HOORAY! Court Rules Against Obama's Net Neutrality
Way Back Jack
COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
be enough.
_____
EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
so called "net neutrality" obligations.
___
FULL STORY:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4
Sid9
"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
.
Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
protect the public interest.
Swatting Moonbatz
TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
the socialists can control AM radio too.
Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
The PHANTOM
> "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> > speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> > would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> > be enough.
> > _____
>
> > EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> > Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> > providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> > their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> > District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> > largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> > so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> > ___
> > FULL STORY:
>
>
> .
> .
> Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>
> - Show quoted text -
HUH ??? I thought you progressives were all about the 1st Amendment
and free speech ??!! At least that's what you were saying while Bush
was POTUS. WTF happened???
ObamaNation = Abomination
(Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
>
>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
Sid9
receive?
If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
subscriber.
Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
.
.
.
.
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
news:4bbb54c0....@news.eternal-september.org...
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
The folks who are opposed to net neutrality don't realize the scheme is
to give full speed and access to clients who can pay high premium prices
(major media organizations, in other words) while small outfits and
individual bloggers make do with slow and antiquated access).
The PHANTOM
> So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you could
> receive?
>
> If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> subscriber.
>
> Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
> > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> > Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
> > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
>
> >>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> >>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> >>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> >>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> >>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> >>>> be enough.
> >>>> _____
>
> >>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> >>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> >>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> >>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> >>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> >>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> >>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> >>>> ___
> >>>> FULL STORY:
>
> >>>.
> >>>.
> >>>Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Access my stinking ass !! What a reaking load of horseshit !! It's
about CONTROL !! EVERYTHING OBAMA WANTS IS SIMPLY ABOUT CONTROL !!
He's an idealist. He'll use the power of the Presidency to shove his
ideaology down the throats of the American people and he couldn't care
less what we want. How ANYBOY can still support the fucking idiot is
beyond me.
jane
> So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you could
> receive?
>
> If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> subscriber.
>
> Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
> > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> > Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
> > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
>
> >>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> >>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> >>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> >>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> >>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> >>>> be enough.
> >>>> _____
>
> >>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> >>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> >>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> >>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> >>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> >>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> >>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> >>>> ___
> >>>> FULL STORY:
>
> >>>.
> >>>.
> >>>Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
> >>>protect the public interest.
Why is your solution always, "more government, more government"?
What is wrong with your brain? What is wrong with your own decision
making?
This case came about because Comcast was not providing adequate
bandwidth to competing companies. This came about because of public
knowledge. Public knowledge is the answer, not more government. When
the knowledge becomes public, drop your service and go with a
competing provider.
The farther we can keep the government away from the internet, the
better.
Jane.
ObamaNation = Abomination
No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
ObamaNation = Abomination
You're still drinking the Kool-Aid, comrade.
Libs Produce Nothing
is also an oxymoron. You want to watch Hulu.tv? You an do that. You want
10MB service? You can buy that. You want to watch porn? You can do that.
The end game for net neutrality has nothing to do with equal content for
all users. It has everything to do with ideological bureaucrats to
impose an internet's version of the "fairness doctrine" on us.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Libs Produce Nothing
access to, may I ask?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ken
That's a great idea!!! They could also add a rider to the bill that
makes Obama king or emperor. That way he could get what he wants
without the trouble of passing a law in congress or having an election.
You liberals are a whorehouse of knowledge.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
<SikO...@SikOfLibs.net> wrote:
>And you believe that load of crap? What are you currently being denied
>access to, may I ask?
I'm not now. That's the point. Guys like you and me will take hind
tit to the big companies if the net neutrality foes get their way.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
<SikO...@SikOfLibs.net> wrote:
>So-called "net neutrality" is a solution in search of a problem, and it
>is also an oxymoron. You want to watch Hulu.tv? You an do that. You want
>10MB service? You can buy that. You want to watch porn? You can do that.
>The end game for net neutrality has nothing to do with equal content for
>all users. It has everything to do with ideological bureaucrats to
>impose an internet's version of the "fairness doctrine" on us.
Net neutrality would ensure that we could keep on doing those things.
All you know about it is what Faux News told you, am I right?
Sid9
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>
.
.Asshole, Obama wont be president forever
.
.
.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
Bozo, did you even read the specifics that led to the decision?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality
by Declan McCullagh
The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal
authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a
federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the
FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had
taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended
them earlier that year.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
Abomination) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
No, it's about corporate control.
Now crawl on your belly and bark at the mean liberals...
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
You're a fucking idiot.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
You think the right of corporations to control your speech is free
speech?
Alfred Stomacker
lies.
Alfred Stomacker
even if the law is set to expire in a certain time it is still there
doing damage until then and removing a law is much harder than making one.
Alfred Stomacker
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:57:54 GMT, here@yomomma. (ObamaNation =
> Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>
> No, it's about corporate control.
>
Corporate control is all Obama is about . Socialism .
Alfred Stomacker
connection then just shell out the jack. But you are still only getting
about 7.5 Gbps transfer rate because of your PC hardware limitations.
Alfred Stomacker
torrents. Good for spreading billions of virus' around . Slow as hell.
Download the files zipped up with winrar . loaded on a file site where
you can get it fast and safer.
Milt
Moonbatz) wrote:
> TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
>
> >"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> >news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> >> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> >> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> >> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> >> be enough.
> >> _____
>
> >> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> >> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> >> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> >> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> >> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> >> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> >> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> >> ___
> >> FULL STORY:
>
> >.
> >.
> >Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
> >protect the public interest.
Gotta love it when these nitwits cheer something that would actually
serve to OPEN up the net more than it is, currently, just because it
goes against Obama.
What this means, you simple-minded jagoff, is that your ISP can limit
your access to the net in any way it sees fit. For example, Comcast's
cable system limits you to 250 GB in downloads, after which they just
cut you off until the next month begins. They are also now apparently
free to block sites they don't approve of. There is also nothing
stopping them from cutting you off after 50 GB instead of 250 GB, thus
making streaming Netflix and Hulu somewhat impractical, and forcing
you to watch their cable system if you want to watch TV.
And there is little broadband competition in many places, as well. In
fact, where I am located currently, I have one cable company and one
DSL company, and I don't have access to satellite. My choices are one
company for cable, one company for DSL and two companies for slow
broadband, limited to 6GB per month.
