Net Neutrality

[aix_xpert]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

DChi - I beg to differ. It does exist. We are early on in the problem manifesting but believe me it exists. We have clients on both sides of this (Netflix, BBC, Comcast, TWC).

You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC as a starting point...

Wrong, it is a problem so easily bypassed as to be laughable. It damn sure isn't one that requires government regulation.

I'm a cyber security analyst. Don't insult my intelligence by pointing me to that dumb-assed URL.

Chi,

One thing to note, while you are technically correct that you have a solution. There are others such as TOR. But as a Cyber Security Analyst, you are ahead of 98% of the people on the net already, and your solution isn't implementable (or even understood) by at least half. Just cause you have a solution that you understand does not mean that a problem doesn't exist. I'm smart enough to drive on one side of the road, but we still put lines on it.

While I'm certainly not a supporter of Obama's politics, and I have concerns about the power this could potentially grant the FCC, the need for some governing body (I prefer ICANN personally) to set the guidelines of net neutrality is important. In the end, this is just a play by the ISPs to get someone to foot the bill since they've way oversold their antiquated networks.
Justin

I said I was out but your post is great and finally hit on the true root cause of this situation.

A few thoughts:
I wouldn't want to traverse the TOR network.
Most don't understand but there'd be companies spring up to do it for them.
If ISP's did this, I think you'd see the local governments review their monopolistic contracts - which is a huge concern.

You said, " this is just a play by the ISPs to get someone to foot the bill". You are totally correct and the root of the issue. This is about who's going to pay for the next generation of updates. It'll be us the consumer regardless if the ISP or the content provider who charges us.

Chi,

I think you and I are on similar pages. Fact is, someone has to be the governing body of standards and practices within the internet. You can't have net nuetrality without it. As i stated, I'm not sure I like the Federal government owning that responsibility, as they have clearly shown to be swayed based on ownership of power and control more than doing whats right (both Rs and Ds). But the internet has certainly gotten too big for "status quo" to remain in effect.

Justin

 

[Ostatedchi]

AIX, you are totally correct.

I see a few things coming on the horizon.
1. ISP's and their monopolistic contracts will get reviewed in order to give consumers more local choices.
2. If not, someone is going to come up with a viable wireless or satellite broadband connection that is cost effective making the local ISP's truly have to start competing.
3. IF the government starts with all this crap, you'll see people start making their own sub-internets or boutique networks that bypass content filtering. You already mentioned TOR, there's darknet or onion, meshnet, Guifi. There'll be others. It'll also drive content providers off shore
4. The government won't be able to keep pace with the rate of technological change in their regulations.

My final point is that I don't think we need Net Neutrality because if we pay the ISP or if we pay the content provider, the consumers are still the ones paying. In the end, did it really change anything? And, smart people will find a way around it regardless.

Call the Internet the SpyNet

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:



And, smart people will find a way around it regardless.

But that's unfair. Just because you were born with superior grey matter between the ears doesn't mean you should be able to job the system. What about all those stupid people that society has left behind? What are they supposed to do? Big Brother needs to step in and right this injustice. Share the wealth. What would Jesus do? This of course is all in blue.

 

[aix_xpert]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:


AIX, you are totally correct.

I see a few things coming on the horizon.
1. ISP's and their monopolistic contracts will get reviewed in order to give consumers more local choices.
2. If not, someone is going to come up with a viable wireless or satellite broadband connection that is cost effective making the local ISP's truly have to start competing.
3. IF the government starts with all this crap, you'll see people start making their own sub-internets or boutique networks that bypass content filtering. You already mentioned TOR, there's darknet or onion, meshnet, Guifi. There'll be others. It'll also drive content providers off shore
4. The government won't be able to keep pace with the rate of technological change in their regulations.

My final point is that I don't think we need Net Neutrality because if we pay the ISP or if we pay the content provider, the consumers are still the ones paying. In the end, did it really change anything? And, smart people will find a way around it regardless.

Only one disagreement. You need Net Neutrality in order to ensure that the internet does not become a US wasteland or become excessively restrictive to new entry. Without some form of Net Neutrality in place, in the future, if I decide to start my own rival content site to Facebook, until I partner (or pay) every potential ISP, I run the risk of being blacklisted or at a minimum, deprioritized over their network. That becomes bad for the consumer as well as the industry, but it protects the monolopy players even more than they already are.

