Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Journal)   Representative Marsha Blackburn wants to halt new net neutrality rules from the FCC because they will allow the federal government to take over the entire internet and redirect every website to healthcare.gov   (nationaljournal.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Federal Communications Commission, federal government  
•       •       •

1704 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 4:08 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 02:38:24 PM  
If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.
 
2014-02-20 02:49:43 PM  
With a choice of either Comcast or Verizon, what more could a consumer possibly want for internet access?  It's just as many choices as we get at the voting booth.  Things need to be kept simple for Americans.  They're a s simple people, doing simple things.  Can they get the Google?  Then there you are.  Simple.  So don't worry your little head about complicated things like this.  The corporations have it all figured out for you.
 
2014-02-20 03:08:10 PM  

themindiswatching: My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


..at least until they discover that Comcast throttles traffic headed from Netflix.com to 10% the speeds of a generic connection.

Which really doesn't help that ongoing peer-to-peer piracy problem.
 
2014-02-20 03:13:58 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


If you had the choice of having you balls smashed or your dick cut off which would you choose?

/false dichotomy ftw
 
2014-02-20 03:15:21 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


But that's not the choice being offered. The choice being offered is to leave things as they are, equal access, or to give telecom companies the right to portion out the internet depending on how much they can extort from content providers.

Which means services like netflix will cost consumers more because they have to bribe telecom companies to please not throttle their content.

That's what it is, legal bribery.
 
2014-02-20 03:29:52 PM  
At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world
 
2014-02-20 03:33:20 PM  

bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world


Google is not the hero you are looking for.
 
2014-02-20 03:37:18 PM  

EvilEgg: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Google is not the hero you are looking for.


Agreed.  Unfortunately, the enemy of my enemy...
 
2014-02-20 03:44:18 PM  
Can we introduce a bill that would let me throttle Marsha Blackburn?
 
2014-02-20 03:45:08 PM  
The free market is not free unless companies are free to infringe on the free market.  Monopolies are the height of freedom in the market.
 
2014-02-20 03:50:30 PM  

bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world


Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.
 
2014-02-20 03:53:00 PM  

spman: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.


That's not the point. The point is that the question is irrelevant because there's no disagreement on it between the candidates. Hopefully by the time we're down to 2 candidates, the foreign policy questions have been asked. So why not delve into things that I might consider relevant to a discussion between similar primary candidates?
 
2014-02-20 03:55:11 PM  
Republicans have long said net-neutrality regulation stifles innovation....

So they're going with the "Up is down, black is white, freedom is slavery" thing again? I'm shocked.
 
2014-02-20 03:55:43 PM  

spman: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.


Do you really seriously think that Iran would martyr themselves by dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel?
 
2014-02-20 03:58:32 PM  

bdub77: spman: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.

That's not the point. The point is that the question is irrelevant because there's no disagreement on it between the candidates. Hopefully by the time we're down to 2 candidates, the foreign policy questions have been asked. So why not delve into things that I might consider relevant to a discussion between similar primary candidates?


Do you really think anyone in politics currently with any power to influence it one way or another, even understands what Net Neutrality is, and the implications it might have? Unless they are directly on some sort of committee working on legislating it, the only thing 95% of American Politicians are going to know about the issue is the one paragraph summary their staffer or policy consultant copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
 
2014-02-20 04:09:51 PM  
spman:

Do you really think anyone in politics currently with any power to influence it one way or another, even understands what Net Neutrality is, and the implications it might have? Unless they are directly on some sort of committee working on legislating it, the only thing 95% of American Politicians are going to know about the issue is the one paragraph summary their staffer or policy consultant copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

And yet it's an important issue. I said these are the types of questions that need to be asked because politicians should know what the f*ck is going on in the world or at least have the courage to say 'I don't know about that but I will put something in my platform about it as soon as I look into it'. But as you said yourself, we are talking about American Policitians and our political system, in which every ignorant person is a potential media outlet - thanks social media - and people are more concerned about a soundbyte taken out of context than any sort of substantive discussion.
 
2014-02-20 04:11:06 PM  
Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.
 
2014-02-20 04:12:18 PM  
"Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement.


So what you're saying is you think the FCC are web developers?

/I DEMAND YOU LISTEN TO ME ON THIS SUBJECT THAT I CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND
 
2014-02-20 04:13:23 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


False Dilemma
 
2014-02-20 04:14:37 PM  
Well she was a drug addict in her TV star days so maybe her thinker is still messed up.
 
2014-02-20 04:15:20 PM  
Top Republicans called the FCC's efforts to revive net-neutrality rules "a solution in search of a problem,"

Oh, you mean like voter ID laws?

F*cksticks.
 
2014-02-20 04:16:42 PM  
Here's a question - why should I bother to upgrade to a higher cost internet plan when the thing using the majority of the data will be capped upstream anyway?
 
