24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 9 10
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
S
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
S
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
Black cock sucking runs deep in his family.


"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
BP-B2

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169
Originally Posted by GunGeek
They are the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. They have determined that a communication medium meets the definition of something that falls under an already existing law. They didn't write any law. Again, you guys have no idea what's going on other than what some talking head on the radio has told you.


Which is what happens when "leadership" delegates authority to underlings that have no legitimate authority to complete a task. There are many examples of Congress doing this, including the EPA, HHS, etc.

"We'll just make a law that says other people can make law, that way we can't be blamed for it.".

Only problem...it doesn't work, and somehow, someday, the ones delegating authority that is their sole responsibilty will be held responsible. Maybe not as individuals, but a whole. It is a rule of nature.


The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
RWE Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Originally Posted by GunGeek
Originally Posted by curdog4570
Aren't they taking something that was un-regulated and regulating it?

If so....... how can THAT be good news?
See it's that kind of thinking that just floors me.


You as much as said both parties suck.

And both parties control the regulation.

But the regulation is a good thing?


Exactly what kind of glue are you sniffing?

Seriously - I do not know how you get from one extreme to the other in the same breath without some methyl-ethyl-badshit being in the air....


And using this train of thought - you have no problems with the ATF playing BAN-THE-BULLET-BINGO?

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,196
W
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
W
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,196
There are two underlying reasons for this. 1) Tax revenue, they will start taxing the bandwidth you use. 2) They will eventually dictate what website are appropriate. They have been bending over backwards trying to stop conservative talk and communication. Think IRS! Aside from talk radio, the internet carries more conservative info than anywhere else. And not only that, they will control what NEWS gets distributed.

This will be the biggest power grab yet. CONTROL THE MASSES.

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383
O
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
O
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383
Originally Posted by GunGeek
Originally Posted by SockPuppet
So it took them 300+ pages to apply established law to the internet? You sure about the "no new taxes/laws/etc"?


I don't know what the 300 pages were, but there was no new law passed, just an application of a law that's been in effect since the 1930's.


Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

I guess Soros and Ford foundation only care about "net neutrality". Right

IC B2

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,866
C
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
C
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,866
Only saving grace for the moment is that there will be several years of lawsuits before anything is imposed. Maybe the stupid assed, dumbphuuucking millennials that wanted this will get a clue.



Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
R
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
R
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Originally Posted by GunGeek
Originally Posted by curdog4570
Aren't they taking something that was un-regulated and regulating it?

If so....... how can THAT be good news?
See it's that kind of thinking that just floors me.

Obviously. That's where your problem starts.


We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?

Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Originally Posted by RWE
[/quote]

You as much as said both parties suck.

And both parties control the regulation.

But the regulation is a good thing?


Exactly what kind of glue are you sniffing?

Seriously - I do not know how you get from one extreme to the other in the same breath without some methyl-ethyl-badshit being in the air....


And using this train of thought - you have no problems with the ATF playing BAN-THE-BULLET-BINGO?
Well I can discern one thing from another. Like I can discern that ATF's proposed ban is a bad thing, and recognize that net neutrality is a good thing. That's because I think for myself. I don't let Rush Limbaugh do the thinking for me.

I understand capitalism enough to know that when a market fails and becomes a monopoly, then something needs to be done. The major ISP's have 97% of the customers in America, and they are practicing anti-trust. What they are doing you can't do with radio or TV, and everyone here seems okay with that.

Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519
Originally Posted by GunGeek
Passed, and they didn't even screw it up...I'm SHOCKED!!
They did it EXACTLY how it needed to be done.

On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to internet service providers.

No new regulations, just applying the same regulations for television and radio that have always been in effect.

No new taxes, no 500 pages of some BS congressional law, no pork, just making ISP's like any other medium.

Mark this day down, something was done right in 7 years of the Obama administration.


Riddle me this: If it is exactly the same as what exists, then why does it need to be regulated?

Answer: Because they have to control the internet before they can put controls on the internet. You sheep amaze me.

The Nazis didn't want to do anything to Jews. They just wanted to know where they were - nothing would change. They just needed to identify them.

The Feds don't want to take your guns- they just want to know where they are.




"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

[Linked Image]
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,971
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,971
Originally Posted by GunGeek
Originally Posted by ironbender
It is clearly flawed legislation - it involves the .gov.
This is what you people don't get. No legislation was passed, there is no new law. The Internet is recognized as an information medium the same as radio and television...how is that wrong?

That is correct, no new legislation was passed.

It is "de facto" legislation applying ancient 1930s monopoly regulations to a current technology.

How is it bad? Go read what people actually in the industry are saying.

Quote
Dusting off regulations from the Roosevelt-era will not protect a free and open Internet. They will not benefit consumers. They will not spur innovation. They will not encourage a young entrepreneur to develop a new innovative app, or a company to develop new “smart” appliances.

