Still, these laws in particular are necessary, I believe. We need some sort of general set of rules that Internet access as a whole should be completely open. That's all these rules are for, they are not restricting users from anything.
There is no such thing as a free market, there have always been, and will always be restrictions. As there should be. Secondly, the FCC has regulated the internet since the dial-up days.
It really wasn't until the late 19th and 20th century that federal restrictions became normal.
On the FCC, I never said they didn't, I just said I don't want them to have any more power.
That's just IT, they technically aren't gaining any power, they are maintaining power that was already there to begin with. The laws already pretty much existed, they are TRYING to keep the companies from limiting people's access to the internet as a whole:
"The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services"
"The regulations also prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing services such as Internet calling applications on mobile devices, and they require carriers to disclose their network management practices, too. Still, they do give wireless companies more flexibility to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth and can become overwhelmed with traffic more easily than wired lines."
There are tons of sects in Christianity, including Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, The Church of Christ, The Latter Day Saints, Anglican, and the list goes on.
They all have their own rules for what is acceptable and what is not, and what determines what gets you into Heaven.
Ironically this also makes Christianity one of the most confusing religions ever created.
I don't know about you, but I don't want future generations to look back and say "man.. what the **** were they thinking?"
****ing free market capitalism! What the **** are we thinking?
The major flaw with free market capitalism is that once its truly "free" the companies become monopolies and **** over consumers. "Free market" isn't necessarily a good thing. In fact, the US has long been a regulated market economy, as far as I know.
Some companies already do that by creating clever loopholes. Ever heard of Acer? We've gotten two sucky-ass computers from them, and because they lack proper Tech Support we can't get them fixed or even get them to acknowledge there's a problem.
But what should the consumers do if all the ISPs begin that practice?
That won't happen. Too many people would boycott it, and the less moral citizens (4chan) would hack their ****. On top of that, the fact that we're even having this debate shows that a majority of people like the internet the way it is.
If you were an internet service provider, would you use the most popular method of service, and therefore attract as much business as possible, or would you switch to an untested, disliked system and drive your customers away?
Keep in mind that when it comes to phone companies and cable providers, you're pretty much screwed in the long run. Phone and cable companies already choose a few things they want you to have, just look at phone plans and channels.. who's offering what and how much you have to pay to get it.
I don't know about you, but I don't want future generations to look back and say "man.. what the **** were they thinking?"
I think it's a great thing, but a lot of hippies Liberal minded people here think that companies are going to suddenly decide to **** us all in the ass at the expense of losing millions of dollars, and therefore think the only way to solve this nonexistent problem is by letting the government stick their cock into it.
Are you kidding? It's going to hurt the Internet economy MORE to have restrictions on what services we can and can't access. Worst of all, they can choose which services in particular. Guess what? If Verizon or AT&T doesn't like Minecraft, you can kiss that **** goodbye.
What millions of dollars are you talking about anyway? You mean the millions of dollars that all the overpaid phone companies think they "deserve"? **** that. I'd rather go hunter-gatherer than keep giving them more money for the same damn service.
Point in case, the FCC is trying to protect our right to browse the web freely. If this is about money, then it's about money going to the wrong people.. again.
No opposing party members? That's fishy if I've ever heard it. Either the state is so far right-seated that there's no way they'd stand a chance, or someone's snuffing them out.
The Dems all left the state, because a vote cannot be started without both parties being present apparently.
Sounds like they knew they'd lose; I can't think of any other reason they'd do that.
That's pretty dirty for the Dems, and I'm usually pretty liberal-minded.
No opposing party members? That's fishy if I've ever heard it. Either the state is so far right-seated that there's no way they'd stand a chance, or someone's snuffing them out.
I don't like him because he's just one of those empty-headed prettyboys that spread crappy music around and try to act like a bigshot. Most of his fans consist of prepubscent young women who don't care who he really is, he's just "dreamy" so they buy big ass posters of him they secretly covet like lost gold.
He's a hero to mainstreamers, an enemy to indie-lovers, and a personal annoyance to me.
0
0
MANFACE.
0
Touché
Still, these laws in particular are necessary, I believe. We need some sort of general set of rules that Internet access as a whole should be completely open. That's all these rules are for, they are not restricting users from anything.
0
-1
I shot a BB gun at it.
0
That's just IT, they technically aren't gaining any power, they are maintaining power that was already there to begin with. The laws already pretty much existed, they are TRYING to keep the companies from limiting people's access to the internet as a whole:
"The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services"
"The regulations also prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing services such as Internet calling applications on mobile devices, and they require carriers to disclose their network management practices, too. Still, they do give wireless companies more flexibility to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth and can become overwhelmed with traffic more easily than wired lines."
Actual quotes from the article.
0
There are tons of sects in Christianity, including Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, The Church of Christ, The Latter Day Saints, Anglican, and the list goes on.
They all have their own rules for what is acceptable and what is not, and what determines what gets you into Heaven.
Ironically this also makes Christianity one of the most confusing religions ever created.
0
Some companies already do that by creating clever loopholes. Ever heard of Acer? We've gotten two sucky-ass computers from them, and because they lack proper Tech Support we can't get them fixed or even get them to acknowledge there's a problem.
Point: I'm never buying Acer again.
0
Keep in mind that when it comes to phone companies and cable providers, you're pretty much screwed in the long run. Phone and cable companies already choose a few things they want you to have, just look at phone plans and channels.. who's offering what and how much you have to pay to get it.
I don't know about you, but I don't want future generations to look back and say "man.. what the **** were they thinking?"
0
Are you kidding? It's going to hurt the Internet economy MORE to have restrictions on what services we can and can't access. Worst of all, they can choose which services in particular. Guess what? If Verizon or AT&T doesn't like Minecraft, you can kiss that **** goodbye.
What millions of dollars are you talking about anyway? You mean the millions of dollars that all the overpaid phone companies think they "deserve"? **** that. I'd rather go hunter-gatherer than keep giving them more money for the same damn service.
Point in case, the FCC is trying to protect our right to browse the web freely. If this is about money, then it's about money going to the wrong people.. again.
0
I feel enlightened from watching that... thank you.
0
I'm not even sure what to say.
Discuss.
0
0
Sounds like they knew they'd lose; I can't think of any other reason they'd do that.
That's pretty dirty for the Dems, and I'm usually pretty liberal-minded.
0
A good way to get over it's awkwardness is by adding a block to represent the additional edge:
[]
0
0
He's a hero to mainstreamers, an enemy to indie-lovers, and a personal annoyance to me.