The Dress

[MadGypsy]

and to think, while the world was staring at this dress, the FCC was taking over the internet, but that's a discussion for after it's way too late.

[Enkidu]

Taking over? By ruling the broadband was a public utility? I've got to hear this argument.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

Taking over? By ruling the broadband was a public utility? I've got to hear this argument.

I was curious too, but chose not to engage hah.

[MadGypsy]

@hear this argument

Anything I write here would be nothing more than a virtual copy and paste of what I've read on how this will effect the internet. So, just do some research on that and you have my argument. Actually, it's not MY argument at all. It would appear to be THE argument.

[Enkidu]

Well, I work in the industry and have done a lot of research on this. I haven't been impressed so far by any counter-argument against neutrality that I've heard thus far. It is possible that I just haven't been looking in the right place. If you could send me some links then I'll happily check them out. It can be in PM if you like, though that seems like it would defeat the purpose of this particular section of the forum.

[MadGypsy]

@Enkidu - I try and learn things from multiple perspectives and there is no way for me to guarantee that things I have read are the truth. All I can say is that I have done a bit of research and made note of some of the talking points. So, maybe I will give you a link and you'll come right back and explain all about how it is bullshit. All I can say is there is no way for me to be accurately knowledgeable on everything... at least I'm trying to know something.

I am dog shit tired right now but, tomorrow I will go through my history and find some links for you. It is actually totally against my normal way of functioning not to express my personal understanding and thoughts on something but, I am not confident in my current education regarding this. That is why I am not starting, making or perpetuating a debate/argument.

I will pass you some links though when I am better rested.

I believe I may have only read "the arguments" because yours and mindz response made me feel like I was from outer space, where the things I've read seemed more like inevitable. So, now I really don't know what to think. As long as this stuff doesn't mess up my blender thread, I potentially don't even care (silliness) .

[Enkidu]

You might be the last sane man on Earth I can accept that I might be wrong, I just haven't seen anything that has convinced me of it yet. I am particularly close to the issue because of my work and I try to sample from a variety of reliable sources but I also cognizant of confirmation bias. Even if your sources don't convince me I don't think I would come back screaming bullshit. I am genuinely curious about any convincing arguments against neutrality.

[MadGypsy]

You might be the last sane man on Earth

pbbbbbbbt! Define sane. If by sane you mean tortured and unbalanced then hell yeah I'm sane.

@not come back screaming bullshit

I wouldn't care if you did. I didn't write anything that I read nor did I ever regard it as "biblical". Actually, I highly suggest you highlight the bullshit. You attest to a knowledge that your average person is not expected to posses.... share it.

[Baker]

and to think, while the world was staring at this dress, the FCC was taking over the internet, but that's a discussion for after it's way too late.

Who owns the media? Now think for a moment here ...

Comcast owns NBC. Time Warner owns CNN.

Of course you are going to read "The FCC took over the internet" because Time Warner and Comcast are upset.

We will see if the FCC actually "took over the internet", the 8 pages of rules will released in 30 days. I heard the other 300 pages are required comments by different members of the commission. If your news source didn't provide this information, they aren't seeking to educate you but rather are seeking to manipulate you.

Oh yeah ... and the complaining FCC guy and ex-Verizon lawyer:
Ajit Varadaraj Pai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'm not interested in his alarmism, I want to know the specifics.

You can't trust any news outlets for unbiased reporting.

I'm not saying it is true or isn't true that the FCC "took over the internet" but our untrustworthy media --- especially in this case because several major news networks are owned by broadband providers --- it is very hard to know what is true or not true until we can all see the fine print.

Comcast, AT&T and so forth have been trying to gouge companies like Netflix and Google to collect on both ends, while making truly obscene amounts of money --- enough to easily buy mega-corps like the news outlets.

But they sell service to the consumer, and shouldn't be using their power to harm competitors (Netflix is a competitor to cable television, TV stations and on-demand video) like how Comcast throttled Netflix, forcing them to capitulate and pay a toll.

Could these FCC rules be "taking over the internet?" Maybe. Maybe not.

And let's not let super-mega-corps who own the media and have a big stake in this -- tell us ... in the absence of any proof or concrete evidence ... that something "bad" is happening.

Let's see the rules.

[That ended up being a bit more of a wall of text than I was hoping for ...]

[MadGypsy]

@Baker - that's the long version on why I am not trying to debate this.

Let's see the rules.

agreed

[MadGypsy]

House Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has introduced a bill to block the FCC from imposing its 332-page �Net Neutrality� Internet takeover plan, which has still not been released to the public over a week after its adoption.

The bill, entitled the Internet Freedom Act (H.R.1212), would not only stop the FCC from �reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service and from imposing certain regulations on providers of such service,� but would also prevent the agency from imposing similar rules unless authorized by Congress.

�Last week�s vote by the FCC to regulate the Internet like a 1930s era public utility is further proof that the Obama administration will stop at nothing in their efforts to control the Internet,� Blackburn said in a press release. �There is nothing �free and open� about this heavy-handed approach.�

�These overreaching rules will stifle innovation, restrict freedoms, and lead to billions of dollars in new fees and taxes for American consumers.�

�Once the federal government establishes a foothold into managing how Internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, or not at all,� she added. �My legislation will put the brakes on this FCC overreach and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations.�

The bill�s opponents are complaining it would �strip away the FCC�s statutory authority,� but that�s a good thing: Congress needs to reassert its power over unelected, out-of-control bureaucracies.

The United States was founded as a constitutional republic of limited powers, not as a bureaucratic oligarchy of unlimited powers vested to over 250 unelected heads of various federal agencies, which we have today.

Simply put, Congress should be enacting laws, not bureaucracies.

The Consumerist, a blog owned by Consumer Reports, suggested that Blackburn introduced the bill because she�s backed by AT&T and Comcast, but the blog neglected to point out that billionaire activist George Soros and the Ford Foundation spent nearly $200 million to support the FCC�s Internet takeover.

�The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-Net Neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,� MRC Business reported.

But why would they do that? Because the FCC�s �Net Neutrality� regulations empower the federal government and the establishment to restrict political speech on-line.

�We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it,� wrote Dr. Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois, a socialist activist who not only received funding from Soros but whose work also influenced the FCC. �The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications.�

[Baker]

Propaganda and fear mongering.

The rules look like this:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...C-331869A1.pdf

The final wording can't be released until final edits are done.

It is nice to know that some people in the media and some politicians choose to lie and scaremonger.

[MadGypsy]

I don't know, man. This is starting to seem more like a catch 22 by every passing day.

[Baker]

�All through my life I've had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world, something big, even sinister, and no one would tell me what it was."

"No," said the old man, "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that.�

[MadGypsy]

"Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not after you."

We could do this til the end of time and it won't change what (if anything) awaits us. Also, I'm skeptical, not paranoid. On one end we have "big-business" and on the other we have government, neither of which has any reason to be trusted.

It's not like we haven't seen this FCC shit before. You seem to have a blind and unhealthy belief that nothing can go very wrong with this legislation. I'm not attacking you or "calling you out". Let's be wide awake and alert to the fact that this government does not serve it's people.

This President platformed on the promise of the most transpatent government, ever. Yet nobody can read half of the shit being voted on til the votes are cast. Anyone not skeptical of this is probably an idiot.