Freedom, innovation and entrepreneurialship has won the day over the greedy corpotate fascist fucks and their GOP whores who want to control what we have access to with the broadband we pay for.

Everyone has a right to the internet not just big money that can pay to elbow out small competitors.

Today, freedom rang and Republicans lost.

The internet is racist!

Yeah, right, okay OP. Can you wipe your own ass without government oversight?

Next week when the realization of what just happen sets in........go fuck yourself then too.

One more step towards a totalitarian government.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, right, okay OP. Can you wipe your own ass
> without government oversight?
>
> Next week when the realization of what just happen
> sets in........go fuck yourself then too.
>
> One more step towards a totalitarian government.

I'll just leave this right here.

http://blog.ted.com/2013/10/28/qa-mariana-mazzucato-governments-often-fuel-innovation/

btw- My water and electric are a hell of a lot more reliable then my cable. Just sayin'

OP could not be more incorrect...totally backwards of what happend.

OP must be a Dembot drinking the Kool-Aid
Attachments:

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One more step towards a totalitarian government.

Yeah...it's like that nanny-state air traffic control. Just wanton federal meddling that corrupts our freedom and liberty! What a fucking crock!

"Be careful what you wish for."

Really stupid... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vexxxed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One more step towards a totalitarian
> government.
>
> Yeah...it's like that nanny-state air traffic
> control. Just wanton federal meddling that
> corrupts our freedom and liberty! What a fucking
> crock!


Yes, your comparison is a crock.

Libs live hyperbole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, your comparison is a crock.

No, it's spot-on, asshole. Which is why all you can do is sit there and stammer out your typical dismal assfuck right-wing stupid shit. What a fucking dunce!

The government runs air traffic control to advance and assure the safety and security of ALL carriers and ALL travelers. That's exactly what net neutrality does, but mindless shit pieces like you are just too damaged and compromised in the head to be able to understand the first fucking word of any of it. Go build a tree-stand and sit in it until we tell you to come down. Could be a while, you ignorant asshole.

Really stupid... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs live hyperbole Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, your comparison is a crock.
>
> No, it's spot-on, asshole. Which is why all you
> can do is sit there and stammer out your typical
> dismal assfuck right-wing stupid shit. What a
> fucking dunce!
>
> The government runs air traffic control to advance
> and assure the safety and security of ALL carriers
> and ALL travelers. That's exactly what net
> neutrality does, but mindless shit pieces like you
> are just too damaged and compromised in the head
> to be able to understand the first fucking word of
> any of it. Go build a tree-stand and sit in it
> until we tell you to come down. Could be a while,
> you ignorant asshole.


It was dumb hyperbole as usual.

Live with it.

And private.

Hmm.

How's that Ma Bell thing working out for you?

The liver spot-on your face Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was dumb hyperbole as usual. Live with it.

You need to go fuck yourself as usual. Complete lack of anything even remotely intelligent to say mandates that. Now DO IT!!!

air safety in Canada is better Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And private.

LOL! Nav Canada is about as private as a Federal Reserve Bank.

air safety in Canada is better Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And private.
>
> Hmm.
>
> How's that Ma Bell thing working out for you?


Transport Canada is a government agency.

Who didn't know that?

air safety in Canada is better Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And private.
>
> Hmm.
>
> How's that Ma Bell thing working out for you?

You mean Verizon?

Really stupid... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The liver spot-on your face Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It was dumb hyperbole as usual. Live with it.
>
> You need to go fuck yourself as usual. Complete
> lack of anything even remotely intelligent to say
> mandates that. Now DO IT!!!


Yes, you picked an appropriate name for your own posts.

Like the time it claimed XOM hq was in "Houston"...

What a maroon.

Like they say... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Be careful what you wish for."


In case you rightards have been misinformed again. We've always had bet neutrality. Its what's made the internet so great.

Today we kept you rightarded ass rightards from ruining that too.

Sounds like controllers pushed the self-destruct button on the the stupid-shit craft. Just little bits of confetti-like nothingness left floating down now...

Net neutrality is nothing new. It has always been the way the internet is supposed to be. Free and equal to all. The rightards just don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Wasn't that great?

It's now a 1975 phone system Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't that great?