Consumers – yes, you, reader – will be most hurt by this proposal. A whole host of new regulations and years of uncertainty will come. Even worse, this plan opens the door to billions of dollars in new fees on your Internet service, while putting nearly $45 Billion of new investments at risk over the next five years.

Do you like streaming live sports or network TV on your computer or mobile device? The agreements that allow you to do that quickly and reliably will now be subject to new, untested regulations. This unknown regulatory landscape is likely to reduce future investments in services that many consumers rely upon.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...lations-wont-protect-free-open-internet/


If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli

American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
IC B3

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Originally Posted by CrowRifle


You fuuuuuucking idiot. When has that bunch of ass clowns regulating anything ever turned out well?
Go take an economics class and get an understanding of markets and capitalism, and then I'll bother talking to a mental midget like you. This notion that all regulation is bad is the height of ignorance.

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,971
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,971
Originally Posted by Kev
Like I can discern that ATF's proposed ban is a bad thing, and recognize that net neutrality is a good thing. That's because I think for myself.


Ok. I'll play.

Explain:
1. how it is a good thing

2. how you recognize that as such



Fcc was against it until Obama told them they were for it.


If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli

American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
N
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
N
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/+

Quote
The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.


Quote
This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams

"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,060
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,060
Quote
What they are doing you can't do with radio or TV, and everyone here seems okay with that.


I have noticed that any radio station, here, that has conservative talk shows as their primary thing, soon have other stations jammed on frequency's right by them, to make it hard pick them out at a distance. Lots of band width a few numbers away, but lots of stations in a small area, right near talk radio. Some stations that I listened to for years, I can not pick up now where I live. They are still on the air, but I can't receive them. miles


Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Originally Posted by WayneShaw
There are two underlying reasons for this. 1) Tax revenue, they will start taxing the bandwidth you use.
There is no new law, just application of an existing law. That does not include ANY new taxes.

That's not to say that congress won't try to do it in the future. The freaking democrats have been pissed off about not getting their taxes from the internet for 20 years, and they're not about to let that one die.

Originally Posted by WayneShaw
2) They will eventually dictate what website are appropriate. They have been bending over backwards trying to stop conservative talk and communication.
EVERY nation has been trying to regulate internet content since its inception; and it hasn't worked yet. China has spent billions and has failed for the most part.

I have no doubt the US will try, but this regulation doesn't give them any more or less legal standing to do so.

So regulating content is a separate issue.


And FYI, the biggest power grab EVER is NSA domestic spying.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Originally Posted by ironbender
Originally Posted by Kev
Like I can discern that ATF's proposed ban is a bad thing, and recognize that net neutrality is a good thing. That's because I think for myself.


Ok. I'll play.

Explain:
1. how it is a good thing

2. how you recognize that as such



Fcc was against it until Obama told them they were for it.
The FCC was against it because the head of the FCC was a former ISP lobbyist.

It's a good thing because 5-6 massive ISP's cannot filter content or control bandwidth of this company over that company. The internet remains a level playing field.

Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Originally Posted by GunGeek

And FYI, the biggest power grab EVER is NSA domestic spying.


No, I'd say the biggest power grabs ever were the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NFA, GCA '68, and NSA domestic spying (arguably under the first two), in that order. At least, within the last 100 years. Prior to that, well, there was that "little" power grab in 1861...


Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,033
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,033
I'll be curious to see how long it takes before the Feds try to ban gun sales on their new toy.


“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,057
B
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
B
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,057
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Tom Wheeler said on Feb. 4 that he backed Obama’s plan to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under the government agency’s Title II authority. FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said in a press release on Feb. 6 that the plan “marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet.” Even a liberal think tank predicted that these regulations could result in a new $156 fee for American households.

"The liberal Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) predicted that households could pay an additional $156 in fees to federal, state, and local governments if regulators reclassified the internet as a public utility in a report released December, 2014. Revenue from these fees would total $15 billion per year, according to PPI."

"Reclassifying the internet as a public utility to achieve net neutrality might also negatively impact broadband Internet service providers (ISPs). This move “could put as many as 174,000 broadband related jobs at risk by the end of this decade,” according to the conservative think-tank American Action Forum.

The regulation could reduce investments in ISPs by $45.4 billion by 2019, according to a report by the economic consulting firm Sonecon. The report was co-authored by Sonecon chairman Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, who said he was an economic advisor to every Democratic candidate since President Bill Clinton, including Obama."

http://www.mrc.org/articles/nets-barely-cover-obamas-internet-regulations


Last edited by bcolorado; 02/27/15.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Originally Posted by NeBassman
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/+

Quote
The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.


Quote
This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.


THIS

In fact Net Neutrality is a HUGE step in the right direction for capitalism and free speech.

You'd think conservatives would be all for those two things. I know I sure the hell am.

Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 9 10

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
698 members (01Foreman400, 10gaugemag, 12344mag, 10Glocks, 160user, 75 invisible), 2,992 guests, and 1,381 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,681
Posts18,399,659
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.132s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 0.9122 MB (Peak: 1.0901 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 21:46:38 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS