goodbye too everyone

How do you figure?

[pornguy]

Dont worry about whats on the cover page of it.. worry about whats burried on page 1264

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Yeah government regulation works so well in the past

like with roosevelt's trust busting?

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Dont worry about whats on the cover page of it.. worry about whats burried on page 1264

that's it.

net neutrality is needed for anyone who currently makes money on the net. without it you're most likely fucked, unless you can get a gig with verizon, comcast or the top 100 sites on the net.

although it passed, this bill is a joke and sellout to corporate power.

back to managing the shoe store.

[CamsMaster]

so that's it with the freedom of internet ?

[u-Bob]

More government interference

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by CIVMatt

The goal of the regulations is to prevent powerful phone and cable companies from rigging the online marketplace by giving priority to their own offerings or those of deep-pocketed business partners, such as TV shows or movies streaming through the Internet, or by slowing down those of competitors.

It sounds like what you're fighting against?

I don't fully understand it, but that reads like they are protecting customers

The market should regulate it. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I cant believe you dont see the problem with this?

If major companies start to regulate content people will choose another provider. When the government forces all providers to regulate content in a certain way who do you choose?

why is the government regulating something that is not broken? that does not scare you?

the government is coming into a business model that is not broken and telling it how to operate. that scares the shit out of me.

[GregE]

Originally Posted by CIVMatt

I'm confused that sounds like a good thing you posted

That's the way I'm reading it too. Maybe not quite good enough but waaaay better than the alternative.

[scuba steve]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

The market should regulate it. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I cant believe you dont see the problem with this?

If major companies start to regulate content people will choose another provider. When the government forces all providers to regulate content in a certain way who do you choose?

why is the government regulating something that is not broken? that does not scare you?

the government is coming into a business model that is not broken and telling it how to operate. that scares the shit out of me.

ahhh yes the lovely opinion of a guy not living here and living in the middle of nowhere.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by scuba steve

ahhh yes the lovely opinion of a guy not living here and living in the middle of nowhere.

copy/paste:
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[scuba steve]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

copy/paste:
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

guilty as charged