|
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski
could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable network neutrality rules for the Internet. Despite declaring we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet, he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all- knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril. Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which practices are fair and reasonable on a case-by-case basis. But it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed, unaccountable bureaucrats. [...] http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fc...rican-thinker/ http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ets_inter.html |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
On Sep 30, 5:36*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality” rules for the Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet,” he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all- knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril. Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which practices are “fair” and “reasonable” on a “case-by-case basis.” But it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed, unaccountable bureaucrats. [...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri... http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter... I found "Air America" t be quite boring with their logic and facts, so I stopped listening to them well before bthey went under.. Yes, we need more like Beck, Savage and Rush. Bring back the days of "Laugh-In" |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
"SeaWoe" wrote in message ... I found "Air America" t be quite boring with their logic and facts, so I stopped listening to them well before bthey went under.. Yes, we need more like Beck, Savage and Rush. Bring back the days of "Laugh-In" Better watch out or that rapier tongue will poke a hole through the cheek it's placed so firmly against. Laugh-In, yes.. but what this world really needs are the Smothers Brothers and Pat Paulsen "If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve." I know someone else said it before him, but Pat had a way about him. :) |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet-GOPdonithingpartyofNOprotects Corp. media control
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:36:42 -0700, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech I see nothing wrong with prohibiting common carriers from censoring your internet. They took a big bite out-a usenet already The GOP Hypocritical do-nothing party of NO! They want to give all our constitutional rights to large trillion dollar corporations in the name of "not socialist" These people can't think past their large beacon beer belly but find it easy to cut-n-paste content from the republiCAN'T propaganda machine. Sorry bunch of folks. No brains to think for themselves. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
On Sep 30, 8:36*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality” rules for the Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet,” he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all- knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril. Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which practices are “fair” and “reasonable” on a “case-by-case basis.” But it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed, unaccountable bureaucrats. [...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri... http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter... sounds like the HD Radio debacle. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet-GOPdonithingpartyofNO protects Corp. media control
"Ima" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:36:42 -0700, N? ?baMa? wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech I see nothing wrong with prohibiting common carriers from censoring your internet. They took a big bite out-a usenet already For real. It's bad enough that they decide they're going to sell you 15Mb/s internet access, then throttle you back to 3 or 4 Mb, and sometimes even a few hundred Kb. Hopefully, that will now end. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
N? ?baMa? wrote:
New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable network neutrality rules for the Internet. Despite declaring we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet, he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all- knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril. Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which practices are fair and reasonable on a case-by-case basis. But it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed, unaccountable bureaucrats. [...] You really are nothing but a shill for entrenched big business. Network Neutrality threatens no one but Time Warner. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
SeaWoe wrote:
I found "Air America" t be quite boring with their logic and facts, so I stopped listening to them well before bthey went under.. Yes, we need more like Beck, Savage and Rush. Bring back the days of "Laugh-In" Air America is still alive. I suggest Thom Hartmann if you like facts and logic. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet-GOPdonithingpartyofNO protectsCorp. media control
On 10/1/09 24:50 , Brenda Ann wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:36:42 -0700, N? ?baMa? wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech I see nothing wrong with prohibiting common carriers from censoring your internet. They took a big bite out-a usenet already For real. It's bad enough that they decide they're going to sell you 15Mb/s internet access, then throttle you back to 3 or 4 Mb, and sometimes even a few hundred Kb. Hopefully, that will now end. That would be nice. But I wouldn't count on it. There are always exploitable loopholes, and lawsuits to delay, or deflect implementation. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
