SR4 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/fcc-free-speech-ruling what does this mean? is it all over? can we no more free speeches? no can haz cheeseburger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Foil Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Man I just hate huge corporations who's with me like if you agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 What to read next: #1.Alison Brie, a woman we love ... No need to say I got distracted by a series of sexist pics with Miss Brie in bathing suits showing her cleavage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Thanks obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 pretty cray how disillusioned we all are now, net neutrality as a concept would have been something even the plebs in 2006-2008 era watmm would have been pretty adamant about defending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Deciding a lawsuit brought by Verizon, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the rules. The court said the FCC saddled broadband providers with the same sorts of obligations as traditional "common carrier" telecommunications services, such as landline phone systems, even though the commission had explicitly decided not to classify broadband as a telecom service. "Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such," Judge David Tatel wrote for the court. Though the FCC said it might appeal, the ruling for now means Internet-service providers are free to experiment with new types of pricing arrangements, such as charging content companies like Google Inc. GOOG +0.66% or Netflix higher fees to deliver Internet traffic faster. Or, they could choose to degrade the quality of certain online content unless its creators were willing to pay up. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462.html So there will be an appeal, or current laws have to be rewritten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 But shouldn't we allow the market to be free and unregulated? Isn't that the path to righteousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 No. Edit: also notice the time it took to articulate my answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amen Lare Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Shit mang, that suxx. On to the next shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berk Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Man I just hate huge corporations who's with me like if you agree I can't like this like on Facebook, but I will definitely quote this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 O, quick question: at what point does a corporation become huge exactly? Is there some kind of BMI for corporations? To verify whether one is obese or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 wait so, the FCC rules regulating the internet were struck down, and now our interwebs are going to spiral into a realm of greed, where different pricing structures are sure to pop up, like offering tiers for faster connections or more access. just like we had before 2010, before those FCC rules were put in place. oh wait, we didn't have that back then. and the article mentions how our internets aren't as good as south korea's which does have heavy regulation, but maybe they should consider how this also takes place over there? why didn't they mention that? call me crazy, i just think in a discussion that brings south korea's heavily regulated internets to the table, any honest person would give at least a passing mention to their heavy gov censoring of their super fast internets. but that would involve some integrity on the part of the writer. basically lets just cherrypick the good aspect of their regulated internet, that it's fast, and ignore any and all of the multitude of bad things that people all across the political spectrum in the US would have a problem with and which also is a direct result of that heavy regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 watmm delivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 "For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up." Yeah, that idea can fuck right off... hopefully the FCC can get their dignity back here and appeal to the SC or try some other tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 is watmm classed as a premium tier site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 if you pay master J a premium it might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I think this will not last because (the wealth of corporations who don't want their internet throttled) > (the wealth of corporations who want to throttle the internet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 wait so, the FCC rules regulating the internet were struck down, and now our interwebs are going to spiral into a realm of greed, where different pricing structures are sure to pop up, like offering tiers for faster connections or more access. just like we had before 2010, before those FCC rules were put in place. oh wait, we didn't have that back then. and the article mentions how our internets aren't as good as south korea's which does have heavy regulation, but maybe they should consider how this also takes place over there? why didn't they mention that? call me crazy, i just think in a discussion that brings south korea's heavily regulated internets to the table, any honest person would give at least a passing mention to their heavy gov censoring of their super fast internets. but that would involve some integrity on the part of the writer. basically lets just cherrypick the good aspect of their regulated internet, that it's fast, and ignore any and all of the multitude of bad things that people all across the political spectrum in the US would have a problem with and which also is a direct result of that heavy regulation. Yeah cause that doesn't happen in the US does it. Well it'll suck to be poor