This decision is not about content. It's about making sure ISPs have
less power to limit your access. In this case, I actually agree with
the court; the FCC has not been given authority over ISPs whatsoever.
But someone needs to protect our interests, make no mistake of that.
In other words, you pinhead, you're cheering a right decision for the
wrong reasons. You're cheering the fact that ISPs now have the power
to tell you where you can and cannot go on the Internet, and there
isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Welcome to Big Brother,
corporate style.
Alfred Stomacker
> In article<eYydnVWG1qGsyibW...@posted.carinet>,
>>> protect the public interest.
>>
>> The folks who are opposed to net neutrality don't realize the scheme is
>> to give full speed and access to clients who can pay high premium prices
>> (major media organizations, in other words) while small outfits and
>> individual bloggers make do with slow and antiquated access).
>
> means, what implies, Some company made a noise about it to increase company
> profits and conservatives have decided this is a liberal policy and therefore it
> must be defeated. It's only about beating an imagined foe and nothing else.
>
> It's a router algorithm employed from the earliest days of TCP. And now people
> want to change it without any studies of its impact simply because some Big
> Company told them it has to be changed.
>
it must be defeated because it puts limitations on a private business
that should be able to conduct their business as they see fit.
Government does not need to tell people how to run their business. if
you do not like their services then shop else where.
Hey i do not like Walmart so i shop at other stores. See how that works ?
Sid9
"Alfred Stomacker" <alfreds...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hpfprs$f3k$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
1. Obama wont be president forever
2. COMCAST would lose all their subscribers if they could not slow down HULU
or services like HULU
It's corporate control of your life, not government control
If you got services like PBS or HULU over the internet free you would not
need COMCAST for your TV.
What don't you understand? besides that Obama wont be president forever?
lorad
> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> be enough.
> _____
>
> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> ___
> FULL STORY:
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
I hope you realize that you are acting *against* free speech - and not
for it.
But perhaps you are too stupid to realize that *filtering out*
communications constitutes 'speech infringement'.
Milt
> On Apr 6, 10:42 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you could
> > receive?
>
> > If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> > subscriber.
>
> > Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> > "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb54c0....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> > >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> > >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> > >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> > >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> > >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> > > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
>
> > >>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> > >>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > >>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> > >>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> > >>>> be enough.
> > >>>> _____
>
> > >>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> > >>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> > >>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> > >>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> > >>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> > >>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> > >>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> > >>>> ___
> > >>>> FULL STORY:
>
> > >>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
> > >>>.
> > >>>Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> about CONTROL !! EVERYTHING OBAMA WANTS IS SIMPLY ABOUT CONTROL !!
> He's an idealist. He'll use the power of the Presidency to shove his
> ideaology down the throats of the American people and he couldn't care
> less what we want. How ANYBOY can still support the fucking idiot is
> beyond me.
Fuckwit, read the article you're commenting on. Comcast limits access
to 250 GB per month, and they had bots on their network that detected
torrents and purposely disrupted them. Essentially, you fucking idiot,
the court just ruled that your ISP can decide how much of the Internet
you get to access every month, and they can block whatever activities
they want, and there is no one who can stop them.
You just LOST freedom, dipshit, and you're too fucking stupid to know
it.
Bert Hyman
news:291ff909-0f23-4ec6...@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com
lorad <lora...@cs.com> wrote:
> I hope you realize that you are acting *against* free speech - and not
> for it.
You don't have free speech on someone else's property.
Why shouldn't Comcast use their own networks to their own advantage?
Should CBS get to broadcast their programming on NBC?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sid9
.
Torrents my ass. You know nothing
This is on line network programming.
You don't need cable.
Play it now on your big screen TV. When you want. Pause it. ON your
schedule.
Milt
> On Apr 6, 11:42 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you could
> > receive?
>
> > If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> > subscriber.
>
> > Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
> > "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb54c0....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
> > > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> > >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> > >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> > >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> > >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> > >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> > > Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
> > > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
>
> > >>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> > >>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > >>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> > >>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> > >>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> > >>>> be enough.
> > >>>> _____
>
> > >>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> > >>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> > >>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> > >>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> > >>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> > >>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> > >>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> > >>>> ___
> > >>>> FULL STORY:
>
> > >>>.
> > >>>.
> > >>>Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
> > >>>protect the public interest.
>
Um, dipshit...
WE are the government.
Who would you rather have decide how much Internet you should have
access to? YOU or Comcast?
>
> What is wrong with your brain? What is wrong with your own decision
> making?
>
> This case came about because Comcast was not providing adequate
> bandwidth to competing companies. This came about because of public
> knowledge. Public knowledge is the answer, not more government. When
> the knowledge becomes public, drop your service and go with a
> competing provider.
You CAN'T go with a competing provider, you idiot!
I currently have a choice; I can go with Comcast, which provides
speeds of 15-20 mbps and has a monthly limit of 250 GB, or Verizon for
DSL, which has speeds of up to 3-4 mbps with no limit that I know of,
or I can go with one of the wireless carriers, who have speeds of
maybe 1-2 mbps, and which allow no more than 6 GB per month. There are
no viable choices to speak of. That's part of the problem.
>
> The farther we can keep the government away from the internet, the
> better.
>
> Jane.
This isn't about the Internet, it's about access to the Internet. The
court just ruled (and frankly, the ruling was right) that your ISP --
that ALL ISPs, had the right to limit your access to the Internet in
any way they see fit.
Yet, in your warped brain, you have more "freedom" because the
government (who is us, by the way) isn't intervening on our behalf.
Milt
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
>
> (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> >TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> >PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> >just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> >the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> >Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity.
This decision has nothing to do with content, you fucking idiot. Right
now, the ISPs have the power to tell you where you can and cannot go
on the Internet, they can block whatever they don't want you to see,
and they can cut you off when they've decided you've seen "too much."
You're praising a decision that actually says, "yeah -- they can do
that."
No wonder your ideology is so fucked up. You don't even understand
when a company is making you bend over and ramming it right into
you...
> What's
> the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
The only thing worse than a dipshit is a racist dipshit.
Milt
> On 4/6/2010 11:50 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
> > "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
> >news:4bbb59e9....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>
> > .
> > .
