So net neutrality was overturned today

[father of lies]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 ... 26972.html

awesome guys

[Charles Schulzerie]

Well, the FCC can still fuck them over.



This is so weird, me rooting for the FCC.

[father of lies]

But... the court was right, wasn't it? The FCC can't really do much of anything?

[Friendly Goatus]

Fuck. This means it's going to be more difficult to find dutch bestiality porn.

[necrothrash]

Dear Comcast,

Go ahead and divide internet content in any way that you like. We are too busy enjoying your services to care.




Regards,


Us.

[Necrometer]

That company blocked torrent programs, it's not exactly a "big whoop" situation...

[necrothrash]

Exactly. Too busy downloading shit to look up the FCC, let alone draft an email!

[father of lies]

It'll be tons of fun when they all get to limit speeds to things they don't own. Or like. Fuck me right in the ass.

[Hotchka!]

That company blocked torrent programs, it's not exactly a "big whoop" situation...

[Charles Schulzerie]

But... the court was right, wasn't it? The FCC can't really do much of anything?

Not really. According to what I've read, and what I understand the FCC does, they regulate telecommunications, which broadband could, and should be considered. One of the six goals the FCC is working toward is quality and standardization as well as keeping healthy competition within the industries it oversees. The FCC a huge part in helping Google create the 100Mbs connection thing that they (Google) are working on.

What they should be doing, and what their broadband goals entail, is offering companies such as Comcast incentives to internet equality while maintaining quality and affordability to us.

What most people don't realize is that you SHOULD care.

You like youtube, right? Now it's an extra $5 a month on your bill, asshole.

Now because youtube get special treatment and premium bandwidth usage, others are limited to make up for the cost over the link.

Do I ever think youtube/google would go for this bullshit? Not after what I've been seeing from them lately. But that's beside the point.

The FCC should be regulating this just like they have been everything else for the past however the fuck long.

[father of lies]

And the FDA should be regulating the fucking shit out of Monsanto. That's happening to a completely satisfactory degree.

[Gookstorm]

I'm dying to actually read the stinkin' underlying reason they think they don't have authority.

[father of lies]

Get em Devon!

I'm pretty sure eliminating net neutrality is a giant fucking quantum leap towards Snow Crash y/n?

[Krieg]

But ... your freedoms?

[smooth]

And the FDA should be regulating the fucking shit out of Monsanto. That's happening to a completely satisfactory degree.

because FDA = Monsanto

[neckbeard]

FCC = ?

[Geeheeb]

And the FDA should be regulating the fucking shit out of Monsanto. That's happening to a completely satisfactory degree.

because FDA = Monsanto

actually, kinda.

[Hypnagogia]

And the FDA should be regulating the fucking shit out of Monsanto. That's happening to a completely satisfactory degree.

because FDA = Monsanto

actually, kinda.

huh?

[Geeheeb]

huh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine ... 28792.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08 ... DA-taylor/

There are others, but maybe you could google "fda monsanto revolving door" yourself.

[neckbeard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#C ... governance

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ving_Doors

To get you started.

[neckbeard]

d'oh

[Ghost Dad]

I'm using at&t dsl- it takes me a week to download a movie. Fuck this thread.

[Hypnagogia]

This seems like it could've been bad either way.
Had the FCC won, would that have given them reign to regulate the content, like they can do for TV?
Who do you want regulating your content: da gub'ment, or da corporations?

Also, consider that some websites are already starting to charge ISPs to access their content, such as ESPN360. Comcast gets it; Qwest doesn't.
Would net neutrality have forced ISPs pay up, so as to not block any content from their users?
Maybe this was is a good decision after-all...had they won, web content owners could've started charging ISPs retarded fees to access their sites, and of course the ISPs would just pass that cost on to the consumer.

[Charles Schulzerie]

This seems like it could've been bad either way.
Had the FCC won, would that have given them reign to regulate the content, like they can do for TV?
Who do you want regulating your content: da gub'ment, or da corporations?

Not really. They had that power before this happened. What the FCC is trying to do is "bully" the ISPs such as comcast into increasing their internet speeds. They were also about to take about 100 billion dollars out of government telecommunications R&D and putting into raising internet speeds to an average of 100MB/s in the next 10 years.

Also, consider that some websites are already starting to charge ISPs to access their content, such as ESPN360. Comcast gets it; Qwest doesn't.
Would net neutrality have forced ISPs pay up, so as to not block any content from their users?
Maybe this was is a good decision after-all...had they won, web content owners could've started charging ISPs retarded fees to access their sites, and of course the ISPs would just pass that cost on to the consumer.

Actually the FCC is trying to make sure ISPs CAN'T charge us extra for premium content. What ESPN would start doing is just making a monthly payment plan to ESPN3 and skip out the middle man. It'd go out to a much wider audience and they'd end up making a lot more money.

[Friendly Goatus]

It would be nice if Comcast and the lesser internet police forces could stifle their greed just long enough to get the US's connections speeds up to par with the rest of the 1st world.