Let us know once the hypnotist snaps his fingers...

nothing new Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Net neutrality is nothing new. It has always been
> the way the internet is supposed to be. Free and
> equal to all. The rightards just don't know their
> ass from a hole in the ground.


Nope, actually it's not how it's been or necessarily how it's supposed to be. While the government largely stayed out of it, virtually all traffic always has been prioritized in various ways based on private peering arrangements and other private agreements and investments. That the government felt the need to insert itself into regulating such arrangements is evidence of that.

Also, as proposed, the FCC's specific regulatory scope under the title of "net neutrality" (which means nothing) goes beyond just assuring that it is "free" (which it's never been) and equal. You can make good and bad arguments to both sides, but even the EFF has concerns with how broadly some of the regulatory powers under the rule are written.

Bullshit, net nuetrality has always been the way the internets been regulated. Youre a liar.

been the case Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like they say... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Be careful what you wish for."
>
>
> In case you rightards have been misinformed again.
> We've always had bet neutrality. Its what's made
> the internet so great.
>
> Today we kept you rightarded ass rightards from
> ruining that too.


Well bravo! Aren't you the singular hero today.

Just one little question for you though, if it's "always been this way" why did the FCC have to stick their noses in it and make "always been this way".........always be that way?

They've now officially opened your wallet wide enough to extract a "tax" in the form of governance in fairness to all the citizens far and wide. Someone's gotta pay for this new neutrality that only they can give us, right?

Even though it's always been there?

It's incredible how stupid you sheep can be.

C7TUH Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> Nope, actually it's not how it's been or necessarily
> how it's supposed to be. While the government largely
> stayed out of it, virtually all traffic always has been
> prioritized in various ways based on private peering
> arrangements and other private agreements and investments.
> That the government felt the need to insert itself into
> regulating such arrangements is evidence of that.

^^^
WARNING: Clueless fucking asswipe is simply making shit up. System neutrality has been a part of public law and operations in communications since the days of the telegraph. Profiteers today see money in undoing that precedent re the internet, as if it were not at this point a public utility being operated by public trustees. That's how greedy and stupid these asswipes are. Kick the asswipes out. Keep the internet free.

Foaming here. Why so mad bro?

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C7TUH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > Nope, actually it's not how it's been or
> necessarily
> > how it's supposed to be. While the government
> largely
> > stayed out of it, virtually all traffic always
> has been
> > prioritized in various ways based on private
> peering
> > arrangements and other private agreements and
> investments.
> > That the government felt the need to insert
> itself into
> > regulating such arrangements is evidence of
> that.
>
> ^^^
> WARNING: Clueless fucking asswipe is simply making
> shit up. System neutrality has been a part of
> public law and operations in communications since
> the days of the telegraph. Profiteers today see
> money in undoing that precedent re the internet,
> as if it were not at this point a public utility
> being operated by public trustees. That's how
> greedy and stupid these asswipes are. Kick the
> asswipes out. Keep the internet free.


^^^^
WARNING: Asshole... talking out of his ass again.

The question was around the Internet always having been "free and equal." Neither of which, as I correctly pointed out, is true. Which is kinda the whole point of the FCC stepping in now in an attempt to regulate it more as public utility.

Was the best? Yeah, it wasn't. Especially by 1980...but hey, it was "fair"

Its "interesting" listening to people who speak out against something thats in their best interest, in this case Net Neutrality.

Its probably not perfect, but anything to prevent the providers from finding new ways to charge me for "different levels of service".

In the suck. Just like the good old days...

kev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its "interesting" listening to people who speak
> out against something thats in their best
> interest, in this case Net Neutrality.
>
> Its probably not perfect, but anything to prevent
> the providers from finding new ways to charge me
> for "different levels of service".


More interesting that most people backing it don't even know what they're backing.

There's nothing in the rules passed which prevent Your provider from charging you for different levels of service.

And if you think that this is some altruistic move without profit motive on the part of the content providers who most strongly backed it, then you're smoking something.

kev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its "interesting" listening to people who speak
> out against something thats in their best
> interest, in this case Net Neutrality.
>
> Its probably not perfect, but anything to prevent
> the providers from finding new ways to charge me
> for "different levels of service".


Do you really need the government to save you from yourself?