BTW, #3 on your list is exactly where the internet will go should Net Neutrality be "tossed", and it will be the death of the internet as we know it. It will be like the old days where you got your "internet" from AOL or CompuServ and getting to the real content (non-ISP based) took effort and expertise that was well beyond the average user.

Justin

 

[davidallen]

Just fire up your VPN client right DChi... oh wait, VPN provider just got blacklisted too... can't believe that was a serious contribution to this thread.

In regards to the new wireless technology on the horizon... you do realize that the usable spectrum got auctioned off right? Unless you are ATT, Verizon, Dish or the like you got nowhere to go with your whizbang game changing invention - that is if you want to broadcast beyond a meter or two.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Mark Cuban thinks net neutrality will f**k everything up. Thought it was an interesting comment.

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:
Mark Cuban thinks net neutrality will f**k everything up. Thought it was an interesting comment.

What doesn't the government f**k up? Once they get their hands on the internet it's not going to be an improvement. Time will tell what happens but I fully expect government interference in access and content.

 

[hollywood]

imprimis,

How much economic growth and expansion of business did we see once "Ma Bell" was broken up the govt and regulations put in place by the FCC preventing them from engaging in behaviors which created barriers to entry to market by potential competitors. At the time the consumers were released from the shackles of Ma Bell, it was not uncommon to be charged s much as 25 cents to 35 cents per minute for a long distance call. After they were regulated and competition entered the equation, prices today are far, far less than 30 yrs ago.

What free market warping monopolies/oligopolies have tended to best serve consumers without regulation? We are in fact talking about companies (ISP's) which have been granted monopolies to serve cities/counties across the country and are often the ONLY choice a consumer has to get access to the internet from the get go.

I don't know about you, but my choices of ISP's is Cox, Cox, Cox and Cox. If I wanted AT&T Uverse, for example I am blocked. How in the hell is that "free market." or why would companies in that industry expect to operate regulation free, when every other monopoly (OGE, ONG, etc.) providing a public service are always regulated to prevent them from F'ing up the marketplace just like Adam Smith warned about in Wealth of Nations.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The monopolies and oligopolies were themselves created by government(s). When Ma Bell was broken up did the remaining companies not charge other companies for using their lines?

 

[imprimis]

Apparently, Cuban and I aren't the only ones who are concerned whenever the governments says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

It boils down to I don't trust this administration. We were all witness to Pelosi's "we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare." Just this week we saw a federal judge halt the Amnesty push for violating the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to submit to the light of day in the Federal Registry the rules and regulations of the Executive Memorandum or whatever the hell name for the authorization used to impose Amnesty. Then there were the millions of shovel ready jobs which didn't exist. Or Dodd-Frank. Take you choice. They were all sold as some panacea for our ailments.

If there are problems in the manner in which the internet functions which would help it function better then address those individually the same way they could have addressed insurance portability and pre-existing conditions in health care rather than revamping the entire system to the behemoth it has become.

There is a reason the administration doesn't want to show the proposed regulations to the general public before their vote. Can it be that somewhere hidden inside the rules is the Fairness Doctrine or something more deleterious to the way the internet functions going forward? I'm of the opinion that if Net Neutrality passes there will be some objectionable nuggets affecting one segment of society or another.

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/press/press-releases/press-release-new-survey-finds-americans-think-fcc-plan-regulate-internet-harmful/

 

[pokemagain]

Originally posted by imprimis:
Apparently, Cuban and I aren't the only ones who are concerned whenever the governments says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

It boils down to I don't trust this administration. We were all witness to Pelosi's "we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare." Just this week we saw a federal judge halt the Amnesty push for violating the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to submit to the light of day in the Federal Registry the rules and regulations of the Executive Memorandum or whatever the hell name for the authorization used to impose Amnesty. Then there were the millions of shovel ready jobs which didn't exist. Or Dodd-Frank. Take you choice. They were all sold as some panacea for our ailments.

