Obama taking our freedoms: FCC in move to regulate internet

2010-06-18 21:10:26

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA

FT wrote:
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday took its first formal step towards the adoption of new regulations for the broadband industry, setting the stage for what could become one of the most expensive lobbying campaigns to hit Capitol Hill by major telecommunications and cable providers.

In a 3-2 vote along party lines, Democrats at the FCC on Thursday agreed to begin formal consideration to adopt new rules for high- speed internet companies such as AT&T and Comcast, which have until now operated virtually free of the FCC’s oversight. Technically, the FCC’s majority passed a motion to “open for comment” new broadband rules, the first step to passing the rules.

---

Great...that's all we need. You guys all complained about Bush wire tapping...get ready for much worse. Once the government gets involved get ready for anemic growth in the internet.

2010-06-18 21:37:24

#2

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6540|San Diego, CA, USA

More: Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

Guys...they could be monitoring bf2s....

2010-06-18 21:39:18

#3

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6763|PNW

The FCC pretty much always wanted this. It means they'll be able to bring in more funding.

VIVA LA ICELAND!

2010-06-18 22:12:44

#4

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6488

Harmor wrote:
More: Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

Guys...they could be monitoring bf2s....

wait til they get a load of EE (hats!

2010-06-19 02:47:56

#5

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5228|Cleveland, Ohio

yep. if this was 2004 people would be saying zomg bush nazi germany 1939

2010-06-19 02:55:33

#6

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6315|New Haven, CT

Isn't net neutrality a good thing?

2010-06-19 03:36:30

#7

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5465|Ventura, California

I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-19 03:48:08

#8

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6666|Canberra, AUS

-Sh1fty- wrote:
I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?

Sh1fty providing moar DSTertainment.

Last edited by Spark (2010-06-19 03:48:16)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-06-19 03:51:54

#9

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5465|Ventura, California

Just making sure they're watching.

Keep it hush hush!

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-19 04:30:15

#10

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6097|eXtreme to the maX

nukchebi0 wrote:
Isn't net neutrality a good thing?

If neutrality means freedom to distribute child porn and bomb recipes then probably not.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2010-06-19 04:37:06

#11

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6707

-Sh1fty- wrote:
I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?

You mean conservative. GG political spectrum lol

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-06-19 05:23:02

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

nukchebi0 wrote:
Isn't net neutrality a good thing?

Not with unlimited bandwidth its not. If they went old-school AOL and charged a person by the minute/GB then limits on specific web sites would take care of themselves.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-06-19 05:25:38

#13

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5465|Ventura, California

Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?
You mean conservative. GG political spectrum lol

I'm talking about monitoring vs restricting. The liberals will resstrict, they will do everything in their power to shut down things that aren't on their side. It's true wether you admit to it or bash my "Stupidity".

I have nothing against them monitoring my calls or emails if they suspect I'm up to something. So if I'm email something and they pick up some key words, then I don't mind monitoring.

Funny how liberalism is always praised and yet all throughout history it's been worse than when capitalism, concervatism, etc. was going strong.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2010-06-19 05:27:51

#14

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6666|Canberra, AUS

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?
You mean conservative. GG political spectrum lol
I'm talking about monitoring vs restricting. The liberals will resstrict, they will do everything in their power to shut down things that aren't on their side. It's true wether you admit to it or bash my "Stupidity".

I have nothing against them monitoring my calls or emails if they suspect I'm up to something. So if I'm email something and they pick up some key words, then I don't mind monitoring.

Funny how liberalism is always praised and yet all throughout history it's been worse than when capitalism, concervatism, etc. was going strong.

Do you know what liberalism is?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-06-19 05:28:18

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?
You mean conservative. GG political spectrum lol
I'm talking about monitoring vs restricting. The liberals will resstrict, they will do everything in their power to shut down things that aren't on their side. It's true wether you admit to it or bash my "Stupidity".

I have nothing against them monitoring my calls or emails if they suspect I'm up to something. So if I'm email something and they pick up some key words, then I don't mind monitoring.

Funny how liberalism is always praised and yet all throughout history it's been worse than when capitalism, concervatism, etc. was going strong.

What do you care? You're a euro.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-06-19 05:40:25

#16

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6707

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I seriously want to see all of those fucking liberal freedom-eaters burn slowly to death.

Did you read that ya bitches?
You mean conservative. GG political spectrum lol
I'm talking about monitoring vs restricting. The liberals will resstrict, they will do everything in their power to shut down things that aren't on their side. It's true wether you admit to it or bash my "Stupidity".