Can you not make a rational decision on your own?

Or do you just long for the days of the dial-up modem sounds?

When the interweb went commercial, the gubmint lost control of it. Their big finger was pushed off the switch.

It's not nice to take control away from a self serving monster that lives off our tax dollars.

XCVCH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^
> WARNING: Asshole... talking out of his ass again.

Give it a rest, you lying pin-headed piece of shit.

> The question was around the Internet always having
> been "free and equal." Neither of which, as I
> correctly pointed out, is true. Which is kinda
> the whole point of the FCC stepping in now in an
> attempt to regulate it more as public utility.

Fuck off, you two-bit douchebag. You have to twist "free and equal" into unrecognizable shapes and forms to make it seem like you have some actual point to make, but you're passing nothing but noxious gasses and vapors. This is because you are but a dim-witted low-grade asshole. The FCC invoked Title II because the courts said it could only pursue net neutrality guarantees under that framework. Welcome to the club. Corruption and favoritism have no place in the public good of telecommunications. End of story. Now go fuck yourself, moron.

Good and hard.

Gave us the Bell System. Do you seriously assert that to have been a good thing?

So, FCC declares that it now has control over the Internet, bypassing Congress and that's OK? OP is a typical Nazi asshole who things the government is all good and competent, but only if his beloved leader is in charge. Government agencies determining their own mission and their own scope without any input from the people.

OP, you are truly the perfect Brownshirt.

BTW, it will be overturned in the courts since, as I wrote, the FCC can't just make shit up about what they have purview over.

KuGN3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More interesting that most people backing it don't
> even know what they're backing.

They know more than you do, you pathetic sold-out asshole.

> There's nothing in the rules passed which prevent
> Your provider from charging you for different
> levels of service.

No shit, duckfart, but you're using the term in a different sense from what was intended. That's a fucking fallacy of equivocation. Worthless lying fucktards try to pull that sort of weak shit all the time.

> And if you think that this is some altruistic move
> without profit motive on the part of the content
> providers who most strongly backed it, then you're
> smoking something.

Blow all that goober shit out your sorry ass, monkey boy. This is a beat-back (for now) of invasive crony capitalists trying to force their slimy money-grubbing talons into the flesh of a non-discriminatory communications medium. There are no depths to which these assholes will not sink. There is fucking nothing that these cretins will not try to monetize and extract a profit from. Do you think the interests of the public mean one damned thing to these people? Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Don't make me laugh, you worthless little shit-spitting assfuck!

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the interweb went commercial, the gubmint
> lost control of it. Their big finger was pushed
> off the switch. It's not nice to take control
> away from a self serving monster that lives off
> our tax dollars.

The internet was built out with tax dollars alright, but the system was handed free of charge to the cutting edge companies (large and small) who were developing the hardware and software to make the dream of an "information superhighway" a reality. The only regulating being done today is to keep the bully-boys of a later generation from sucking off their profits by squeezing pennies out of the pockets of little old ladies while putting the clamps on messaging that they disagree with. The only people who object to this sort of regulation are the despicable sorts who always hoped that Olive Oyl would end up with Bluto.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fuck off, you two-bit douchebag. You have to
> twist "free and equal" into unrecognizable shapes
> and forms to make it seem like you have some
> actual point to make, but you're passing nothing
> but noxious gasses and vapors. This is because
> you are but a dim-witted low-grade asshole. The
> FCC invoked Title II because the courts said it
> could only pursue net neutrality guarantees under
> that framework. Welcome to the club. Corruption
> and favoritism have no place in the public good of
> telecommunications. End of story. Now go fuck
> yourself, moron.


"Free and equal" wasn't mine dumbfuck. That was your idiot associate's characterization of how the Internet has always been. Which I, again correctly, pointed out was not actually the case. I made no comment on the merits of the decision itself.

Now pull your own shit covered dick out of your ass and lick it clean you fucking blowhard.

Do you even BGP bro? lol

corruption and favoritism Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gave us the Bell System. Do you seriously assert
> that to have been a good thing?

The Bell system provided universal service and expanding technology at a fair price that everyone complained about anyway. Their problem was that a new technology different from the one they had relied on grew up around them. So they tried to block and disrupt VoIP. How much more of that do you want in your world?