If there are problems in the manner in which the internet functions which would help it function better then address those individually the same way they could have addressed insurance portability and pre-existing conditions in health care rather than revamping the entire system to the behemoth it has become.

There is a reason the administration doesn't want to show the proposed regulations to the general public before their vote. Can it be that somewhere hidden inside the rules is the Fairness Doctrine or something more deleterious to the way the internet functions going forward? I'm of the opinion that if Net Neutrality passes there will be some objectionable nuggets affecting one segment of society or another. A

Agree 100% everything this Administration does has a hidden agenda to create more government control, more power for Dems, and more reliance on the government which helps Dems gain more constituents. They hide the facts until it is too late.

 

[aix_xpert]

Originally posted by pokemagain:

Originally posted by imprimis:
Apparently, Cuban and I aren't the only ones who are concerned whenever the governments says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

It boils down to I don't trust this administration. We were all witness to Pelosi's "we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare." Just this week we saw a federal judge halt the Amnesty push for violating the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to submit to the light of day in the Federal Registry the rules and regulations of the Executive Memorandum or whatever the hell name for the authorization used to impose Amnesty. Then there were the millions of shovel ready jobs which didn't exist. Or Dodd-Frank. Take you choice. They were all sold as some panacea for our ailments.

If there are problems in the manner in which the internet functions which would help it function better then address those individually the same way they could have addressed insurance portability and pre-existing conditions in health care rather than revamping the entire system to the behemoth it has become.

There is a reason the administration doesn't want to show the proposed regulations to the general public before their vote. Can it be that somewhere hidden inside the rules is the Fairness Doctrine or something more deleterious to the way the internet functions going forward? I'm of the opinion that if Net Neutrality passes there will be some objectionable nuggets affecting one segment of society or another. A

Agree 100% everything this Administration does has a hidden agenda to create more government control, more power for Dems, and more reliance on the government which helps Dems gain more constituents. They hide the facts until it is too late.

I stated this in my above messages. I support net neutrality, but have serious concerns about the government owning the responsibility for administrating it. I would much prefer a body such as ICANN have this responsibility.

Justin

 

[hollywood]

imprimis - ""We were all witness to Pelosi's 'we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare.'"

How many times can you people keep repeating that lie? That is not in any way an accurate or factual representation of what she said and is completely divorced from both context and reality of the remark she made in her speech to the membership of the National Association of Counties.

Here's what she actually said, which in no way indicates that she and/or other members of Congress did not know what was in the bill. She was advocating for the passage of the bill so the public could see what was in the bill itself.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by hollywood:
imprimis - ""We were all witness to Pelosi's 'we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare.'"

How many times can you people keep repeating that lie? That is not in any way an accurate or factual representation of what she said and is completely divorced from both context and reality of the remark she made in her speech to the membership of the National Association of Counties.

Here's what she actually said, which in no way indicates that she and/or other members of Congress did not know what was in the bill. She was advocating for the passage of the bill so the public could see what was in the bill itself.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by hollywood:
imprimis - ""We were all witness to Pelosi's 'we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare.'"

How many times can you people keep repeating that lie? That is not in any way an accurate or factual representation of what she said and is completely divorced from both context and reality of the remark she made in her speech to the membership of the National Association of Counties.

Here's what she actually said, which in no way indicates that she and/or other members of Congress did not know what was in the bill. She was advocating for the passage of the bill so the public could see what was in the bill itself.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

It was humanly impossible for Pelosi and other members of Congress to have read the complete bill in the allotted time given before Reid rammed it down America's throat, via a procedure in violation of Senate rules. AND there have been well publicized examples proving they didn't (but Gruber did!) know what was in the bill. e.g. the fact that the bill explicitly indicates that people in states that don't set up healthcare exchanges are NOT eligible for tax credits.
This post was edited on 2/20 2:34 PM by Marshal Jim Duncan

 

[ktobey]

I like the idea of Net Neutrality but this proposal isn't about Net Neutrality

Internet Regulation

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by ktobey:
I like the idea of Net Neutrality but this proposal isn't about Net Neutrality

BRAVO!!! Fantastic. I'm sure this guy makes too much sense to satisfy the smartest guys in the room.

