Maybe I'm behind the times, because I know it's been in the news, but I never paid much attention to it until now.
Basically, the fuck wads in Congress want to give control of the internet to large corporations like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. This will basically destroy net neutrality. 4chan, and any other site worth looking at would probably be fucked for good.
So, guys please take a minute to stop fapping and sign the petition. It only takes a few minutes at the most.
stop fucking panicking. this won't affect anything since the network is almost never saturated. and even if it will be in the future, why not give priority to CNN over your fucking illegal torrent downloads?
go fuck yourself, you stupid leninist cretin.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-11 13:41
>>4
Fuck you douche. Why should anyone give priority to wortheless news networks that repeat the same fucking 5 stories every 20 minutes?
You know what cable TV is like right now? Well imagine the internet being like that. It'll fucking suck.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-11 15:07
>>5
It's inevitable, too. If you're not a major corporation there ain't jack shit you can do to change anything at all in america.
The ones who watch American Idol while drinking themselves into a stupor are the *smart ones*; they realise there ain't shit that can be done.
it'll sure be better than this warez-pedo-mp3 peddling shit we have now
grow the fuck up
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-11 23:48
>>11
I don't agree with warezing, but I'd much rather have a warez scene as part of a free-wheeling Internet, rather than a corporately-controlled one.
Also, if you're so against copyright infringement, why are you here? 4chan is one massive ongoing case of infringement. You think those images on your drive aren't copyrighted?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-12 15:46
Please correct me if I'm wrong
Currently the net is in controll of ISPs. They currently have the power to block access if they wanted to. It hasn't happened yet (although there are some ISPs out there that may block sites for content). So what good will it do to have the FCC in charge? People are complaining about cable TV, well that is under the control of the FCC; the same is true with radio. If we really wanted the internet to be saved from this kind of censorship I say we should revolt against the government trying to meddle with it, especially the FCC.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-12 23:46
13, you make good points...
Name:
Z-2006-06-13 5:19
If anyone stands to make money out of this, then a shitty petition isn't going to stop it. Does anyone honestly think it makes a difference? If a congressman and his big business but buddy makes a few more million of a deal like this, then they will break or bend any law they need to make it happen.
But for the most part I can't see anyone making any great amount of money, considering that a lot of money would need to be spent to impliment it. But if they couldn't make money, the companies wouldn't be trying...all in all, prospect looks grim.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 5:50
>>11
Yeah, so same shit, but with added uncensored net costs and massive advertisements sounds good? Cause that's what they're gonna do.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 7:17
go take a shower, hippies. who cares about this bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 9:51
One thing that I think people don't realize is that there are benifits of ISPs breaking neutrality. Imagine if you could get a service that allows faster speeds the the few select sites that you visit, but a slower connnection to those that you never go to.
Most people on 4chan would never do this, since there is no rhyme or reason to the sites that they visit, hell 4chan itself is a cumbination of so many different interests. But there are people out there that use the internet for very specific services.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 10:24
Imagine if you could get a service that allows faster speeds the the few select sites that you visit
And, uh, I presume that these services will be in line with consumer interests?
Given the power that major ISPs wield, particularly since they have nigh non-existent competition in many areas, forgive me if I'm skeptical.
I'd also like to know how they plan to "speed up" these sites, without artificially slowing down the rest (see, it's faster!) via products from Packeteer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 16:30
>>19
"Given the power that major ISPs wield, particularly since they have nigh non-existent competition in many areas, forgive me if I'm skeptical."
Do you trust the FCC over ISPs? I sure as hell don't. What is the current rate for saying "fuck" on T.V. or radio, 325K? Giving the FCC the power of any amount of regulation could lead to things like that. Remember the FCC was just created to solve conflicts between different radio stations (which was being solved by itself, so the FCC didn't even need to be created). Now look at what it has become.
Not to mention it is the unregulated nature that is helping the industry grow. Areas that only had one broadband ISP now have several. Places that had only acces to dial-up now have broadband access. Give it some more time and let the industries compete and I'm sure you will change your opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 16:33
>>18
It also allows them to censor net(in order to look good) and then make profit by charging for uncensored net. Allows them also to censor any competition and integrate ads into their service. That's not really desirable nor good thing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 16:36
>>20
Why the hell FCC? What's wrong with ICANN? It has worked till today and it will work in future.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 16:53
>>22
This is a U.S. bill. ICANN has nothing to do with it. The bill call for a safeguard to of net neutrality. If the bill passes then ISPs can be held accountable for violation of the law. Of course no bill actually specify how things are enforced. That is the job of the executive branch. So either a new agency would be formed, or (more logically) it will come under the responsibility of the FCC.
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
Thomas Jefferson
Therefore best safeguard to net neutrality is no safeguard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-13 22:36
If any safeguard is passed, it will instantly become a target and root h4x'd into oblivion.
blah blah blah. hey guess what genius, the internet wasn't around in his time. he wasn't referring to it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 1:17
>>26
Hey guess what genius, internet isn't really different from free press. Regulating it would be first amendment offense and serve no real purpose than to satisfy twisted desires of control for some people.
As a true supporter of liberty, I'm gonna have to side with #27 on this one. Regulating the net would be a downturn in free speech. If we started regulating it in that aspect, who the fuck knows, we might end up with bullshit fines for saying words like.."bullshit" on the net because some moral uptight shitheads don't wnat their children to read it, hear it, or see it.... well yeah, it already happened to the TV, and radio...
If they regulate it in that sense, what's to stop them from pushing it further, and regulating what they think of as "indecent" speech? Fuck regulation, we should be able to do what we want.