I have nothing against them monitoring my calls or emails if they suspect I'm up to something. So if I'm email something and they pick up some key words, then I don't mind monitoring.

Funny how liberalism is always praised and yet all throughout history it's been worse than when capitalism, concervatism, etc. was going strong.

Boy you need more school.

2010-06-19 05:42:04

#17

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

JohnG@lt wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
Isn't net neutrality a good thing?
Not with unlimited bandwidth its not. If they went old-school AOL and charged a person by the minute/GB then limits on specific web sites would take care of themselves.

Hate to quote myself but...

Charging by the minute/GB/whatever would also make people more vigilant about controlling their networks... which would make that rule that Germany passed completely unnecessary. When shit is relatively free, no one respects it.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-06-19 06:11:10

#18

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6640

Harmor wrote:
More: Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

Guys...they could be monitoring bf2s....

I'm quite sure ATG has seen to that a long time ago.

2010-06-19 07:05:33

#19

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6097|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

You mean conservative. GG political spectrum lol
I'm talking about monitoring vs restricting. The liberals will resstrict, they will do everything in their power to shut down things that aren't on their side. It's true wether you admit to it or bash my "Stupidity".

I have nothing against them monitoring my calls or emails if they suspect I'm up to something. So if I'm email something and they pick up some key words, then I don't mind monitoring.

Funny how liberalism is always praised and yet all throughout history it's been worse than when capitalism, concervatism, etc. was going strong.
Do you know what liberalism is?

Clearly not.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2010-06-19 09:46:40

#20

mikkel: Member; +383|6592

Harmor wrote:
FCC in move to regulate internet

FT wrote:
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday took its first formal step towards the adoption of new regulations for the broadband industry, setting the stage for what could become one of the most expensive lobbying campaigns to hit Capitol Hill by major telecommunications and cable providers.

In a 3-2 vote along party lines, Democrats at the FCC on Thursday agreed to begin formal consideration to adopt new rules for high- speed internet companies such as AT&T and Comcast, which have until now operated virtually free of the FCC’s oversight. Technically, the FCC’s majority passed a motion to “open for comment” new broadband rules, the first step to passing the rules.
---

Great...that's all we need. You guys all complained about Bush wire tapping...get ready for much worse. Once the government gets involved get ready for anemic growth in the internet.

Harmor wrote:
More: Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

Guys...they could be monitoring bf2s....

Wait, hold on, why are you associating a regulatory move by the FCC with the inane ramblings of Napolitano? In what way is this FCC move linked to the wet dreams of the DHS?

2010-06-19 09:50:53

#21

pace51: Boom?; +194|5164|Markham, Ontario

Actually, the liberals would probably be in favour of allowing us too have internet freedoms. They're very lenient.

2010-06-19 09:56:34

#22

mikkel: Member; +383|6592

11 Bravo wrote:
yep. if this was 2004 people would be saying zomg bush nazi germany 1939

So what you're saying is that the public is selectively critical of policy? That's a massive revelation, 11 Bravo!

2010-06-19 10:06:24

#23

seymorebutts443: Ready for combat; +211|6586|Belchertown Massachusetts, USA

Conservative vs liberal debates make me laugh. Both sides are equally retarded.

2010-06-19 18:20:02

#24

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6371|MN

pace51 wrote:
Actually, the liberals would probably be in favour of allowing us too have internet freedoms. They're very lenient.

It's Progressives you gotta watch out for.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2010-06-19 21:10:59

#25

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
Isn't net neutrality a good thing?
Not with unlimited bandwidth its not. If they went old-school AOL and charged a person by the minute/GB then limits on specific web sites would take care of themselves.
Hate to quote myself but...

Charging by the minute/GB/whatever would also make people more vigilant about controlling their networks... which would make that rule that Germany passed completely unnecessary. When shit is relatively free, no one respects it.

Uh... no. ISP's make enough money as it is. To then make it so they limit bandwidth to sites depending on how much a site pays them to connect to them is just highway robbery.

Harmor mentioned "anemic growth". That would occur if ISP's were allowed to negate net neutrality.

So, having the FCC ensure that net neutrality remains in place is a good thing. It would also be nice if they outlawed bandwidth caps, because they are entirely unnecessary for our system.

BF2S Forums Obama taking our freedoms: FCC in move to regulate internet

FT wrote:

Harmor wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Spark wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Harmor wrote:

FT wrote:

Harmor wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

pace51 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Board footer