Masques wrote:
That woman has epic titties.
I approve.
haffeysucks wrote:
i was looking at that girl's tits/loving her accent
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
you guys argue this like its actually a problem. if an isp tries to block NN, somebody will take it to the courts, it'll end up in supreme who will rule against it as a affront to the first ammendment. settle down and change your diapers.
wouldn't hackers and other savy people go apeshit on these companies?
HurricaИe wrote:
I, along with the internet, would declare jihad on the ISPs if this happened. And Congress, too!
The same Supreme Court that's hopelessly pro-business?Ender2309 wrote:
you guys argue this like its actually a problem. if an isp tries to block NN, somebody will take it to the courts, it'll end up in supreme who will rule against it as a affront to the first ammendment. settle down and change your diapers.
This won't happen, but if for some gay reason it does, that would suck.
These Belgians are weird.
That chick is the the one who said she'd take virgins for a ride if they support net neutrality
She is delightful to look at, but a bit crazy methinks.
That chick is the the one who said she'd take virgins for a ride if they support net neutrality
She is delightful to look at, but a bit crazy methinks.
Good point, I hadn't even thought of that angle. This "end of the internet" they are predicting will never happen, the net is too good of a fundraising and grassroots political tool.pierro wrote:
Regulate in order to allow free markets (of information) to develop? I think that's a paradox for any libertarian or fiscal republican...Hilarious because the libertarians only officially mention it once (on their blog) and call it a "controversial issue". On one hand they want a slice of Ron Paul's committed internet wacko base, on the other hand, their principals and the major libertarian think tanks (cato, enterprise etc...) would lead them to oppose it. I only talk about this in such a light hearted manner because net-neutrality is such a non issue...senators and congressman will be screwed from a fundraising perspective if they vote against it, both parties owe incredible debts to internet users who have raised hundreds of millions, the next president of the United States has pledged support for net neutrality, but most importantly net neutrality is supported by Microsoft
Last edited by Vax (2008-06-01 21:08:03)
So, some conspiracy theorist is predicting doom on the Internet. Oh no. Perhaps you can hit him up on the skype ID he left on the bottom of the page to verify these claims.
This would be all fine and dandy, was it not for the fact that some countries, most notably the US, have many areas where only one broadband carrier is available. As long as monopolies exist, you cannot defend against legislation on neutrality by arguing that competition solves everything.paul386 wrote:
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
The cost of entry would certainly serve to make it nearly impossible to break a regional monopoly. It is very expensive to operate rural telco services, and the start-up cost would be completely prohibitive for anyone without existing infrastructure. That's why the only new locally successful providers you hear of are utility companies that already have a home-to-home distribution infrastructure in place.paul386 wrote:
The cost of entry is has nothing to do with it moron. It is FCC that has caused that.Turquoise wrote:
Are you aware of how monopolistic most telecom markets are? Look at how shitty Comcast is.paul386 wrote:
I don't support "net neutrality". It is just like "free trade" laws. It is a misnomer. You cannot
legislate "neutrality".
Allow the ISPs to do whatever they want. Not all will do this because they want an edge above the others.
The problem with this logic is that telecom services are very expensive to run. A very limited number of companies are in this market, and there are mergers all the time. We've seen it with cell service, TV, and internet all the same.
It's not very realistic to assume that competition alone will support neutrality. This is why legislation must be passed.
Last edited by mikkel (2008-06-02 09:27:57)
Oh, its unlikely that any government would restrict access to the internet *cough*China*cough*.
After all, when has a government ever tried to restrict or inhibit the distribution of information in the past?
Nah, not gunna happen....
After all, when has a government ever tried to restrict or inhibit the distribution of information in the past?
Nah, not gunna happen....