Skip to content
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.

(Breitbart.com) Hero FCC chief: "Leave the Internet alone." No word on whether he wants Britney left alone   (breitbart.com) divider line
72
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

9033 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2008 at 8:30 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



72 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Ryan2065
2008-04-22 7:26:41 PM  
Hero tag? Really? Do you not understand what the article is saying subby?

All this is saying is the FCC chair told the Senate committee that the FCC has enough firepower to deal with the net neutrality issues and they don't need any more help.

No government regulation of the internet means companies get to regulate it themselves.
 
nemoxnine
2008-04-22 8:08:35 PM  
If you explain the joke, it becomes unfunny.

And this guy is a serious douche who needs to DIAF ASASP.
 
animosity4u
2008-04-22 8:37:34 PM  
That's not Chris Crocker. Jeez.
 
DrForrester
2008-04-22 8:38:04 PM  
...but some are more equal than others.
 
worlddan
2008-04-22 8:38:31 PM  
This man is no hero. Chairman Martin has done more to fark the internet than any FCC person in memory.

DNRTFA. Don't have to.

Who paid Drew to greenlit with this tag?
 
kirishima
2008-04-22 8:38:34 PM  
Ryan2065:
All this is saying is the FCC chair told the Senate committee that the FCC has enough firepower to deal with the net neutrality issues and they don't need any more help.

As someone who didn't want to RTFA.... thanks.
 
manwithplanx
2008-04-22 8:40:14 PM  
Ryan2065: Hero tag? Really? Do you not understand what the article is saying subby?

My guess is that Subby is one of those people who loves to kick puppies for fun, prevent people from looking at porn and strip the US of free information
 
djscram
2008-04-22 8:40:35 PM  
Subby must be thinking of something else. This is about net neutrality.
 
aerojockey [TotalFark]
2008-04-22 8:41:16 PM  
Coolness, Mallory is on the debate.
 
fustanella
2008-04-22 8:42:03 PM  
No YouTube whiner pic yet? That makes me sad.
 
Disassociated Ghost
2008-04-22 8:45:57 PM  
bigpicture.typepad.comView Full Size

Eric Idle has a few words for you, FCC!
 
Githerax
2008-04-22 8:47:52 PM  
Everyone will just go back to HAM radio.
 
Buster Hermano
2008-04-22 8:51:30 PM  
Githerax: Everyone will just go back to HAM radio.

Can HAM radio promise me mis-information and bizarre porn?
 
Oznog
2008-04-22 8:53:36 PM  
Ryan2065: Hero tag? Really? Do you not understand what the article is saying subby?

All this is saying is the FCC chair told the Senate committee that the FCC has enough firepower to deal with the net neutrality issues and they don't need any more help.

No government regulation of the internet means companies get to regulate it themselves.

Sounds to me like the FCC chair is full of it. They have no firepower to deal with it, and there is zero- ZERO- reason to discard net neutrality and effectively allow the ISP to "open your mail" as it were and bill the sender extra for mailing it to you, a sender who has already spent the money to set himself up.

There is no honest application for a violation of net neutrality. If a customer wants to download 5 gigs of data, slow the customer's bandwidth down if you want, but you can't say "oh wait this is YOUTUBE data and YouTube needs to pay us to deliver it" versus "5GB of normal web browsing and email is ok, just as long as it's not from YouTube".
 
moondo
2008-04-22 9:00:53 PM  
hollywoodtoday.netView Full Size

just getting this out of the way.
 
WolfinPHX
2008-04-22 9:03:16 PM  
Buster Hermano: Can HAM radio promise me mis-information and bizarre porn?

By my limited understanding, there is packet radio data that can go over amateur frequencies. So yeah, why not?
 
Sleeping Monkey
2008-04-22 9:05:26 PM  
FTA: The network neutrality debate has divided Congress, with Democrats largely in favor and Republicans mostly opposed, a point that became clearer at Tuesday's committee meeting.

I will never understand how Republicans can put the interests of Big Business before those of the American People every single time.

/eat the rich
 
K2JMan
2008-04-22 9:06:19 PM  
"It is a political division now and it's getting more so," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "It-it's a series of tubes!"

FTFHim.
 
AtomicAcidbath
2008-04-22 9:12:13 PM  
Githerax: Everyone will just go back to HAM radio.

Already there. CQ CQ CQ
 
CourtroomWolf
2008-04-22 9:14:40 PM  
The FCC chief doesn't want to enforce net neutrality, and give the ISPs control over what we can access on the web. The internet would be reduced to little more than an interactive cable TV, where the ideas the big media corporations don't want would be blocked out.

Hero tag for subby becoming an hero.
 
zvoidx
2008-04-22 9:16:01 PM  
So... if U.S. companies end up making a tier system or similar setup; could there be a day where the U.S. has that system and the rest of the world will still be using the familiar equal-data-pipe for all?