Stupid parents... need the govt to parent their kids for them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 1:37
I hope all you guys who are opposed to this are writting to your Senators.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 2:04
>>29
Such parents are disease of humankind. They're ones responsible for bullshit laws and their children are ones that grow up to be scum of society, because they haven't been caring for them at all.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 2:54
Do you trust the FCC over ISPs?
Given the current state of the Internet, and recalling the shithouses that used to be GEnie, CompuServe, AOL, Progidy... I trust it more than the Ma Bells.
Yeah true, I guess those companies have been pissing all over civil rights as of late... cough cough *NSA* cough cough
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 3:31
Why can't it stay like it's currently? I mean it has been proven to work damn well. Why fix something that's not broken...
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 3:48
Where do people get that FCC would countrol net?
"Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign."
Wouldn't it mean that if that law wasn't passed things stay as they are?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 14:07
>>35
No, the law is to make it this "first amendment" a law. Currently ISPs have the power to do what they want with their services. This law will effectivley change the way the internet works, since an ISP will no longer be able to control there service how they see fit. The law brings in some vague notion of neutrality but they aren't fully fleshed out, as with most bills. This is the job of the enforcing body.
Now, bills tend not to declare how they will be enforced. Either the power will be given to an existing government agency or a new one. I feel that the most likely thing is that FCC will take control. They have allready made the jump from radio to television, to cable television.
Now although the bill is supposed to safe guard the notion of neutrality, I would be wary giving a government group more power. As an example after the Pure Food Drug act was passed the FDA was created to enforce the bill; which was to ensure the correctness of labling on food. But now you can just see all the powers that it has accumulated over the years. The agency that enforces this law will be able to decide what is covered under neutrality. Also once they have this power it will be easier to bring on other regulations.
In my opinion I say let the internet keep going as it has been. ISPs have had the power to do what all the doom sayers claim will happen, and they have always had that power. Yet they have not blocked websites or restricted bandwidth. Make your own decisions, but I don't trust the government to overstep its powers (I also don't trust corporatoins, but they are easier to get rid of).
VERY TRUE. Fuck the FCC. Look at tv now it costs you over 300K to say "fuck" on t.v. now thanks to the FCC and shitty parents who won't parent their children. Imagine what would happen eventually if the FCC got their hands on the internet...
tl;dr: which would you rather trust? The people selling you the service who depend on their customers, or a federal group of crappers who like to censor everything and could care less what you think.
I think I'd rather keep the internet completly privatized. Hell, alot of ISPs don't even care if your pirating stuff on their connection. And the whole thing they're trying to sell if freedom and speed, so why would they even want to limit their customers? That'd just drive them away and hurt the ISP who did that.
Considering that, I think it's pretty clear that AT&T is with the feds on this one, not their customers. Ideally, we'd have nice telecom companies who WOULDN'T give away our personal information to massive government spying agencies...but yeah, it's not happening.
I guess you could make an argument for targetting the NSA, rather than AT&T, for if there wasn't the NSA, I wouldn't have to worry about it to begin with, since AT&T wouldn't have anyone to give it to... but I don't know.
If there's a historical trend, as disgusting as it is, it's that government programs and regulations breed more government programs and regulations. Why? Because when the first government programs fuck up, it makes people support more government programs to patch up the fuck ups of the previous government programs.
Take a look at the stock market crash of 1929. It was purely resultant from the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, but people blamed it on Capitalism and freedom, and rather than repealing the disfunctional government programs, we instituted social security, and elected FDR.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 22:18
>>39
Yeah, politicians screw up, and then they ask for more money to fund more dumb programs to patch up their screw ups.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 22:59
NEWSFLASH: people in power work with handshakes.
It's not a case of dumb politician, it's a case of politicians and private interests working together. They're the flip side of the same coin. Isn't this obvious?
Expecting the FCC to protect you is silly, but so is thinking that the Invisible Hand will, especially after current market leaders entrench their position through the government. Corporations will shaft you immediately; a government entity will only last a little longer until the lobbyists get around to it.
With an apathetic public letting private interests run roughshod over our own, we get what we deserve.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-14 23:44
>>39
Why it's not happening? Currently there aren't such companies, because there's no market, but if many operators start to turn into real nazis then there is market and so companies offering ultra free net will be born. Not to mention that nazi companies probably start offering uncensored net for extra fees. There will be always operators offering you censorship free net as long as there's no goverment regulation.
>>43
Well, duh if there's no goverment regulation what stops them creating service with good privacy? I mean if most operators go nazi with that it means that there will be huge market for "no logs and no giving info to goverment agencies" ISP. As long as there no law that requires operators do that ofcourse.
But there _IS_ such government regulation that stops them from creating service with good privacy. That's a problem. As it stands right now, much like cable companies (unless I'm horribly mistaken), DSL/ISPs are given legal government granted 'monopolies' over certain areas of states. There isn't really competition.
I actually wanted to change ISPs because the service was poor, and was informed that was not allowed. Certain companies have territory that is theirs... it's not a competitive, free-market, capitalist environment to do business in.
And yeah, on top of it, AT&T is a bitchy company that sells all our info to the NSA, and for all we know, the CIA, the FBI, who knows who else...
I'm for the free-market capitalist idea (generally speaking), but if we were to de-regulate the internet, there are other years worth of other government regulations such as the aforementioned that would have to be peeled back as well in order to make such a system as you mentioned a possibility.
No 47 must be either an 10-year old dropout kid who is going to work in MacDonald or road-sweeper for his rest of his life or an old "fag" that why they have too much free time to troll here while good kid are studying and doing their homework at school. Well, it just can't be helped for a low-life commoner.