2014-02-20 04:17:10 PM  

bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world


Google forms a partnership with Comcast/Time Warner and videos from Netflix, itunes and Amazon stream so slow that the only choice for HD is GooglePlay.
 
2014-02-20 04:18:28 PM  

RedPhoenix122: EvilEgg: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Google is not the hero you are looking for.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, the enemy of my enemy...


Is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less.

Wait until the mesh network invented for OLPC becomes the norm in the USA.
 
2014-02-20 04:19:06 PM  

MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.


You're probably trolling but if I pay for internet connection, why does it matter what I'm using it for (as long as it is not illegal). I don't torrent but I do watch legal streaming for which I pay for (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu+). I also play games on my PS3 for which I paid for.
 
2014-02-20 04:20:11 PM  
Fark you, Republicans.
The internet is essentially a free market right now.  Killing net neutrality is like allowing unfettered monopolies to crush all competition without even the trouble of having to buy them out.  You don't love the free market, you only love mega-rich people and corporations who can fill your campaign coffers.
 
2014-02-20 04:20:41 PM  

MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.


Net Neutrality means the internet is free?! WTF have I been paying all this money for this whole time?!!!!!!
 
2014-02-20 04:21:11 PM  

grumpfuff: "Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement.


So what you're saying is you think the FCC are web developers?

/I DEMAND YOU LISTEN TO ME ON THIS SUBJECT THAT I CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND


Well, she did major in home economics at Mississippi State, so clearly she has the credentials to steer policy on this issue.
 
2014-02-20 04:23:08 PM  

spman: Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.


While we're worried about serious problems that are actually threatening, have you seen all these draculas running around?
 
2014-02-20 04:25:14 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


False dilemma composed of dueling complex questions.

/cue Martin Mull and the tubas.
 
2014-02-20 04:28:18 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


You know, because there's only so many 0's and 1's to around...
 
2014-02-20 04:30:24 PM  

Weigard: spman: Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.

While we're worried about serious problems that are actually threatening, have you seen all these draculas running around?


AND AMERICAN "MEDIA" REFUSES TO ASKY OUR POLITICANS ABOUT THEM!
 
2014-02-20 04:30:32 PM  

Gawdzila: Fark you, Republicans.
The internet is essentially a free market right now.  Killing net neutrality is like allowing unfettered monopolies to crush all competition without even the trouble of having to buy them out.  You don't love the free market, you only love mega-rich people and corporations who can fill your campaign coffers.


In Blackburn's defense, it might not even be that.  She's an idiot.
 
2014-02-20 04:31:16 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


My choice is to find the money to pay for the infrastructure that makes those choices unnecessary even to the point of raising taxes if that's what it takes.  Fast and open internet is just as vital to a strong economy these days as things like postal service and landlines used to be and roads and ports and airports still are.
 
2014-02-20 04:31:45 PM  

EvilEgg: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Google is not the hero you are looking for.


Google may not be a hero.  But I know Comcast / Time Warner are complete and utter dicks who delight in farking customers over at every opportunity - and I can't say the same for Google.

In a choice between Emperor Palpatine, who is known to run an evil empire, and Boba Fett, whom only rumors suggest may have a penchant for disintegrations - I'll go with Boba.
 
2014-02-20 04:39:18 PM  
 Representative Marsha Blackburn wants to halt new net neutrality rules from the FCC because they will allow the federal government to take over the entire internet and redirect every website to healthcare.gov  that hoe has been bought and paid for and was told to protect her corporate owner's interests, which are to own and control everything in this fading f*cking country.


done in one.
 
2014-02-20 04:40:06 PM  

12349876: themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.

My choice is to find the money to pay for the infrastructure that makes those choices unnecessary even to the point of raising taxes if that's what it takes.  Fast and open internet is just as vital to a strong economy these days as things like postal service and landlines used to be and roads and ports and airports still are.


Let's be honest.  the internet is no longer a "luxury item" for the US economy.  It is a "utility" right up there with electricity.  It's time it was regulated like one.
 
2014-02-20 04:41:29 PM  

Karac: EvilEgg: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Google is not the hero you are looking for.

Google may not be a hero.  But I know Comcast / Time Warner are complete and utter dicks who delight in farking customers over at every opportunity - and I can't say the same for Google.

In a choice between Emperor Palpatine, who is known to run an evil empire, and Boba Fett, whom only rumors suggest may have a penchant for disintegrations - I'll go with Boba.


There's never a hero when it comes to large corporations - some day soon Google will become the next IBM - fat, bloated, riddled with middle management, controlled by a psychopath whose sole motive is next quarter's EPS.