And, if so, wouldn't that put U.S. internet innovation at a huge disadvantage vs. the rest of the world?

/I can't see a country like Japan following suit with that kind of idea
 
sbrister
2008-04-22 9:24:41 PM  
is it me or does this guy look just a little creepy
img.breitbart.comView Full Size
 
birdboy2000
2008-04-22 9:31:31 PM  
Do asshats like submitter realize that if the telcos got their way, he wouldn't HAVE an internet to troll?
 
JonnyBGoode
2008-04-22 9:41:48 PM  
sbrister: is it me or does this guy look just a little creepy

The hairstyle looks familiar...

img259.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
GetaLife
2008-04-22 9:43:20 PM  
Anyone?

img.breitbart.comView Full Size
[image from img245.imageshack.us too old to be available]
 
api021778
2008-04-22 9:44:25 PM  
So I guess he's going to stop providing preferential treatment to existing telcos and eliminate all regulatory barriers to entry for new carriers and for small wireless carriers. Oh, and I suppose he's going to allow microbroadcasting too, huh? After all, keep the government's hands off!

Oh... I forgot... the government's hands should be kept off big companies' profits. Regulations are fine as long as they squash the little guy and help preserve monopolies.
 
generaltimmy
2008-04-22 9:45:08 PM  
sbrister: is it me or does this guy look just a little creepy

Or the guy from 5th element
 
MadTheologian
2008-04-22 9:50:50 PM  
Buster Hermano: Githerax: Everyone will just go back to HAM radio.

Can HAM radio promise me mis-information and bizarre porn?

AtomicAcidbath: Githerax: Everyone will just go back to HAM radio.

Already there. CQ CQ CQ

I have my license for over 10 years. Yes...you will get misinfo from the old cranks with conspiracy theories. And go to a hamfest, and you will encounter some guy with old pr0n on sale on the table next to some illegal CB amps.

/KF6FNS
 
Accidents Will Happen
2008-04-22 9:51:25 PM  
Did anyone else realize that the photo that accompanies this article is not of FCC chairman Kevin Martin?

Anyone who this creepy guy is?
 
Nothing Random
2008-04-22 9:52:53 PM  
Let me see if I can follow this logic.

Net neutrality:
[legislation] that would force those who control Internet service to treat all traffic equally. And ensure that the owners of the information pipelines in the U.S. do not interfere with the free exchange of ideas.

The rebuke:
[telecoms]are opposed to network neutrality legislation, saying it would add a layer of regulation that will hurt consumers.

So, keeping things like they are adds regulation? Treating all data equally hurts consumers?

How can anyone (not counting the telecoms, who are undeniably going to make extra money by doing this) honestly oppose net neutrality? It damages the free market aspects of the net by promoting monopolies, hindering internet startups and rewarding already established organization.

Democrats should hate it because it gives power to "evil corporations."
Republicans should hate it because it opposes their vaulted "invisible hand."
I really don't understand it.
 
MorteDiem
2008-04-22 9:53:54 PM  
McSlarrow said of the tens of millions of people who use the Internet every day, "no one is being blocked" and if they were, they could go to another competitor.

My only problem is, for cable internet access, going to another provider means noving my entire household.

/could always go back to dialup.
//Knew Dr Chaos, beginning to think he was right.
 
Gunther
2008-04-22 10:03:05 PM  
FTA:"It is a political division now and it's getting more so," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "It is unfortunate." He said a return to "intense regulation" of the Internet is "entirely unwarranted."

How the hell can Ted "Intertubes" Stevens possibly claim to know jack shiat about how the internet is run?
 
matt2891
2008-04-22 10:03:56 PM  
Nothing Random: Republicans gave up on a true free market a long time ago. Now they're interested in promoting ever larger monopolies that limit competition and destroy consumer choice.
 
ZoeNekros
2008-04-22 10:06:23 PM  
Nothing Random: Republicans should hate it because it opposes their vaulted "invisible hand."

There's your problem. You're thinking of conservatives, not republicans.
 
Mongo cut wood
2008-04-22 10:07:06 PM  
What is there to protect? I don't know of any ISPs, except AOL who blocked Republican websites during the 2000 election, that are restricting your access to any content you would want to view. You have choices of what ISP you go with. For you liberals, it's not like the US controls the entire Internet. Net Neutrality laws would basically prohibit ISPs from blocking spammers and websites that host malicious code. I have no problem with them blocking those sites. Oh wait, the FCC chair is a Republican, so he must be bad.
 
sparticle
2008-04-22 10:16:46 PM  
sbrister: is it me or does this guy look just a little creepy

He looks like the guy from RedMeat.com
 
StillH2O
2008-04-22 10:19:20 PM  
Disassociated Ghost: Eric Idle has a few words for you, FCC!