> > .Asshole, Obama wont be president forever
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
>
>
> >>> So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you
> >>> could
> >>> receive?
>
> >>> If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> >>> subscriber.
>
> >>> Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> .
>
> >>> "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
> >>>news:4bbb54c0....@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
> >>>> (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> >>>>> TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> >>>>> PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> >>>>> just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> >>>>> the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> >>>>> Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> >>>> Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
> >>>> the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
>
> >>>>>> "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> >>>>>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering
> >>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> >>>>>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> be enough.
> >>>>>>> _____
>
> >>>>>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> >>>>>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> >>>>>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing
> >>>>>>> over
> >>>>>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the
> >>>>>>> nation's
> >>>>>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to
> >>>>>>> impose
> >>>>>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> >>>>>>> ___
> >>>>>>> FULL STORY:
>
>
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it
> >>>>>> needs to
> >>>>>> protect the public interest.
>
> but once a law is signed in and is designated to never end that is that.
> even if the law is set to expire in a certain time it is still there
> doing damage until then and removing a law is much harder than making one.
Why would you remove a law that effectively gives the power to control
Internet access to the people, rather than to ISPs? I mean, right now,
if your ISP decides you don't get access to Fox News onine, they can
block it. At least with a regulatory body in place, we can force them
to keep all access open.
Let me put it another way...
Right now, you have no right to see anything on the Internet; your ISP
can block it. If the FCC regulated it, the First Amendment would kick
in, and you'd have more freedom, not less.
You're on Usenet right now; haven't you noticed how many ISPs have
blocked access to Usenet in recent years? Doesn't that concern you?
Milt
> "Alfred Stomacker" <alfredstomac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have Comcast now. I am limited to 250 GB per month. I have a 1080p
HDTV, so if I want to stream movies in HD, each one is about 2-4 GB.
An average Netflix movie is 1 GB. Right now, I'm good. But what if
Comcast decides to limit me to 100 GB. Not so good. They also own a
good piece of FanCast; what if they decide to block Hulu, as you
suggest? Apparently, now they can. And there is no competition for
Comcast, either; in most communities, they're a monopoly.
This was actually a right decision, given the circumstances, but it's
time to give the FCC or another agency the power to reign these people
in.
Seriously, look at the Obama Derangement Syndrome in this thread. The
court just told these people their ISP could cut off their Internet
whenever they wanted, and they're cheering it because they think it
screws Obama. You just have to laugh...
Milt
> On Apr 6, 10:29 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > > COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> > > speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> > > would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> > > be enough.
> > > _____
>
> > > EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> > > Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> > > providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> > > their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> > > District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> > > largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> > > so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> > > ___
> > > FULL STORY:
>
> > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
>
> > .
> > .
> > Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> and free speech ??!! At least that's what you were saying while Bush
> was POTUS. WTF happened???
Um, dipshit?
The court just ruled in this case that you don't HAVE any First
Amendment rights when it comes to the Internet. Thye just ruled that
your ISP can limit how much Internet you can get every month, and they
can even block or filter any content they want, and there is nothing
you can do about it.
A court just told you that your ISP gets to decide where you can go on
the Internet, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Including you.
They just told you, you have NO free speech on the Internet, because
the government has decided to take a "hands off" approach.
Sucks, don't it?
Milt
Do you think Eric Arthur Blair is rolling around in his grave laughing
about now?
Look at the ODS in this thread; they're actually PRAISING a decision
that gives ISPs the right to block whatever they want on the Internet,
and they're cheering it.
ObamaNation = Abomination
Once control has been established, it's hard to erase.
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:50:49 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>news:4bbb59e9....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>>
>>>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:29:53 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>>>>>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>>>>>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>>>>>>> be enough.
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>>>>>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>>>>>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing
>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>>>>>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>>>>>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to
>>>>>>> impose
>>>>>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>> FULL STORY:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4
ObamaNation = Abomination
You're being shortsighted.
It is ultimately about govt. control of all aspects of our lives.
You comrades may want it; Americans don't.
ObamaNation = Abomination
Of course.
The next step is for Congress and the Commissar to give the FCC the
authority.
The dipshit thought he could do it without law.
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:51:15 -0700, "5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09"
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:58:47 GMT, here@yomomma. (ObamaNation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:45:53 -0500, "5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09"
>><de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:29:53 -0400, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>>>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>>>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>>>>> be enough.
>>>>> _____
>>>>>
>>>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>>>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>>>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>>>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>>>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>>>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>>>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations. ___
>>>>> FULL STORY:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-
>>>apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>>>> protect the public interest.
>>>
Milt
wrote:
> So-called "net neutrality" is a solution in search of a problem, and it
> is also an oxymoron. You want to watch Hulu.tv? You an do that.
You haven't read the article or the decision.
According to this decision, you can do that IF your ISP says it's ok.
As it stands, Comcast limits me to 250 GB per month. They could reduce
that to 30 GB per month according to this decision, which would limit
my Hulu or Netflix watching severely. They could also block Netflix
and Hulu altogether if they want, according to this decision.
> You want
> 10MB service? You can buy that.
I only have one choice at that speed. And that choice is Comcast, who
just won the right to block any content and limit Internet access at
will.
> You want to watch porn? You can do that.
Not if the ISP decides to block it, according to this decision.
> The end game for net neutrality has nothing to do with equal content for
> all users.
Yes, actually, it does. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Without it, ISPs can decide what you get to see, and how much you can
download, and there is no restriction on that.
I remember when Comcast first started offering Internet. They promised
to open the lines up to competition. That never happened. widespread
4G is a couple of years off... Wimax is a few years off... and every
time competition breaks out, they all buy each other up and fix the
prices.
Like I said, this decision certifies that ISPs can limit you in any
way they see fit. The court was right with this decision, but there
has to be something set up to protect our Internet access.
It has everything to do with ideological bureaucrats to
> impose an internet's version of the "fairness doctrine" on us.
>
>
>
> Sid9 wrote:
>
> > "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> >news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> >> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> >> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> >> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> >> be enough.
> >> _____
>
> >> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> >> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> >> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> >> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> >> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> >> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> >> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> >> ___
> >> FULL STORY:
>
> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
>
> > .
> > .
> > Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
> > protect the public interest.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
Sid9
"Milt" <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61b65df7-68f0-499e...@v12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
.