Heil Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW, it will be overturned in the courts since, as
> I wrote, the FCC can't just make shit up about
> what they have purview over.

The ruling may indeed be overturned in the courts, but it will not be because the FCC does not have the power to make such rulings.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KuGN3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More interesting that most people backing it
> don't
> > even know what they're backing.
>
> They know more than you do, you pathetic sold-out
> asshole.


Apparently not if they think that their provider can't charge them for different levels of service as it was posted.

>
> > There's nothing in the rules passed which
> prevent
> > Your provider from charging you for different
> > levels of service.
>
> No shit, duckfart, but you're using the term in a
> different sense from what was intended. That's a
> fucking fallacy of equivocation. Worthless lying
> fucktards try to pull that sort of weak shit all
> the time.


I'm using in exactly the same way that the idiot posted it you dumb fucker. Not my problem that people don't understand what they're supporting.


>
> > And if you think that this is some altruistic
> move
> > without profit motive on the part of the
> content
> > providers who most strongly backed it, then
> you're
> > smoking something.
>
> Blow all that goober shit out your sorry ass,
> monkey boy. This is a beat-back (for now) of
> invasive crony capitalists trying to force their
> slimy money-grubbing talons into the flesh of a
> non-discriminatory communications medium. There
> are no depths to which these assholes will not
> sink. There is fucking nothing that these cretins
> will not try to monetize and extract a profit
> from. Do you think the interests of the public
> mean one damned thing to these people?
> Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Don't make me laugh, you
> worthless little shit-spitting assfuck!

You mean "invasive crony capitalists" like Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Vonage, Dish, etc., which "monetize and extract a profit" from services which benefit from the decision and which pumped tons of money into lobbying for the decision? lol

Bad comprehension Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Free and equal" wasn't mine dumbfuck. That was
> your idiot associate's characterization of how the
> Internet has always been.

He was correct, and he had been in the general case for more than a century. You by contrast were shoveling nothing but lame-ass bullshit in reply.

> Which I, again correctly, pointed out was not actually the case.

No, you FAILED monstrously. You either don't know or are afraid to admit the actual facts of these matters. Either way, why don't you just go fuck yourself.

> I made no comment on the merits of the decision itself.

No, of course not! LOLOLOL!!! What an absolute DOUCHE!!!

> Now pull your own shit covered dick out of your
> ass and lick it clean you fucking blowhard.

Kiss my sweet little bunghole, you worthless dumbass dirtbag. You've got nothing left to say here and you know it. By any protocol, you're what's been routed here.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bad comprehension Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Free and equal" wasn't mine dumbfuck. That
> was
> > your idiot associate's characterization of how
> the
> > Internet has always been.
>
> He was correct, and he had been in the general
> case for more than a century. You by contrast
> were shoveling nothing but lame-ass bullshit in
> reply.
>
> > Which I, again correctly, pointed out was not
> actually the case.
>
> No, you FAILED monstrously. You either don't know
> or are afraid to admit the actual facts of these
> matters. Either way, why don't you just go fuck
> yourself.


Wrong dumbass. The Internet always has had various prioritizations of traffic which were largely dependent on private investments and agreements made. All the way back to NSFNet days. It has never been "free and equal to all." Even with the decision it very likely won't be.

>
> > I made no comment on the merits of the decision
> itself.
>
> No, of course not! LOLOLOL!!! What an absolute
> DOUCHE!!!

Point to where dummy. Because everything is black or white to idiot hyper-partisan fucktards like you doesn't mean that it is for those of us who appreciate that there's lots of gray in the case of things like this.

>
> > Now pull your own shit covered dick out of your
> > ass and lick it clean you fucking blowhard.
>
> Kiss my sweet little bunghole, you worthless
> dumbass dirtbag. You've got nothing left to say
> here and you know it. By any protocol, you're
> what's been routed here.

Don't even try to pretend that you know what you're talking about as far as protocols and prioritization of traffic goes or I'll just have to make you look even more stupid. And, no, you won't be able to Google your way though it. lol

Big talk for such a badly battered asshole. You're leagues out of your fucking league, derp-boy. Go sulk.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Big talk for such a badly battered asshole.
> You're leagues out of your fucking league,
> derp-boy. Go sulk.