 

[hollywood]

Marshal,

Thank you for a post to the youtube video, which 100% reflects the quote as I provided?

Can you not tell the difference between her saying "...we have to pass the bill so YOU can see what's in it, away from the fog of controversy" and "We have to pass the bill so WE can see what's in it"?

Open that youtube video again and listen closely, she clearly says YOU, not we and it includes that portion of the sentence which often gets chopped off in sound bites,which seriously distorts the entirety of the context of that element of the speech.

Thus anytime someone claims that they are quoting Pelosi (in an honest manner) and uses the word "WE" instead of "YOU" they are flat out lying as proven by the very video you yourself just provided.

I'm not even going to bother picking an argument with other assertion, (hell, I'll even concede that the vast majority of legislation is known best by staffers, not our house members and senators) but you can you not at least agree with me that to misquote what she said (which happens all the damned time on here) is DISHONEST and NOT ACCURATE?

If it's a mere mistake, or people have been mislead into believing that was the actual quote, I understand - it can happen to the best of us. But once people can see/hear/read for themselves the actual quote I would hope they at least have enough integrity to stop using the bogus version.

This post was edited on 2/20 2:58 PM by hollywood

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

You're welcome, F. Lee Bailey. NO ONE in this thread has clamed she said "We have to pass the bill so WE can see what's in it"?



Here is what imprimis said:

"we've got to vote for Obamacare to know what's in Obamacare."

Which is just what Pelsoi said (paraphrased). What's sad is you and your buddies from whom you get such nonsense like Huffington Post or MSNBC think that what you say she meant is "OK" and somehow validates it.

BTW, she said that BEFORE the Senate bill was passed.

 

[imprimis]

Pelosi's words along with the Judge's rebuke of Amnesty and now the refusal to let the public know what the rules and regulations on Net Neutrality will be only highlights other lies of Obama's. You know, the ones about "most transparent administration in history" or "(paraphrased) we'll have doctors, nurses, technicians, and other sitting around a big table televised on c-SPAN discussing health care reform..." or maybe, "all bills will be posted on the White House website to give the public 5 days to comment on the bill before being voted on."

What you'll see if NN passes is an internet which costs more, is taxed more, and regulated significantly more that what we see today. There are reasons why they aren't allowing us to see what their proposed regulations are. Wouldn't surprise me to see that the FCC's has their own Lois Lerner.

 

[hollywood]

imprimis - "...now the refusal to let the public know what the rules and regulations on Net Neutrality will be only highlights other lies of Obama's."

Damnit, how many times does this have to be explained to you? The public knows, or should know as the f'ing information is available online and has been since it was published in the Federal Register some 7-8 months back.

The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, 5 USC Sec 500 et seq [/I]requires than any proposed rule or regulation MUST BE DISCLOSED to the Publication in the Federal Register a minimum of 90 days before that Agency can vote on the Final rules. At a minimum there is to be a 60 day period for initial public comments, then an additional 30 days for those wishing to argue for/against anything in the public comments. (In this case, the public comment period was extended to a period of about 7 months, not the 90 day minimum.) Any rule or regulation promulgated in the final rule MUST be substantially identical to those disclosed in the initial proposal. Not, everything that was in the list of proposed rules must be in the final version, but the rules/regulations in the final version cannot exceed those disclosed by publication.

The withholding from the public the drafted version of the final rules, has ALWAYS been the practice at Administrative Agencies, with very few exceptions. It's the way things have been done while Obama is President, just as it was done when George W Bush was President, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman. The procedure has not changed in any way since the passage of the APA back in 1946. So to try and claim that this is something new and all cooked up by the Obama administration is ridiculous.

But again, the point remains - there will be NOTHING in the Final rules, which was not disclosed to the public back last July.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/01/2014-14859/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet

 

[ktobey]

Explain it to Computer World

No plans to release text

 

[hollywood]

I don't need to. Perhaps you should have actually read the article from Computer World where it was explained to you?