While you are totally right...
The government didn't decide.
The judiciary decided...probably correctly that congress needs to pass an
enabling act to give the government the power to prevent corporate
censorship of the internet...or censorship by anyone.
Sid9
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Once control has been established, it's hard to erase.
>
Control has been established by this decision...
Control by corporations over what you can and cannot get via the internet
Congress needs to pass an enabling act to stop corporations from controlling
content
Sid9
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
> You're being shortsighted.
>
> It is ultimately about govt. control of all aspects of our lives.
>
> You comrades may want it; Americans don't.
>
>
You are ignorant.,
This is corporate control...where you don’t get to vote on anything
It’s name is Fascism
Congress must pass an enabling act to prevent corporate control.
Sid9
Dumb, kneejerk reaction.
You have no clue
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
news:4bbb750e....@news.eternal-september.org...
Milt
> Innews:291ff909-0f23-4ec6...@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com
>
> lorad <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
> > I hope you realize that you are acting *against* free speech - and not
> > for it.
>
> You don't have free speech on someone else's property.
No, you don't have First Amendment protection on someone else's
property. There's a difference. Not that you're smart enough to
understand the difference.
>
> Why shouldn't Comcast use their own networks to their own advantage?
How shall I put this...
Comcast is a franchisee. They don't own the right of way where their
cables run. The PEOPLE own them. Therefore, WE should get a say as to
how those cables are used.
The problem is, neocons have been in charge too long, and they have
this idea that anyone should be able to do anything they want with
anything they claim ownership to.
Comcast was granted the only access available to your home, so that it
could deliver cable television. Since there is no competition, they
don't get to make the rules; the people who own that access do. That
government dropped the ball and doesn't enforce our rights is a major
problem, and needs to be addressed. If they opened the cable up to
competition, the way they did for phone lines a few years back, you
might have a case. But the cable company isn't required to open its
line up to competition. Therefore, because it has a monopoly, it
should be treated differently. I'm sure, once Comcast finishes its
purchase of NBC and they decide to move MSNBC and CNBC to prominent
places on standard cable, and move Fox News and Fox Business to
secondary tiers, you'll feel differently, especially if you live in an
area where you can't get satellite access. Or better yet, what if they
block your access to foxnews,com, or redirect you to msnbc.com when
you type foxnews.com? Will you simply bite the bullet and switch to
much slower broadband? or might you be tempted to contact your local
politicians to do something about it?
>
> Should CBS get to broadcast their programming on NBC?
Not the same thing.
But then, you're too dumb to realize that.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
Milt <milt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Comcast is a franchisee.
Comcast has an exclusive franchise from certain cities to offer cable TV
service.
This has nothing to do with the current discussion; even you should be
able to figure that out.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Milt
> Innews:e271e5de-7ac1-44c0...@20g2000vbr.googlegroups.com
>
> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Comcast is a franchisee.
>
> Comcast has an exclusive franchise from certain cities to offer cable TV
> service.
The exclusive franchise, you dimwit, is about running the cable into
people's homes. It doesn't matter of the cables deliver cable TV,
phone service or chicken soup. Hence the reason they have been able to
offer Internet and phone service over the cable lines.
>
> This has nothing to do with the current discussion; even you should be
> able to figure that out.
Yeah, actually, it has everything to do with it. The phone company has
to lease its phone lines to other companies; the cable company should
not be allowed to operate under a different set of rules. If Verizon
or Qwest has to allow other companies to offer services through its
phone lines, and if they have to abide by FCC rules, why shouldn't
cable companies? The reason? Because neocons in Congress dropped the
ball, of course.
Jesus... you have no idea what this is about... I'm shocked. You're
not usually this stupid.
Fred B. Brown
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hpfk01$5ds$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>>
>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>> be enough.
>> _____
>>
>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
>> ___
>> FULL STORY:
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4
> .
> .
> Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
> protect the public interest.
>
You mean an Internet ruled by the government. No more free speech.
FCC rules would prohibit 'screen names', all Internet posts would require
your full name and address. No more anonymity.
Fred B. Brown
"Swatting Moonbatz" <AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.> wrote in message
news:4bbb5414....@62.141.42.50...
>
>
> TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
FOX NEWS up.
ObamaNation = Abomination
I want to stop Obama from controlling content .... among other things.
ObamaNation = Abomination
We've been under totalitarian control since 1/09.
ANd it ain't the corps.
ObamaNation = Abomination
As we speak, Obama's minions are drafting the law that would allow the
FCC to garner more control.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
wrote:
No, an internet NOT ruled by major corporations. Do you really
suppose that ATT, Comcast, and the rest are really going to share
bandwidth when they have a shot at controlling it?
Sid9
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I want to stop Obama from controlling content .... among other things.
.
Obama wont be president forever....your restricted internet access will be
forever.
Unless congress fixes it
Fred B. Brown
> So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you
> could receive?
>
> If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> subscriber.
>
> Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
It's not about access, it's about silencing government critics and gaining
control over a communications medium used by millions of Americans
independent of the government supporting main stream media.
If it were not for the Internet the first we would have heard about
Healthcare,
Cap & Trade, Card Check and Net Neutrality is when the main stream
media reported Obama had signed them into law.
Net Neutrality is not just about controlling the Internet but controlling
radio
and TV broadcasting too.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
wrote:
In the name of free speech, no less.
I would have thought Hyman had more sense than that.
Guess I was wrong.
Fred B. Brown
"5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:gmpmr51qvtf05q8p3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 08:49:14 -0700 (PDT), The PHANTOM
> <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 6, 10:42 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>> So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you
>>> could
>>> receive?
>>>
>>> If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
>>> subscriber.
>>>
>>> Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
>>> > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>>>
>>> >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
>>> >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
>>> >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
>>> >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>>>
>>> >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>>>
>>> > Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
>>> > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>>>
>>about CONTROL !! EVERYTHING OBAMA WANTS IS SIMPLY ABOUT CONTROL !!
>>He's an idealist. He'll use the power of the Presidency to shove his
>>ideaology down the throats of the American people and he couldn't care
>>less what we want. How ANYBOY can still support the fucking idiot is
>>beyond me.
>
> You're a fucking idiot.
Aren't you the guy that's trying to get the word "retarded" banned
in Massachusetts? Probably tired of hearing it, huh?