Declaring victory when you've had your ass beaten - the time-tested fail of forum idiots and big-mouthed bar drunks.

Here's another term for you to Google up Shorty... "loser flyby"

lmao!

jack shit.

They were able to charge top rates (compared worldwide) while "providing" pulse and party lines nearly half a century after both technologies were obsolete.

No one at Bell "tried to block VoIP" - there was no such thing in 82.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heil Obama Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BTW, it will be overturned in the courts since,
> as
> > I wrote, the FCC can't just make shit up about
> > what they have purview over.
>
> The ruling may indeed be overturned in the courts,
> but it will not be because the FCC does not have
> the power to make such rulings.


Actually, yeah it will be because of that. It will go the SCOTUS and be overturned 5-4. Bank on it.

C7TUH Wrote:

> even the EFF has concerns with how broadly some of
> the regulatory powers under the rule are written.

https://twitter.com/EFF/status/571027734752677888
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
https://www.eff.org/files/2015/02/23/14-28_09-191_eff_ex_parte_2.19.15.pdf


"General Conduct" - When the EFF has "deep concern" about their own cause, everyone should be worried about how fucked up the internet is about to become. Just wait until some Repulican gets the bright idea that we should ban all porn sites in the United States because it's harmful conduct.

Which congressman/senator will stand up and say We need our porn! ?

Hint: You're back to magazines, wanker, if you can still find them.

Under FCC control...

Watch progressive heads assplode.

uv4PC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C7TUH Wrote:
>
> > even the EFF has concerns with how broadly some
> of
> > the regulatory powers under the rule are
> written.
>
> https://twitter.com/EFF/status/571027734752677888
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-ret
> hink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
> https://www.eff.org/files/2015/02/23/14-28_09-191_
> eff_ex_parte_2.19.15.pdf
>
>
> "General Conduct" - When the EFF has "deep
> concern" about their own cause, everyone should be
> worried about how fucked up the internet is about
> to become. Just wait until some Repulican gets the
> bright idea that we should ban all porn sites in
> the United States because it's harmful conduct.
>
> Which congressman/senator will stand up and say
> We need our porn! ?
>
> Hint: You're back to magazines, wanker, if you can
> still find them.


Your porn example is exaggerated but basically right in principle. You can't assume that the powers that you give to a regulatory agency like this are necessarily going to be under the control of the side that you like doing what you like at some point down the road.

This goes way beyond simple "Net Neutrality." More concerning than the "bright line tests" for neutrality, blocking, and paid priority are the general expansions of authority under Title II. Which is particularly broad and relies on discretionary forbearance in applying various rules and requirements (the scope of which hasn't been completely revealed). As well as its application on an *end-to-end basis* across the *entire* Internet. This potentially touches everything. For a good rundown of this and implications listen to Commissioner Michael O’Rielly's (an Obama Republican appointee) statement at the meeting today.

Also sketchy that they let Google (which will directly benefit) and other primary proponents "tweak" the rules to their satisfaction when nobody else gets access.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan-google-115502.html

Of course the libs like this. They like that the IRS illegally went after conservative groups. Abuse of government power to go after political enemies is Banana Republic 101. Sadly, that is exactly where this country is now.

Bad comprehension Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Declaring victory when you've had your ass beaten
> - the time-tested fail of forum idiots and
> big-mouthed bar drunks. Here's another term for
> you to Google up Shorty... "loser flyby" lmao!

Go fuck yourself, packet-derp. You desperately endeavor to divert into the meaningless technical trivia of packet routing when the topic is a political in nature. Too stupid by quite a lot to be able to grasp that I would gather, while up on that proper level, everything you have said has translated to farcical goober-grade stupid nonsense. You might just want to go back to the hum and glow of your basement workstation, while leaving it to the big boys to deal with the higher order material.

Jackie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, yeah it will be because of that. It will
> go the SCOTUS and be overturned 5-4. Bank on it.

Bank on the word of a right-wing wind-up toy having neither a legal background nor any understanding of the actual issues and their history? Yeah, that's really likely. What could possibly go wrong in doing that...