using the internet in the states/canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Al Hounos Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I think this will not last because (the wealth of corporations who don't want their internet throttled) > (the wealth of corporations who want to throttle the internet) Yeah, unfortunately this seems the cynical silver lining. Lucky for us cattle, there are bigger corporations for net neutrality than against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 i just don't know how neutral our gov is, to call them running something neutralizing it theyre the ones taking money from lobbyists also the same ones siphoning all of our text messages, emails, social network info, metadata of our phone calls if not the calls themselves, and anything else they can get their hands on. i don't think i'll ever understand the mentality that goes behind thinking 'corporations bad' 'government good'. theyre both ran by... PEOPLE. all the influence that wall street has bought in washington, was sold to them by... washington. i mean you can debate whether or not regulation of this or that may or may not be a good thing, but starting the debate off by labeling it as making that thing 'neutral' just seems like you're rigging the conversation. our government is anything BUT neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 yeah our government is anything but neutral also, "net neutrality" is an old term (that was used often during this fcc v verizon case), it isn't something that hounos just invented, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Pretty strange comparison between corporations and government. Government produces laws for all of us whether we like them or not. Corporations produce products or services we can choose, or not. Laws should be neutral wrt to the people it serves (all of us), regardless of the people running the government. Edit: it's more a personal pet peeve. The comparison might implicitly tend to say that corporations and government are similar. Perhaps in terms of organization. And in a cynical way also in terms of power. But the last shouldnt be the case. ... In the ideal Teletubbies worldview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Pretty strange comparison between corporations and government. Government produces laws for all of us whether we like them or not. Corporations produce products or services we can choose, or not. Laws should be neutral wrt to the people it serves (all of us), regardless of the people running the government. Edit: it's more a personal pet peeve. The comparison might implicitly tend to say that corporations and government are similar. Perhaps in terms of organization. And in a cynical way also in terms of power. But the last shouldnt be the case. ... In the ideal Teletubbies worldview. the laws are meant to serve us, but often they don't, just like the people appointed to uphold and execute those laws (cops, who are a part of the government, btw) are meant to protect and serve us, but often don't. cops are people. presidents are people. congressmen and women are people. corporations are run by people. all people can become corrupt, and anyone running for an office that would grant them lots of power over other people, they much much more likely to be corrupt than any random person in the general population. power attracts people who lust after power. so people in the government are often the same exact type of people at the top of corporations, and often they actually are the same people. not only that but the lobbyists, and various other methods that those corporations have to buy favors in government, means that the government officials are attached at the hip to these corp giants. how exactly don't you 'get the comparison'? edit- specifically, i'm not saying that the gov and corps are similar. i'm talking about the PEOPLE running them. to me you have to be mentally deranged to go around thinking in solid absolute terms that 'corporations = bad, greedy, asshole people running them' and then turn around and say 'governments also run by bad greedy assholes are the only solution to that problem for sure! theyll save us!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 case in point: https://www.google.com/#q=fcc+corruption http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2011/05/31/legalized-corruption-the-comcast-merger-and-the-fcc/ http://www.alternet.org/story/16032/rotten,_old-fashioned_corruption_at_the_fcc http://www.worldwidehippies.com/2013/01/08/bad-rule-bad-tactics-and-more-corruption-from-the-fcc/ list goes on and on and on but gee, look at that, who would have thunk it? but i mean, they are a Regulating Body. So how could this happen? how could a regulating body do bad things? they are supposed to regulate and make everything OK. it's almost like... like the FCC is ran by... people? human people? the same exact things that run those evil corporations? gasp! instead of angels wot came down from heaven and cant be corrupt? but hay dont look at the man behind THAT curtain. with these guys runnin the show we'll be ALRIGHT. we'll get that hot fresh 'net neutrality' that's all about benefiting us, the little people. amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 The irony is that I completely agree about the people side. My only point was that it's a strange comparison, even if both are similar from the organizational point of view. ( with which i mean: it's filled with people doing tasks) And again, I agree and would gladly acknowledge again, that both are organizations which consist of people doing tasks. With all the imperfections coming along with "people". "Laws are meant to serve us, but often they dont" Laws arent perfect, but what is your point? It feels like you're saying that laws often do us a disservice. Or am I reading too much in your statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.