Ken
>
> "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
> news:4bbb59e9....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>>
> .
> .
> .Asshole, Obama wont be president forever
Did you put your comma in the wrong place???
The PHANTOM
> In article <eYydnVWG1qGsyibWnZ2dnUVZ_vAAA...@posted.carinet>,
> "5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
> > > Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>
> > The folks who are opposed to net neutrality don't realize the scheme is
> > to give full speed and access to clients who can pay high premium prices
> > (major media organizations, in other words) while small outfits and
> > individual bloggers make do with slow and antiquated access).
>
> means, what implies, Some company made a noise about it to increase company
> profits and conservatives have decided this is a liberal policy and therefore it
> must be defeated. It's only about beating an imagined foe and nothing else.
>
> It's a router algorithm employed from the earliest days of TCP. And now people
> want to change it without any studies of its impact simply because some Big
> Company told them it has to be changed.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
FOAD !! You just want to be able to surf kiddie porn and comcast won't
let you. STFU.
Sid9
"5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:vt0nr5d3flhvj2ipo...@4ax.com...
.
It's their hatred for Obama.
It's the color of his skin.
They will harm their own self interest as long as Obama is harmed, too
The PHANTOM
> "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb59e9....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>
> .
> .
> .Asshole, Obama wont be president forever
> . HE WILL IF YOU FUCKING ZOMBIES GET YOUR WAY !!!
> .
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:42:46 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you
> >>could
> >>receive?
>
> >>If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
> >>subscriber.
>
> >>Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
> >>.
> >>.
> >>.
> >>.
>
> >>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
> >>> (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>
> >>>>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
> >>>>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
> >>>>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
> >>>>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>
> >>>>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>
> >>> Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
> >>> the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>
ObamaNation = Abomination
Obama's control will be forever.
z
news:4bbb8059....@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I want to stop Obama from controlling content .... among other things.
The net neutrality act just makes them leave the content alone. It's
conservative to not mess with the tcp/ip packets. This is a 'leave it
alone' law not a 'control' law
Milt
> "Milt" <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No, the government did decide.
The judges decision is absolutely right. No one ever gave regulatory
power over ISPs to anyone. Now, that needs to be done. Net neutrality
should mirror phone line neutrality; just as the phone companies have
to lease their lines to other companies for competition, cable
companies should have to do so as well. There's no need for a
humongous regulatory structure. Just open the cable lines the way the
phone lines were opened up. Hell; even the electric companies can't
force you to use theirs. But Comcast is allowed a monopoly on a line
that WE own? That's insane.
Milt
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2010 13:37:01 -0500, "Fred B. Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:hpfk01$5ds$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
> >>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> >>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
> >>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
> >>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
> >>> be enough.
> >>> _____
>
> >>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
> >>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
> >>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
> >>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> >>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
> >>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
> >>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
> >>> ___
> >>> FULL STORY:
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
> >> protect the public interest.
>
> >You mean an Internet ruled by the government. No more free speech.
> >FCC rules would prohibit 'screen names', all Internet posts would require
> >your full name and address. No more anonymity.
>
> No, an internet NOT ruled by major corporations. Do you really
> suppose that ATT, Comcast, and the rest are really going to share
> bandwidth when they have a shot at controlling it?
The thing is, these companies are facing annihilation in the future,
and they're trying to squeeze everything they can right now. Honestly,
when 4G becomes widespread in a couple years, they'll take a hit.
Cable TV is already in trouble; if Google's experiment and Wimax work
out, who the hell will need cable for TV?
But this sets a bad precedent, and it needs to be nipped in the bud.
If the phone company can't have a monopoly and the electric company
can't have one, why should a cable company have one?
W Spilman
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obama's control will be forever.
See, I keep trying to tell everybody that its ultimately
going to require extermination of you fucks for America
to survive and remain free.
WS
ObamaNation = Abomination
Obama's damage is permanent.
ObamaNation = Abomination
It's all about control-- guvmint control.
Sid9
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> Obama's damage is permanent.
>
>
Your brain damage is permanent.
Obama will be gone in less than 7 years
Your racism is forever
Sid9
"ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's all about control-- guvmint control.
>
>
>
>
>
You would harm your self just so Obama is harmed.
You're just like a suicide bomber.
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
<alfreds...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2010 10:45 AM, 5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:29:53 -0400, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>> "Way Back Jack"<NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
>>> news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>>>> be enough.
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations. ___
>>>> FULL STORY:
>>>>
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-
>> apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>>> protect the public interest.
>>
>> The folks who are opposed to net neutrality don't realize the scheme is
>> to give full speed and access to clients who can pay high premium prices
>> (major media organizations, in other words) while small outfits and
>> individual bloggers make do with slow and antiquated access).
>you get what you pay for that is how life works. If you want a internet2
>connection then just shell out the jack. But you are still only getting
>about 7.5 Gbps transfer rate because of your PC hardware limitations.
You poor, pathetic bastard. You really think the major media,
obsessed as they are with DRM and dog-in-the-manger control of entire
cities, is going to safeguard YOUR interests in any way?
Suppose you want to view or post something that doesn't meet with your
ISP's approval. What are you going to do then, brave little American?
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
When right wingers try to insult folks, they ALWAYS end up describing
themselves....
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 2:03 pm, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
Milt, you realize that you are ruining the whole "Liberals love
activist judges who make laws from the bench" stereotype...
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
In the meantime, Freddy, maybe you can come up with something a bit
better than Phantom's mindlessly paranoid screed.
Why do you approve of corporations having control over net content?
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
A lot of right wingers were convinced to defy their own best intersts
long before Obama came along.
Not all fools are racists. But all racists are fools.
>
ObamaNation = Abomination
The damage he has done will last forever.
ObamaNation = Abomination
How Not to Get Fired for Racist Comments
"You know, back in the day."
By J. B. Cash
Michael Irvin, the former Dallas Cowboy receiver, ex-con, and current
sports announcer, got into some hot water recently for comments he
made about Tony Romo, the new starting quarterback for the Cowboys,
who is white.
On Dan Patrick's ESPN radio show, Irvin, who is employed as a
broadcaster by ESPN, laughingly suggested of Romo: "He doesn't look
like he's that type of an athlete. But he is. He is, man. I don't know
if some brother down in that line somewhere, I don't know who saw what
or where, his great-great-great-great-grandma ran over in the 'hood or
something went down."
Patrick tried to suggest to Irvin that he shouldn't go there, but
Irvin was having none of it, continuing:
"If great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one
of them studs up out of the barn, 'Come on in here for a second,' you
know, and they go out and work in the yard. You know, back in the
day."
Irvin?s treatment so far is illustrative of the double standard that
applies to black and white people in America. Whenever a white
broadcaster or public personage brings up sports and race, even in an
innocuous way, they usually end up fired.
Imagine if a white announcer was to say something like, ?Boy that
Donovan McNabb sure is smart, he might have some white in his
background, maybe his great, great, great grandmother went behind the
shed and invited one of the local white 'braniacs' to partake of some
brown sugar.?
Now that would be a controversy! The media outcry would be deafening.
Al Sharpton would have to clone himself so he could simultaneously be
at the scene of that crime and those of all his other racial
extortions.
Here are some comments about sports and race over the last couple of
years. Notice a pattern?
Rush Limbaugh: observation about the media?s love for black QB?s.
Result: universal chastisement and firing.
Paul Hornung: says Notre Dame has to lower academic standards to
attract more blacks. Result: fired.
Steve Lyons: innocent remark about "Hispanics." Result: fired
Talk-show host Larry Krueger: says Giants manager Felipe Alou has
?cream of wheat for brains? and the Giant hitters are Caribbeans that
?hack at slop nightly?. Result: fired.
And:
Joe Morgan: says the Houston Astros are too white. Result: media
adoration.
Eric Dickerson says that running back position belongs to the black
man. Result: media adoration.
Bryant Gumbel: says Winter Olympic athletes aren?t really athletes.
Result: media adoration.
Charles Barkley: a lot of white guys are in the NBA just because
they're white. Result: media adoration.
This absurd double standard and chilling effect on free expression has
had the effect of creating an extreme difference in how the media
covers athletes of different races. The double standard is rigidly
enforced and bizarre in its application. What it means is that the
expectations for white athletes and the interpretation of their skills
has been completely colored by the sports media?s fear of accusations
of racism.
___________
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 23:42:28 -0500, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
> But I *AM* condemning the savages.
>Look in the mirror to see which barbarian I'm condemning.
In case you are a sheltered college student who is currently learning
the finer points of race relations in a safe sanitized classroom
setting, I have some news that will shake all your beliefs to the
core. Black people in America are the most racist group on the
planet. I know, I know, how can that be? Here you are,
new to an urban setting due to your recent enrollment in Liberal City
U. and right away you have been able to make two Black friends. Thank
you Lord for MTV, because you are now well equipped to easily slide
into their social structure with a high five and a shout out of
WAAASSSSUUUUPPPP!!!! And they take to you really quick as
well because of your diligent research into gangs, rap, and the Negro
plight.
But, and this is a big but, you are still the majority race and thus
the relationship bends easily in your favor. To test this theory of
how much your new black friends really admire you, suggest a sleepover
in their neighborhood. Get directions from Mapquest and offer to take
the subway to their crib. That's right, you will walk down the street
alone, preferably at night, into a majority black
neighborhood and see what shakes out.
Don't be discouraged if you get a brick blasted against your head and
discover that your theory of race equality was nothing more than a
dream. The evidence is all around us if you wish to take the time to
look. Blacks clamor for "Diversity" in a workplace setting where they
have no foothold. When they do dominate a field, they slam the doors
shut to White boys and girls. Look at rap. Do you see Ja Rule
or Fiddy Cent yelling, "YO! We need some more white dudes working
around here."
How about Basketball? In Larry Bird's memoirs, he recounts being
called a Cracker regularly. Who cares right? What if Bird was playing
against Charles Barkeley and said something like "Get the fuck out of
my lane you fat stupid Nigger!" Probably wouldn't fly, huh? Again,
the black players aren't whispering to the scouts that what they
really need in the next draft is some more white boys. They beat
Caucasians fair and square on those two fronts, but the trend is
telling. They kick and scream for Diversity, but once they get it they
do everything in their power to turn the situation completely Negro.
Our country is filled with exclusionary clubs, designed to keep Whitey
out. NAACP, BET, United Negro College Fund, Howard University, Black
Caucus, Black Journalists Association, Brotherhood of Black Police
Officers, etc, etc.
Liberals, Suburbanites plagued by White guilt, college students who
just learned how to live outside of Mommy's nest, and social workers
bend over backwards to see the Negro's plight without an inkling of
reality of the Black Agenda. But here's the slap in the face, when you
suggest that a big
chunk of Harlem should get relocated to the lily white burbs, guess
who kicks and screams the loudest. That's right, the same pussies who
supposedly know what the right thing to do morally have all of a
sudden changed their minds when they see Rolando and LaWanda rolling
up their street with 14 kids and a case of malt liquor.
ObamaNation = Abomination
Now that ObamaCare is available for you ne'er-do-wells, will the
females in your family do the right thing and get their tubes tied ...
or will they continue to spit out welfare tickets?
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:38:27 -0700, South China Blue Sea
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <4bbb9407....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
>
>> It's all about control-- guvmint control.
>
>We know where you live. And those black helicopters are for our protection, not
>yours.
Frank Pittel
The looney tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dems have always tried to force
others to pay the costs of their free speech. Imagine the horror of expecting
internet users to pay for the costs of the bandwidth they consume.
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
Milt
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:24:41 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
Oh, please, we pretty much know all activist judges are right wingers.
Case in point: who's more activist? Stevens or Scalia?
(let's see who takes the bait...)
5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 5:05 pm, "5415 Dead, 548 since 1/20/09"
Hartung will post a message saying he knows of no activist rulings by
Scalia.
Fake Bill will accuse you of hating Christians.
Linder will accuse you of claiming you could deflect shotgun blasts
back in 1995.
Fred Brown will call you a statist.
And Clint will assure you that Renowned Black Economist Thomas Sowell
has proven conclusively that all activist judges are left wingers.
Milt
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
And yet, I could come up with many. Let's see if he dares to challenge
me.
>
> Fake Bill will accuse you of hating Christians.
Which is absurd. They're fine, with a little barbeque sauce.
>
> Linder will accuse you of claiming you could deflect shotgun blasts
> back in 1995.
Even though I have scars to prove I can't and never said I could.
>
> Fred Brown will call you a statist.
I don't know who that is. I guess I don't care.
>
> And Clint will assure you that Renowned Black Economist Thomas Sowell
> has proven conclusively that all activist judges are left wingers.
Well, Thomas Sowell is a known flake.
I think we just saved them some time...
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 12:03 pm, Libs Produce Nothing <SikOfL...@SikOfLibs.net>
>wrote:
>> So-called "net neutrality" is a solution in search of a problem, and it
>> is also an oxymoron. You want to watch Hulu.tv? You an do that.
>
>You haven't read the article or the decision.
>
>According to this decision, you can do that IF your ISP says it's ok.
>As it stands, Comcast limits me to 250 GB per month. They could reduce
>that to 30 GB per month according to this decision, which would limit
>my Hulu or Netflix watching severely. They could also block Netflix
>and Hulu altogether if they want, according to this decision.
Booo hooo hooo...
>> You want
>> 10MB service? You can buy that.
>
>I only have one choice at that speed. And that choice is Comcast, who
>just won the right to block any content and limit Internet access at
>will.
>
>
>> You want to watch porn? You can do that.
>
>Not if the ISP decides to block it, according to this decision.
>
>> The end game for net neutrality has nothing to do with equal content for
>> all users.
>
>Yes, actually, it does. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>Without it, ISPs can decide what you get to see, and how much you can
>download, and there is no restriction on that.
>
>I remember when Comcast first started offering Internet. They promised
>to open the lines up to competition. That never happened. widespread
>4G is a couple of years off... Wimax is a few years off... and every
>time competition breaks out, they all buy each other up and fix the
>prices.
>
>Like I said, this decision certifies that ISPs can limit you in any
>way they see fit. The court was right with this decision, but there
>has to be something set up to protect our Internet access.
>
>
> It has everything to do with ideological bureaucrats to
>> impose an internet's version of the "fairness doctrine" on us.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>
>> > "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
>> >news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> >> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>> >> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>> >> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>> >> be enough.
>> >> _____
>>
>> >> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> >> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>> >> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>> >> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>> >> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>> >> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>> >> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
>> >> ___
>> >> FULL STORY:
>>
>> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
>>
>> > .
>> > .
>> > Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>> > protect the public interest.
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 1:29 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:291ff909-0f23-4ec6...@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com
>>
>> lorad <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
>> > I hope you realize that you are acting *against* free speech - and not
>> > for it.
>>
>> You don't have free speech on someone else's property.
>
>No, you don't have First Amendment protection on someone else's
>property. There's a difference. Not that you're smart enough to
>understand the difference.
>>
>> Why shouldn't Comcast use their own networks to their own advantage?
>
>How shall I put this...
>
>Comcast is a franchisee. They don't own the right of way where their
>cables run. The PEOPLE own them. Therefore, WE should get a say as to
>how those cables are used.
Nope... and you don't get tom decide on the electric lines either...
>The problem is, neocons have been in charge too long, and they have
>this idea that anyone should be able to do anything they want with
>anything they claim ownership to.
BINGO!
>Comcast was granted the only access available to your home, so that it
>could deliver cable television. Since there is no competition, they
>don't get to make the rules; the people who own that access do. That
>government dropped the ball and doesn't enforce our rights is a major
>problem, and needs to be addressed. If they opened the cable up to
>competition, the way they did for phone lines a few years back, you
>might have a case. But the cable company isn't required to open its
>line up to competition. Therefore, because it has a monopoly, it
>should be treated differently. I'm sure, once Comcast finishes its
>purchase of NBC and they decide to move MSNBC and CNBC to prominent
>places on standard cable, and move Fox News and Fox Business to
>secondary tiers, you'll feel differently, especially if you live in an
>area where you can't get satellite access. Or better yet, what if they
>block your access to foxnews,com, or redirect you to msnbc.com when
>you type foxnews.com? Will you simply bite the bullet and switch to
>much slower broadband? or might you be tempted to contact your local
>politicians to do something about it?
>
>
>>
>> Should CBS get to broadcast their programming on NBC?
>
>Not the same thing.
exactly the same thing..
>But then, you're too dumb to realize that.
>
>>
>> --
>> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 11:56 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 11:42 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you could
>> > receive?
>>
>> > If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
>> > subscriber.
>>
>> > Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>>
>> > "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb54c0....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
>> > > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>>
>> > >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
>> > >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
>> > >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
>> > >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>>
>> > >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>>
>> > > Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
>> > > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>>
>> > >>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:29:53 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
>> > >>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> > >>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>> > >>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>> > >>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>> > >>>> be enough.
>> > >>>> _____
>>
>> > >>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> > >>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>> > >>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>> > >>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>> > >>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>> > >>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>> > >>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
>> > >>>> ___
>> > >>>> FULL STORY:
>>
>> > >>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
>> > >>>.
>> > >>>.
>> > >>>Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>> > >>>protect the public interest.
>>
>> Why is your solution always, "more government, more government"?
>
>Um, dipshit...
>
>WE are the government.
>
>Who would you rather have decide how much Internet you should have
>access to? YOU or Comcast?
>>
>> What is wrong with your brain? What is wrong with your own decision
>> making?
>>
>> This case came about because Comcast was not providing adequate
>> bandwidth to competing companies. This came about because of public
>> knowledge. Public knowledge is the answer, not more government. When
>> the knowledge becomes public, drop your service and go with a
>> competing provider.
>
>You CAN'T go with a competing provider, you idiot!
>
>I currently have a choice; I can go with Comcast, which provides
>speeds of 15-20 mbps and has a monthly limit of 250 GB, or Verizon for
>DSL, which has speeds of up to 3-4 mbps with no limit that I know of,
>or I can go with one of the wireless carriers, who have speeds of
>maybe 1-2 mbps, and which allow no more than 6 GB per month. There are
>no viable choices to speak of. That's part of the problem.
>
>>
>> The farther we can keep the government away from the internet, the
>> better.
>>
>> Jane.
>
>This isn't about the Internet, it's about access to the Internet. The
>court just ruled (and frankly, the ruling was right) that your ISP --
>that ALL ISPs, had the right to limit your access to the Internet in
>any way they see fit.