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Go fuck yourself, packet-derp. You desperately
> endeavor to divert into the meaningless technical
> trivia of packet routing when the topic is a
> political in nature. Too stupid by quite a lot to
> be able to grasp that I would gather, while up on
> that proper level, everything you have said has
> translated to farcical goober-grade stupid
> nonsense. You might just want to go back to the
> hum and glow of your basement workstation, while
> leaving it to the big boys to deal with the higher
> order material.


 
Attachments:

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jackie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Actually, yeah it will be because of that. It
> will
> > go the SCOTUS and be overturned 5-4. Bank on
> it.
>
> Bank on the word of a right-wing wind-up toy
> having neither a legal background nor any
> understanding of the actual issues and their
> history? Yeah, that's really likely. What could
> possibly go wrong in doing that...


Archived for future use

uv4PC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hint: You're back to magazines, wanker, if you can
> still find them.

Porn is speech. It has its own protections. If it didn't, it would be gone already. And the EFF engages often enough in hair-on-fire, bug-eyed hysteria from points all over the map. "EFF" and "psychotropic drugs" are things that might be considered together.

Bad comprehension Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your porn example is exaggerated but basically
> right in principle...

No, it isn't, you worthless dumbfuck. You are once again colossally out of your apparently very limited league.

Umba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course the libs like this. They like that the
> IRS illegally went after conservative groups.

Another hair-on-fire bit of right-wing mythology. You can tell a trained seal by the fish it eats.

FFU Archiver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Archived for future use

Provide an author's credit or be prepared to speak with my lawyers while they are not in a good mood.

Another thread derailed by the two pretentious fags from the Vienna mattress thread.

Well done gentlemen, quality posting.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Umba Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Of course the libs like this. They like that
> the
> > IRS illegally went after conservative groups.
>
> Another hair-on-fire bit of right-wing mythology.
> You can tell a trained seal by the fish it eats.


Wow, they must have gotten to you while you were still in the womb for you drink so much kool-aid and spew it here. Please tell us you don't actually believe the shit you post.
 
Attachments:

So there's that

We are the Millenials. We know and understand all. Your baby boomer propaganda for retards is ineffective. Old shitty asshole Republican people, please retire and shut the fuck up already. You have become irrelevant, accept it.

The problem with old stupid assholes whom are Republicans is they think everyone is an old stupid asshole like they are on every subject.

When in fact they are the only old stupid assholes left. Its sad to watch them sometimes.

Like a retard walking into a wall.

another one bites the dust Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thread derailed by the two pretentious
> fags from the Vienna mattress thread.
>
> Well done gentlemen, quality posting.

Vienna man... is on a new trolling level. He's getting up there with eesh and misery.

dumb ass republicans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are the Millenials. We know and understand all.
> Your baby boomer propaganda for retards is
> ineffective. Old shitty asshole Republican people,
> please retire and shut the fuck up already. You
> have become irrelevant, accept it.


No, you are a moron. All polls show that Millenials are socially liberal and fiscally conservative and don't want the government to grow and want it to stay out of our lives. You are no Millenial, but if you are, you're completely out of step with the rest of us. Loud mouth squawking about shit you no nothing about.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Go fuck yourself, packet-derp. You desperately
> endeavor to divert into the meaningless technical
> trivia of packet routing when the topic is a
> political in nature. [BS deleted.]

I'm going to just start deleting all of your bullshit out of your posts again. Which, as always, will be most of them.

Because you don't understand how and to what extent prioritization of traffic over the Internet happens routinely as an inherent aspect of network operation, doesn't mean that it's meaningless. The politics need to reflect technical and practical realities. As noted by many others commenting on the ruling, the implications of a very broadly written rule which dictates regulatory control something that fundamental raises lots of potential issues. When you layer on the ability for opportunistic legal actions against providers for doing things that are done routinely in managing traffic on an end-to-end basis across the Internet involving everything from providers (many of which are not the giants) to how individual pieces of equipment operate, then you've opened a very large can of worms.

Unlike other carriers, T-Mobile does not have a data cap with overage penalties. Instead, when users hit their cap they find their connection slowed significantly. While this type of throttling is probably preferable to huge overage fees, it still exerts a strong influence on what types of services T-Mobile subscribers use online. This influence is strengthened enormously when certain apps or certain content is exempted from the cap – a practice known as “zero rating.” This type of gatekeeping interference by ISPs is exactly what net neutrality rules should be designed to prevent.


************************

It's happening and it shouldn't. I get it.

Bad comprehension Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because you don't understand how and to what
> extent prioritization of traffic over the Internet
> happens routinely as an inherent aspect of network
> operation, doesn't mean that it's meaningless.

Such technicals are not meaningless, just completely fucking irrelevant in the context of this discussion. You've got no place else to hide anymore, so you want to drag asshat nonsense and minutiae into the picture. That would be because you know damned well how badly you have already lost here.

For the benefit of others, here's a quick-and-dirty plain-English overview of what the ruling actually means. ISP's and wireless carriers are now equally prevented from blocking web services (e.g., Netflix). Neither may they slow down or ­detour those precious content packets of yours because they happen to be incoming from websites they don't like. Nor may they set up or operate special express lanes for packets arriving from websites that they do like or that agree to some sort of monetary or other quid pro quo for doing so. That's pretty much the deal here. Fair, free, open, neutral.

> As noted by many others commenting on the ruling,
> the implications of a very broadly written rule which
> dictates regulatory control something that fundamental
> raises lots of potential issues.

What the fuck does that even mean? It's incomprehensible gibberish.

> When you layer on the ability for opportunistic legal
> actions against providers for doing things that are
> done routinely in managing traffic on an end-to-end
> basis across the Internet involving everything from
> providers (many of which are not the giants) to how
> individual pieces of equipment operate, then you've
> opened a very large can of worms.

This isn't the stupidest thing you've ever written only because of the even more idiotic paragraph quoted above. What a mindless dorkbrain.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>blah, blah, blah dorkbrain.

Just so you know, using the term "dorkbrain" will ALWAYS invalidate anything else written unless you are under the age of 3. Which you appear to be. Under the age of 3. Cause you used "dorkbrain". And most of what you write is bull shit anyway.

Noyoudint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unlike other carriers, T-Mobile does not have a
> data cap with overage penalties. Instead, when
> users hit their cap they find their connection
> slowed significantly. While this type of
> throttling is probably preferable to huge overage
> fees, it still exerts a strong influence on what
> types of services T-Mobile subscribers use online.
> This influence is strengthened enormously when
> certain apps or certain content is exempted from
> the cap – a practice known as “zero rating.”
> This type of gatekeeping interference by ISPs is
> exactly what net neutrality rules should be
> designed to prevent.
>
>
> ************************
>
> It's happening and it shouldn't. I get it.


T mobile unlimited doesn't throttle. They'll give you a certain amount of LTE then switch you over to hspa pretty much 4g speeds as well.

There is no throttled data speed. Its just moving off the favored LTE network to the hspa network with very high speeds available too depending on location unlimited.

T mobile is awesome.

I was able to get 17 mbs download speeds on t mobiles hspa. That beats att LTE in my area.

Calling higher speeds than competitor LTE should never be called throttling.

What happened to the libs of the 60's? At least they wanted freedom, small government, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These days libs are basically Nazi's.
Net nuetraility is a very bad thing. If you support it, there is NOTHING American about you and you're a fucking dumbass.

Fat-ass loser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just so you know, using the term "dorkbrain" will
> ALWAYS invalidate anything else written unless you
> are under the age of 3. Which you appear to be.
> Under the age of 3. Cause you used "dorkbrain".
> And most of what you write is bull shit anyway.

Resignation accepted, dorkbrain...
.
Attachments:

Net Neutrality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Freedom, innovation and entrepreneurialship has
> won the day over the greedy corpotate fascist
> fucks and their GOP whores who want to control
> what we have access to with the broadband we pay
> for.
>
> Everyone has a right to the internet not just big
> money that can pay to elbow out small competitors.
>
>
> Today, freedom rang and Republicans lost.


Are you serious? Everything you said is the opposite of what will happen. Internet will no longer be a free for all, but Government regulated. That is just awful. This will actually hinder freedom, entrepenuership, and innovation.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bad comprehension Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Such technicals are not meaningless, just
> completely fucking irrelevant in the context of
> this discussion. [Bullshit deleted]


They're not at all irrelevant to the discussion. That is where the abstract "bright lines" of no blocking, no throttling, and no pay-for-play all come into direct collision with the realities of how the Internet actually works versus being some magical pipeline which somehow connects everything to everything on a basis that's "free and equal to all" with no practical limitations or requirements with respect to scalability, operations, or management. That's not at all the case at multiple technical and practical levels.