"The Republican call for the FCC to release a preliminary discussion draft of the order "runs contrary to commission procedure followed over the years by both Democratic and Republican" FCC chairmen, Wheeler wrote. "If decades of precedent are to be changed, then there must be an opportunity for thoughtful review in the lead up to any change."[/I]

This decision by the FCC was made in 2008 (when the Republicans held 3 of the 5 FCC board positions and George W Bush was president), and references how this is long standing practice at the agency: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/voted-items-at-fcc-may-be-secret-till-final-agency-says All 5 Commissioners signed off on it you should note. Regardless of subject matter, this is how things have done at the FCC for decades and there is absolutely nothing irregular or extraordinary about how the final rules vote/publication is being handled this time.

The process is actually fairly similar to how decisions are handled by appellate courts (including the Supreme Court). While the final decision is being discussed by the judges/justices and proposed majority/minority/concurring opinions are being circulated for reasons such as editing, input, etc. During that process, the final opinions remain secret and are not revealed to the public, until all the judges/justices agree to their publication.

 

[ktobey]

I did read the article. Is the FCC releasing the text of the proposal or not? Yes or no. It, doesn't require a Google search or legal brief for an answer

The condescending may work well in a courtroom but it's just sad on a message board.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

So, Hollywood, it is your position that FINAL rules implementing regulations NEVER include changes from PROPOSED rules?

 

[hollywood]

In order to withstand court scrutiny, anything in the final rules has to be substantially identical to the proposed rules and cannot exceed the scope of the proposed rules.

If not, then a court will kick them out as a violation of the APA.

If the agency decides internally on a rule, which differs substantially from the proposed rule, they are actually required to publish the altered rule in the Federal Register, re-open them for the public comment period and basically start over from scratch to a large degree.

Now, here's what's covered by that general provision. If the agency had originally published a proposed rule and it contained a proposed rule that had sections A., B., C., D., & E, the final rule can contain all or a combination thereof, such as A., C., & E. As the public was aware of each of the sections A thru E and had time to publicly comment on them and in most cases offer public testimony to the panel then it is not a violation of the APA to adopt LESS than the original proposed rules. But in virtually every instance, it would be a violation (and the rule would be void ab initio) if the Agency came back with rules A, C, E & F, where F was not disclosed in the original publication order.

 

[hollywood]

ktobey,

The Text of the rules have been publicly released as required by law by publishing the proposed rules in the Federal Register last July.

This is exactly what is required by Congressional Statute: Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 5 USC. Sec. 500 et seq and the way that Administrative Agencies have promulgated rules and regulations for nearly 70 years now.

If you don't like the way the current system works and would like that law changed, then I would suggest you contact your local congresscritter and ask them to change it. But don't expect an Administrative Agency to alter a procedure that they are required to follow by statute and the rules established through judicial review (court challenges). It is the practice of the FCC to not release the 'final" rule for public consumption until after it is approved or denied by vote of the Commissioners as has been the practice since Truman was President.

If it is "condescending" to point out the factual history of how Administrative Agencies have followed the Administrative Procedure Act since it was first codified in 1946, then I guess I'm guilty. Again, the FCC is not doing anything other than operating under its decades long SOP and there is absolutely NOTHING illegal or unusual in its rule-making practice in this case.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-from-internet-to-obamanet-1424644324




"No one, including the bullied FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, thought the agency would go this far. The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply the agency's most extreme regulation to the Internet. A recent page-one Wall Street Journal story headlined "Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief" documented "an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House . . . acting as a parallel version of the FCC itself."


Congress is demanding details of this interference. In the early 1980s, a congressional investigation blasted President Reagan for telling his FCC chairman his view of regulations about television reruns. "I believe it is imperative for the integrity of all regulatory processes that the president unequivocally declare that he will express no view in the matter and that he will do nothing to intervene in the work of the FCC," said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat."

 

[long-duc-dong]

Why are all these people asking for the FCC chief to release the rule proposal. Are all these people that stupid? Honest question. Hollywood has made his case with facts that I agree with, but why do all these people insist on saying that the proposal has not been released to the public? Please tell me they are just stupid and that this administration is not breaking some sort of law. I'm confused.

