Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet.

[OverVolt]

Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...c-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/

What do you guys think of this? In the long-term I think other than paying my bills I think the internet as we know it is probably screwed. I've already curtailed my use of it for entertainment because.... meh... might as well get a head start. Build up a physical book and DVD collection because the internet is probably going to get stupid one day. Its already stupid, but even STUPIDER. IE not worth my time.

I've thought for awhile now that most resources online are in decline in usefullness. Other than the mainstays. email, paying bills, whatever. They are going to regulate it to the point that its not really worth it, IMO, other than for boring stuff.

 

[nickqt]

Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...c-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/

What do you guys think of this? In the long-term I think other than paying my bills I think the internet as we know it is probably screwed. I've already curtailed my use of it for entertainment because.... meh... might as well get a head start. Build up a physical book and DVD collection because the internet is probably going to get stupid one day. Its already stupid, but even STUPIDER. IE not worth my time.

I've thought for awhile now that most resources online are in decline in usefullness. Other than the mainstays. email, paying bills, whatever.

The usability of the internet hasn't decreased any that I'm aware of. That I can download text books, books, movies, and have access to almost every other human on the planet makes it pretty valuable.

Regulating how PrivateEnterprise companies attempt to throttle specific users of that internet doesn't strike me as particularly bad.

 

[OverVolt]

The usability of the internet hasn't decreased any that I'm aware of. That I can download text books, books, movies, and have access to almost every other human on the planet makes it pretty valuable.

Regulating how PrivateEnterprise companies attempt to throttle specific users of that internet doesn't strike me as particularly bad.

Yea but a direct counter to that is subscription based models. The new "word 365" or whatever is a subscription model. You don't own word, you pay a fee and have zero ownership.

Most things you buy online anymore are not outright ownership, but it is written into the EULA such that you are really borrowing the resource. See? Stupid. You go ahead and buy a ton of content without reading the fine print. Like I care.

The quality of information on wiki and such has declined. And most good resources are behind paywalls. Even the NYT and FT has a paywall. Yahoo celebrity and TMZ will probably be free until the end of time, of course.

 

[Nograts]

Yea but a direct counter to that is subscription based models. The new "word 365" or whatever is a subscription model. You don't own word, you pay a fee and have zero ownership.

Most things you buy online anymore are not outright ownership, but it is written into the EULA such that you are really borrowing the resource. See? Stupid. You go ahead and buy a ton of content without reading the fine print. Like I care.

 

[OverVolt]

See? Images are more difficult to directly link these days as well. Derp.

I know because of my attitude I'm not winning anyone over, but at the same time I don't care what AT P&N thinks. The thread starts off hostile so you get what you bargained for.

 

[chimaxi83]

332 pages? TL:IDGAF

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...c-member-warns-net-neutrality-is-not-neutral/

What do you guys think of this? In the long-term I think other than paying my bills I think the internet as we know it is probably screwed. I've already curtailed my use of it for entertainment because.... meh... might as well get a head start. Build up a physical book and DVD collection because the internet is probably going to get stupid one day. Its already stupid, but even STUPIDER. IE not worth my time.

I've thought for awhile now that most resources online are in decline in usefullness. Other than the mainstays. email, paying bills, whatever. They are going to regulate it to the point that its not really worth it, IMO, other than for boring stuff.

What 332 page report? All I see here is some asinine drudge report article with terrible formatting that claims that democrats and libruls are scheming to take over the world.


Obama is deregulating the internet you partisan imbecile. The way it is currently set up, the Telecoms bribe city and state legislatures to write laws preventing their competitors from competing. Why is it that "libretarians" are always the most retarded of any political group? You guys are like ten year olds.

 

[OverVolt]

332 pages? TL:IDGAF

"Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside. "

Well... you can't.

Confirmed... internet is retarded. Cya losers.

 

[OverVolt]

What 332 page report? All I see here is some asinine drudge report article with terrible formatting that claims that democrats and libruls are scheming to take over the world.


Obama is deregulating the internet you partisan imbecile. The way it is currently set up, the Telecoms bribe city and state legislatures to write laws preventing their competitors from competing. Why is it that "libretarians" are always the most retarded of any political group? You guys are like ten year olds.

I've always assumed one day that regulation is coming and the internet isn't going to be what it used to be. Irregardless of the article, its something I expect to happen within say 10 years.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

If there is any political group for the truly mentally disabled, it's certainly "Libertarians". I've made this observation before, but OverVolt's helper should tell him that there are better activities for someone of his.... mental stature to partake in.