However, as you say, Comcast/TWC are f*cking terrible companies. They could offer exactly what Google Fiber is offering - right now. They could champion net neutrality and they could engage customers in a meaningful manner. And they sit on their hands and buy back shares. So fark them. fark all companies whose reinvestment plans consist only of buying back shares and cutting people to make way for more profit.

In July of 2013 TWC used 4 billion dollars to....buy back shares. They just announced they are going to do it again. That's not business, that's greed. They are fat and happy with their local monopolies and bullsh*t legislation like they got enacted in NC that prevents munis from using bonds to create municipal networks. That's some grade farking A bullshiat.

I would dump them in a heartbeat if anyone offered even close to the same speeds. But I can't, because the best alternative in my neighborhood is 6mbps through DSL. See: local monopoly.
 
2014-02-20 04:41:33 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.



WRONG.   once you can control IP packets, you control the internet and it is no longer the internet.  so how do you like cable tv these days???  i bet those commercials are fun!
 
2014-02-20 04:41:56 PM  

MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.


It's not about stuff being "free" -- you're already paying for Internet access regardless of the net neutrality rules.  It's about whether to give the ISPs outsize influence over accessibility to information and content. This is a rent-extraction opportunity the likes of which have never been seen in the modern age.

That said, Blackburn might have a point, depending on how you implement "tiered service"; if Verizon (or whoever) were to charge for access to Google, Facebook, or Amazon, that would create an opportunity for other search engines, social networks, or media outlets -- it might even revive (or at least stave off the decline of) the print industry if people want to avoid paying for web content.  However I haven't actually heard anyone propose this -- nobody seems to want to spare smaller businesses -- and the end result is still that the flow of information slows down, which we generally consider bad for society.
 
2014-02-20 04:43:00 PM  

spman: Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.


This post is ignorant on at least three levels.
 
2014-02-20 04:43:21 PM  

MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.


Free as in speech, not free as in beer, you dolt.
 
2014-02-20 04:44:12 PM  

show me: themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.

If you had the choice of having you balls smashed or your dick cut off which would you choose?

/false dichotomy ftw



good comparison.   the Internet is the last form of democratic communication medium left.  the corporates own every other form.  once they own the Internet, Game Over.  (for Democracy anyway)
 
2014-02-20 04:44:32 PM  
Here is my price for not having net neutrality.

1) I must have access to 50 financially independent ISPs (ie no board member or executive my work at more than 1 ISP nor may they own stock or other investment) at my service locations at equal or better bandwidth offerings and switching must easy (i.e. no technician needs to come to my house to swap out crap)
2) No more of this "up-to-5Mbps" crap. If you advertise up to 5Mbps but during actual use I get 2.5Mbps then I should get a 50% discount where actual use is when I'm watching Netflix or web-surfing, not service messages between the modem and the switch.

The first one is a permanent rule. If you jump ahead of your competition and offer a 10% speed boost over everybody else, you cannot throttle traffic.If the number of ISPs ever drops below 50, then you can't throttle traffic.
 
2014-02-20 04:45:13 PM  

themindiswatching: If you had the choice for your home Internet between having all traffic be equal (but having severe bandwidth caps with heavy overage fees) or having no caps but treating different types of traffic differently, what would you choose? My guess is that the vast majority of Americans would prefer the latter.


In order to do the latter they need to monitor internet usage.
And if they do, you know that the NSA will want copies.
 
2014-02-20 04:45:47 PM  

EvilEgg: bdub77: At the presidential primary, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

"Do you support Net Neutrality? Yes or No."

Instead, we will get:

"What do you think about Iran?" and get the same farking response from both of them "I agree with my colleague on this one."

Best practical solution:
1. Google buys Netflix
2. Google Fiber takes over the world

Google is not the hero you are looking for.



they beat the sh*t out of Verizon and Cumcast.  at least they attempt to remember that this fooking Nation is supposed to be a Democratic Republic.
 
2014-02-20 04:47:07 PM  

Wendy's Chili: spman: Except at the end of the day, whether or not Net Neutrality becomes a thing which prevents you from watching Netflix is a first world problem. Whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon which they sell to a terrorist, or just use themselves, to wipe Israel off the map, is, you know, an actual serious problem.

This post is ignorant on at least three levels.


I counted four.
 
2014-02-20 04:47:09 PM  

MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.


It's not free now. As I understand it, its actually overpriced in the old USA.
 
2014-02-20 04:47:11 PM  

MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.



including your soon to be worthless one day vote, Freedom Lover.  you're gonna' love that.  (unless you are in The Club)
 
2014-02-20 04:51:19 PM  

fatz3456: MFAWG: Oh, it's this thread again. Everything can't always be free, kiddies.

It's not free now. As I understand it, its actually overpriced in the old USA.


It's a territorial monopoly, made legal only through liberal allocations of cold hard cash to politicians.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report