>
>Yet, in your warped brain, you have more "freedom" because the
>government (who is us, by the way) isn't intervening on our behalf.
Milt wants... ...desperately needs a nanny government to take care of
him.... he's done such a poor job of taking care of himself...
"I'm shy, too, obviously, or I wouldn't even look at this newsgroup"
--.Milt Shook..Feb 28 1996 in alt.support.shyness
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.shyness/msg/23782fe7330ab04a?hl=en&
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 1:07 pm, Alfred Stomacker <alfredstomac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/6/2010 11:50 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
>> >news:4bbb59e9....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> >> No, it's ultimately about Obama Control.
>>
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .Asshole, Obama wont be president forever
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>>
>> but once a law is signed in and is designated to never end that is that.
>> even if the law is set to expire in a certain time it is still there
>> doing damage until then and removing a law is much harder than making one.
>
>Why would you remove a law that effectively gives the power to control
>Internet access to the people, rather than to ISPs? I mean, right now,
>if your ISP decides you don't get access to Fox News onine, they can
>block it. At least with a regulatory body in place, we can force them
>to keep all access open.
>
>Let me put it another way...
>
>Right now, you have no right to see anything on the Internet; your ISP
>can block it. If the FCC regulated it, the First Amendment would kick
>in, and you'd have more freedom, not less.
>
>You're on Usenet right now; haven't you noticed how many ISPs have
>blocked access to Usenet in recent years? Doesn't that concern you?
No ISP blocks Usenet.. they may not offer it to you, but they don't
block it...
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 11:36 am, here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
>>
>> (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>>
>> >TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
>> >PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
>> >just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
>> >the socialists can control AM radio too.
>>
>> >Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>>
>> Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity.
>
>This decision has nothing to do with content, you fucking idiot. Right
>now, the ISPs have the power to tell you where you can and cannot go
>on the Internet, they can block whatever they don't want you to see,
>and they can cut you off when they've decided you've seen "too much."
>
>You're praising a decision that actually says, "yeah -- they can do
>that."
If you don't like your ISP, get another.. and STFU.
>No wonder your ideology is so fucked up. You don't even understand
>when a company is making you bend over and ramming it right into
>you...
>
>
>> What's
>> the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>>
>
>The only thing worse than a dipshit is a racist dipshit.
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 11:34 am, The PHANTOM <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 10:29 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> > > COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>> > > speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>> > > would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>> > > be enough.
>> > > _____
>>
>> > > EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> > > Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>> > > providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>> > > their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>> > > District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>> > > largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>> > > so called "net neutrality" obligations.
>> > > ___
>> > > FULL STORY:
>>
>> > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
>>
>> > .
>> > .
>> > Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>> > protect the public interest.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> HUH ??? I thought you progressives were all about the 1st Amendment
>> and free speech ??!! At least that's what you were saying while Bush
>> was POTUS. WTF happened???
>
>Um, dipshit?
>
>The court just ruled in this case that you don't HAVE any First
>Amendment rights when it comes to the Internet. Thye just ruled that
>your ISP can limit how much Internet you can get every month, and they
>can even block or filter any content they want, and there is nothing
>you can do about it.
No different than when a newspaper only prints the news they like.
>A court just told you that your ISP gets to decide where you can go on
>the Internet, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>Including you.
>
>They just told you, you have NO free speech on the Internet, because
>the government has decided to take a "hands off" approach.
>
>Sucks, don't it?
Nope...
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 6, 11:49 am, The PHANTOM <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 10:42 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > So, you would like a COMCAST to decide what parts of the internet you could
>> > receive?
>>
>> > If HULU got better, COMCAST would cut them off so would remain a COMCAST
>> > subscriber.
>>
>> > Its not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about access....
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>>
>> > "ObamaNation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in messagenews:4bbb54c0....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:34:25 GMT, AnAbsoluteShitLives@WhiteHouse.
>> > > (Swatting Moonbatz) wrote:
>>
>> > >>TRANSLATION: No one wants liberal radio with the TV stations, NPR,
>> > >>PBS, and the major dailies already dominated by liberals, so let's
>> > >>just kill free enterprise and require a "Fairness Doctrine" so that
>> > >>the socialists can control AM radio too.
>>
>> > >>Yeah, lady, that's the ticket.
>>
>> > > Also, the Internet already has its fair share of lib activity. What's
>> > > the nigger want, 100% control like Pravda was?
>>
>> > >>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:29:53 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>"Way Back Jack" <NoEvil@MyHouse.> wrote in message
>> > >>>news:4bbb518c....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> > >>>> COMMENT: The FCC clearly has been tasked by Obama with filtering free
>> > >>>> speech. They will slip in a new "fairness doctrine" if they can. You
>> > >>>> would think that using taxes to support the leftist NPR and PBS would
>> > >>>> be enough.
>> > >>>> _____
>>
>> > >>>> EXCERPT: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal
>> > >>>> Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband
>> > >>>> providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over
>> > >>>> their networks. Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>> > >>>> District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's
>> > >>>> largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose
>> > >>>> so called "net neutrality" obligations.
>> > >>>> ___
>> > >>>> FULL STORY:
>>
>> > >>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990...
>> > >>>.
>> > >>>.
>> > >>>Time for congress to act and provide the FCC with ther power it needs to
>> > >>>protect the public interest.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Access my stinking ass !! What a reaking load of horseshit !! It's
>> about CONTROL !! EVERYTHING OBAMA WANTS IS SIMPLY ABOUT CONTROL !!
>> He's an idealist. He'll use the power of the Presidency to shove his
>> ideaology down the throats of the American people and he couldn't care
>> less what we want. How ANYBOY can still support the fucking idiot is
>> beyond me.
>
>Fuckwit, read the article you're commenting on. Comcast limits access
>to 250 GB per month, and they had bots on their network that detected
>torrents and purposely disrupted them. Essentially, you fucking idiot,
>the court just ruled that your ISP can decide how much of the Internet
>you get to access every month, and they can block whatever activities
>they want, and there is no one who can stop them.
>
>You just LOST freedom, dipshit, and you're too fucking stupid to know
>it.
You also don't have the "freedom" to get as much electricity as you
want for the same price either... nor water, nor gasoline... suck it
up, Shook.