> For the benefit of others, here's a
> quick-and-dirty plain-English overview of what the
> ruling actually means. ISP's and wireless
> carriers are now equally prevented from blocking
> web services (e.g., Netflix). Neither may they
> slow down or ­detour those precious content
> packets of yours because they happen to be
> incoming from websites they don't like. Nor may
> they set up or operate special express lanes for
> packets arriving from websites that they do like
> or that agree to some sort of monetary or other
> quid pro quo for doing so. That's pretty much the
> deal here. Fair, free, open, neutral.

All of which sounds fine at an abstract level but doesn't reflect reality.

There are, for example, good reasons why "express lanes" for various types of traffic exist and why various providers make the business arrangements and investment to employ them. You want near-real-time and other higher priority traffic and services to have faster paths versus lesser traffic. By design that cannot reasonably be done on a "free, open, and neutral" basis and somebody somewhere always is paying in some way(s) for that.

There also are good reasons why various forms of "throttling" (which remains only very broadly defined) maybe necessary to properly manage networks or may simply inherently occur at various levels.

And that doesn't address the very broad and undefined application of Title II, limited only by some unspecified, selective non-enforcement through forbearance, across the entirety of the Internet on and end-to-end basis beyond just the large broadband carriers to include various smaller and other wireless providers, edge services, carrier exchange, location of various services, all the way down to processes controlled by and operating within individual pieces of equipment which normally operate completely contrary to some abstract unthrottled "free and equal" model. It's just not how things actually work.

>
> What the fuck does that even mean? It's
> incomprehensible gibberish.
>

Not at all. The rule (as it's been revealed thus far) is written at a very broad and general level leaving specifics of exactly what and how things will be regulated to further definition which, largely, is to be done through case-by-case determinations. Nobody knows, for example, whether some specific practice is compliant or not until there's some challenge to or ruling regarding it. So everything is continually at risk. You can't make the types of large investments or structure business relationships necessary on that basis. It also, as noted by EFF, doesn't limit the scope of regulatory authority over such things as "general conduct." Nobody knows what it means and, effectively, it means whatever the agency deems it to mean.


> This isn't the stupidest thing you've ever written
> only because of the even more idiotic paragraph
> quoted above. What a mindless dorkbrain.


The ability to pursue legal actions under the rule against basically the entire Internet and every service and equipment provider along the way for alleged violations of such generalized criteria as "throttling" and "blocking" is going to make the copyright, patent, and usual class action legal trolls look like nothing. I can guarantee that there will be firms soliciting anyone affected by any real or perceived effects and setting up monitoring services to detect even the smallest of demonstrable service violations in order to prey upon providers for settlements.

Don't listen to these scumbag Republicans. Theyre blatant liars masked as dumb asses.

The only real change in the short term will be the taxes that will be tacked on to serve as a piggy bank for the Feds. For a preview check out you land line bill for fees. In the long term there is less of an incentive to innovate so the lower tiered services will improve slightly and premium services will be of lesser quality.

This'll be fun.

Libs have gone from freedom loving, peaceful hippies to totalitarian, communist loving warmongering,anti humanity dumbfucks. Shit, the hippies at least understood America.

Bad history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fat-ass loser Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just so you know, using the term "dorkbrain"
> will
> > ALWAYS invalidate anything else written unless
> you
> > are under the age of 3. Which you appear to be.
>
> > Under the age of 3. Cause you used "dorkbrain".
>
> > And most of what you write is bull shit anyway.
>
> Resignation accepted, dorkbrain...
> .


What kind of loser is sitting at home at 9:30 on a Friday night arguing politics on the Internet? A big kind, that's for sure. Get a life asshole.

repukes lie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't listen to these scumbag Republicans. Theyre
> blatant liars masked as dumb asses.


Sure, let's listen to an angry, frothing lib sheeple who blindly backs the most corrupt administration since Nixon without any clue what the fuck they're talking about instead. Believing the Brownshirts always works out so well in history.