As does Steve Earle.
 
sparticle
2008-04-22 10:20:33 PM  
Accidents Will Happen: Did anyone else realize that the photo that accompanies this article is not of FCC chairman Kevin Martin?

Anyone who this creepy guy is?

It's Patric Verrone, head of the Writers' Guild.

Either that or it's Bug-Eyed Earl from RedMeat.com:

redmeat.comView Full Size
 
sparticle
2008-04-22 10:28:03 PM  
Mongo cut wood: What is there to protect? I don't know of any ISPs, except AOL who blocked Republican websites during the 2000 election, that are restricting your access to any content you would want to view. You have choices of what ISP you go with. For you liberals, it's not like the US controls the entire Internet. Net Neutrality laws would basically prohibit ISPs from blocking spammers and websites that host malicious code. I have no problem with them blocking those sites. Oh wait, the FCC chair is a Republican, so he must be bad.

Net Neutrality, or at least the principle behind it, is about not letting ISPs who pay to maintain the internet "backbone" selectively tag independently transmitted packets to be waylaid or even blocked entirely in favor of "their" commerically sponsored traffic. It's about commercialism, corporate control and bias of information. I didn't see anyone dragging Republicans into it until you showed up.
 
nobodys_goose
2008-04-22 10:30:16 PM  
He looks more like Mr. Bean to me.
 
Nothing Random
2008-04-22 10:31:26 PM  
Mongo cut wood, just so you know, your us vs. them (and they are wrong and dumb) mentality is pretty lame. Hope you are a troll.

matt2891 and ZoeNekros, you two aren't much better, though it's true that modern Republicans don't exactly follow classic conservative ideologies. That said, they do have to pay lip service to it to keep their constituencies, so I would expand my question to conservatives as well:

Why would a conservative desire a system where competition is hindered?

Again, I just don't get it.
 
Nothing Random
2008-04-22 10:34:15 PM  
Wish I had seen sparticle's post before I bothered feeding the troll. Though in fairness, I did say the word "Republican". It was more wondering why one party opposes it while I think the ideologies behind the two parties both should favor neutrality.
 
Half Norse
2008-04-22 10:48:14 PM  
This is evolutionary. Change by supporting net neutrality and be ever vigilant, or Darwin will get us.
 
superdude72
2008-04-22 10:50:28 PM  
He's saying in other words: Screw regulation. Just let Comcast do whatever it wants.
 
shanrick
2008-04-22 10:51:32 PM  
moondo: just getting this out of the way.

Who is that chick? She's hot.
 
Converser
2008-04-22 11:01:39 PM  
Theres a girl giving out free farks to virgins of legal age to stop this! ..
 
sip111
2008-04-22 11:01:57 PM  
sparticle: Mongo cut wood: What is there to protect? I don't know of any ISPs, except AOL who blocked Republican websites during the 2000 election, that are restricting your access to any content you would want to view. You have choices of what ISP you go with. For you liberals, it's not like the US controls the entire Internet. Net Neutrality laws would basically prohibit ISPs from blocking spammers and websites that host malicious code. I have no problem with them blocking those sites. Oh wait, the FCC chair is a Republican, so he must be bad.

Net Neutrality, or at least the principle behind it, is about not letting ISPs who pay to maintain the internet "backbone" selectively tag independently transmitted packets to be waylaid or even blocked entirely in favor of "their" commerically sponsored traffic. It's about commercialism, corporate control and bias of information. I didn't see anyone dragging Republicans into it until you showed up.

This.

MONGO you retarded fark. Go back to cutting wood please.
 
Converser
2008-04-22 11:03:18 PM  
shanrick: moondo: just getting this out of the way.

Who is that chick? She's hot.

like nice attempt at.. failing. Thats Chris Crocker homo
 
Infinite Monkeys In Front Of A Computer
2008-04-22 11:04:31 PM  
superdude72: He's saying in other words: Screw regulation. Just let Comcast do whatever it wants.

Man, from the looks of it, I'm in the minority. I'm certainly of the mindset that corporations should be regulated to protect consumers, but not here.

Isn't the fundamental philosophy of the Internet to keep government OUT of regulating it? I don't recall who said it, but this is "a solution in search of a problem"

And I'm disappointed that no one jumped all over the false statement Justine Bateman provided:

"The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your material or allow quick access is appalling," she told the committee."

This has not happened, and nothing indicates that it will.

I believe companies have a right to prioritize traffic based on TYPE of traffic (HTTP > FTP > P2P); HOWEVER I do believe if an ISP limits traffic to a specific destination (i.e. Comcast blocks Qwest) for no valid reason, use the civil courts to resolve.
 
scrowdid
2008-04-22 11:06:37 PM  
Infinite Monkeys In Front Of A Computer: I believe companies have a right to prioritize traffic based on TYPE of traffic (HTTP > FTP > P2P)

Why?
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  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.