 

[Strk]

I've always assumed one day that regulation is coming and the internet isn't going to be what it used to be. Irregardless of the article, its something I expect to happen within say 10 years.

Except the big joke is having the government step in and say you can't regulate it is what is necessary to prevent it. I'm pretty sure the company that wants me to spend and extra $50 a month to be able to watch The Walking Dead isn't going to be that generous if net neutrality isn't protected. I'm not sure why people on the right believe in the benevolence of corporations so much.

 

[zinfamous]

how long before OP starts retracting all of his posts?

 

[OverVolt]

If there is any political group for the truly mentally disabled, it's certainly "Libertarians". I've made this observation before, but OverVolt's helper should tell him that there are better activities for someone of his.... mental stature to partake in. We would not have to constantly trip in conversation over his blatant mental handicap were he to find something else to do other than post.


Helper, please convey this message to OverVolt.

Pai responded that the “Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation” during the Obama Administration. On January 14, 2014, the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of the FCC’s November 2011 net neutrality rules.

This would seem to be what you're ranting about. Its in the article. But anyway, this is now their third attempt. I figured there would be a more civil discussion about the topic in general. Like I was saying I think one day they are going to inevitably go through with it.

You guys have a complete lack of social skills.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

how long before OP starts retracting all of his posts?

Hopefully soon.





To the committed opponents to common carrier status: I don't get it. If Obama announced he became a republican (or libertarian, if that's what you are), would you all become democrats that day out of spite? Where are your allegiances? It appears that conservatives are willing to take up any cause as long as it somehow discredits Obama.

 

[OverVolt]

how long before OP starts retracting all of his posts?

What me? ()

 

[nickqt]

Yea but a direct counter to that is subscription based models. The new "word 365" or whatever is a subscription model. You don't own word, you pay a fee and have zero ownership.

Most things you buy online anymore are not outright ownership, but it is written into the EULA such that you are really borrowing the resource. See? Stupid. You go ahead and buy a ton of content without reading the fine print. Like I care.

The quality of information on wiki and such has declined. And most good resources are behind paywalls. Even the NYT and FT has a paywall. Yahoo celebrity and TMZ will probably be free until the end of time, of course.

Torrents = Internet.

Who pays for digital content, except for like Netflix out of convenience?

Gross.

 

[ivwshane]

Here is a better analysis:

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/04/the-fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-is-awesome-but-has-a-loophole/

 

[Meghan54]

Irregardless

BTW.....not a word. Regardless is what you meant. Irregardless is a negative of regardless. Imbecile.

 

[boomerang]

If Obama wants this why would we even think to question it? /thread

 

[nickqt]

If Obama wants this why would we even think to question it? /thread

Only Obama wants it. Because he's a dictator.

No one else wants these regulations.

 

[IronWing]

I've always assumed one day that regulation is coming and the internet isn't going to be what it used to be. Irregardless of the article, its something I expect to happen within say 10 years.

The ISPs have already regulated the internet for pure greed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yea but a direct counter to that is subscription based models. The new "word 365" or whatever is a subscription model. You don't own word, you pay a fee and have zero ownership.

Most things you buy online anymore are not outright ownership, but it is written into the EULA such that you are really borrowing the resource. See? Stupid. You go ahead and buy a ton of content without reading the fine print. Like I care.

The quality of information on wiki and such has declined. And most good resources are behind paywalls. Even the NYT and FT has a paywall. Yahoo celebrity and TMZ will probably be free until the end of time, of course.

You do understand that none of this has anything to do with Obama or government, right? That it's private companies creating these subscription models, writing the EULAs, and implementing the paywalls? In short, capitalism.

 

[nickqt]

You do understand that none of this has anything to do with Obama or government, right? That it's private companies creating these subscription models, writing the EULAs, and implementing the paywalls? In short, capitalism.

Please do not insult FreeMarket™, it's InvisibleHand™, or the jobCreators™, hallowed be their name. Amen.

 

[Exterous]

Please do not insult FreeMarket™

My impression is that ISPs do not operate in a free market given all the political pressure they are able to wield to stifle competition

 

[Pulsar]

Torrents = Internet.

Who pays for digital content, except for like Netflix out of convenience?

Gross.

Only a kid believes that.

There are so many legitimate business reasons that the internet is necessary for communication it's unreal.

Who pays for digital content? The people with morals. Is this a trick question? Wait.. I know... you thought the right answer was 'suckers'....