USA Today Must be Stupid as well

 

[ktobey]

Politico is stupid too

We're effed

 

[battu75]

seems Hollywood doesn't know the difference between a released brroad overview for general comment vs. the specific rules that will be law. The link he posted has no specifics as to the actual rule of law that will be implemented. That is what is being kept secret as all in the country seem to know but Hollywood.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by battu75:
seems Hollywood doesn't know the difference between a released brroad overview for general comment vs. the specific rules that will be law. The link he posted has no specifics as to the actual rule of law that will be implemented. That is what is being kept secret as all in the country seem to know but Hollywood.

Uh Oh!

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

A related blast from the past:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/senator-obama-irresponsible-for-fcc-to-vote-on-rules-unreleased-to-the-public/

 

[PDT816]

There seems to be some confusion as to what document people are asking for.....

Public Laws establish and authorize federal agencies and programs.

The Code of Federal Regulations is a codification of said public laws and other permanent rules published in the Federal Register. In this case, the FCC falls under Title 47.

Neither of the above provide any detail on how programs are run, how decisions will be made, what specific rules agency employees and associated parties are to follow in the day-to-day dealings with what programs and laws Congress/President has enacted. and etc, etc, etc.

All agencies take what's authorized in public laws and the permanant rules published in the CFR and then create a document of their own interpretations of exactly how the agency's employees are to implement them to the smallest detail via what's known as unilateral rule-making authority. It's this draft of what will be the FCC's bible of how they plan to enforce net-neutrality that everyone wants to see be there's a vote.

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by gopokes2003:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your little quotation marks and condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling, although typical of liberals, is tiresome.

The most condescending person in the thread has been Ostatedchi.

No, I don't think he was condescending, he simply called them out on the issue. These libs, and yes don't let davidallen fool you he's a lib, continually in almost every thread, try and belittle people with their quotations and I'm smarter than you attitude. It's actually humorous, because I know the type of people they are. They like to try and deflect when possible with their 27 paragraph responses of legal mumbo jumbo and resume citations. Funny really.

Missed this little nugget. Dong I challenge you to a beer at a tailgate. I don't think you have the stones to sit across from someone and say this snarky crap face to face...

And I have said before - if a conversation is intimidating to you then you can easily choose not to participate. Ad hominem attacks make you look like a fool.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by gopokes2003:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your little quotation marks and condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling, although typical of liberals, is tiresome.

The most condescending person in the thread has been Ostatedchi.

No, I don't think he was condescending, he simply called them out on the issue. These libs, and yes don't let davidallen fool you he's a lib, continually in almost every thread, try and belittle people with their quotations and I'm smarter than you attitude. It's actually humorous, because I know the type of people they are. They like to try and deflect when possible with their 27 paragraph responses of legal mumbo jumbo and resume citations. Funny really.

Missed this little nugget. Dong I challenge you to a beer at a tailgate. I don't think you have the stones to sit across from someone and say this snarky crap face to face...

And I have said before - if a conversation is intimidating to you then you can easily choose not to participate. Ad hominem attacks make you look like a fool.

So me calling your actions funny warrants a stare off at a tailgate? That itself is funny. Not one thing you say intimidates me, especially your snarky responses. All you and the libs on this board do is attack peoples intellect with your condescending bs. I just call it like I see it. And you are the one that looks like the fool here with your challenge.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

What could possibly go wrong:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/google-warns-fcc-plan-could-help-isps-charge-senders-of-web-traffic/

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

What could possibly go wrong:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/google-warns-fcc-plan-could-help-isps-charge-senders-of-web-traffic/

Wasn't google on Hollywood's list of companies that were in favor of net neutrality? This thing seems to change every day.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

What could possibly go wrong:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/google-warns-fcc-plan-could-help-isps-charge-senders-of-web-traffic/

Wasn't google on Hollywood's list of companies that were in favor of net neutrality? This thing seems to change every day.

The article is just a good cautionary tale for how complex the issue is and how unlikely the government is to get it right, and not create a worse situation.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

What could possibly go wrong:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/google-warns-fcc-plan-could-help-isps-charge-senders-of-web-traffic/

Wasn't google on Hollywood's list of companies that were in favor of net neutrality? This thing seems to change every day.

The article is just a good cautionary tale for how complex the issue is and how unlikely the government is to get it right, and not create a worse situation.

Gotcha. Just had a chance to read it.