On Sep 30, 6:36*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality” rules for the Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet,” he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all- knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril. Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which practices are “fair” and “reasonable” on a “case-by-case basis.” But it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed, unaccountable bureaucrats. [...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri... http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter... Thank god. The future of the internet was looking pretty grim for a while there. Ooooooooohhh, regulation! Poor consumers, not gonna get to shape the future of the.....wait, wait, I is a consumer! Did I SHAPE through the natural genius of the MARKET and my thus endowed POWER my relationship with Google (track me track me)? With my mortgage company (now that's cheating, pick on the poor mortgage companies when they're down, poor angels)? With Microsoft (I'm gonna get me a better word processor spreadsheet powerpoint an' ever otha kindo softwares raht now dang it !!!! )? With my gentle, loving bank, caring for my best interest, Wells Fargo? With my beloved airlines (it's ok, just go to the bathroom in the seat, we gotta get off this tarmack sometime this week, otherwise it'll cause a GLITCH in the profits!! And you can rest assuuuuured, young lady, that your government ain't gonna touch a hair on the precious head of our free airline market forcesssssssszzzzz!!!! ) Gee, I guess I musta! An I DIDN"T FEEL A THING! Free markets haleluuuuuuuah *&*)$&*^& shoot them commies raht now sir *()&^%$ !!! And who am I ??????? The voice of REASON !!!! TRUTH incarnate and no less!! Listen, heathens!! Repent, protectors of the ole joke about the bartender, the lobbyist, the congressman, and the CEO !!!! Yessuh....yessuh..... |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
On Sep 30, 7:36*pm, N∅ ∅baMa∅
wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech advocating enforceable “network neutrality” rules for the Internet. Despite declaring “we cannot know what tomorrow holds on the Internet,” he showed he intends to lead the FCC as if it were all- knowing. That will only end up choking the greatest engine of innovation in modern times. Genachowski laid out his plans in a highly anticipated speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. The mostly voluntary concept of net neutrality — which encourages the free flow of content across the Internet — would be transformed into formal rules Internet service providers (ISPs) would violate at their peril. Instead of managing traffic in response to market forces, ISPs would be forced to cede such decisions to the FCC, which would decide which practices are “fair” and “reasonable” on a “case-by-case basis.” But it would be foolish to replace the swift judgment of millions of consumers with the dictates of a handful of slow-footed, uninformed, unaccountable bureaucrats. [...]http://sroblog.com/2009/09/29/new-fcc-chairman-targets-internet-ameri... http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._targets_inter... Ah yes, how wonderful government control of the internet will be for The People. Uncontrolled government internet Turn up the spigot. Hold a gun to the Capitalist heads. This ain't no Internet no mo'! Regulatin' that spigot. Spewin' Liberal Fascist Lies. This is the bankrupt, penniless Socialist Imbicil. Give me mo', but their ain't no mo'. Death and Destruction for All. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
A rat trap with some meat on it.
www.thriftyfun.com/tf384649.tip.html I Likes that Idee! I have some BIG rat traps I bought at a Goodwill store about twenty years ago, I don't think they have ever been used before.I am going to set two of them in my yard where my back yard meets my front yard for those stray dogs.One of those stray dogs is especially nasty!, I want to teach that mutt a Real Good Lesson! Those BIG rat traps would be Good for catching those FCC AssHoles too! cuhulin |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:
Ah yes, how wonderful government control of the internet will be for The People. Uncontrolled government internet Turn up the spigot. Hold a gun to the Capitalist heads. This ain't no Internet no mo'! Regulatin' that spigot. Spewin' Liberal Fascist Lies. This is the bankrupt, penniless Socialist Imbicil. Give me mo', but their ain't no mo'. Death and Destruction for All. You have no idea what you're talking about. You are supporting Old Media's right to block New Media traffic on the internet, (which should be a dumb, content-neutral packet delivery service and nothing more.) Your status as a shill for corporate toadies is laid bare again. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
On Oct 4, 8:10*pm, dave wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about. *You are supporting Old Media's right to block New Media traffic on the internet, (which should be a dumb, content-neutral packet delivery service and nothing more.) LOL!!! It's fun reading the tiny Red Book of 0baMa0 propaganda. Your status as a shill for corporate toadies is laid bare again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiwK2oZ53IE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt7zWQMHLFY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUsNMsrGycY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Kd-YJCdp0 |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
N? ?baMa? wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:10 pm, dave wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about. You are supporting Old Media's right to block New Media traffic on the internet, (which should be a dumb, content-neutral packet delivery service and nothing more.) LOL!!! It's fun reading the tiny Red Book of 0baMa0 propaganda. Obama has nothing to do with it. The internet should be free, like the mail. |
New FCC Chairman Targets internet
On Oct 6, 7:15*am, dave wrote:
N? ?baMa? wrote: On Oct 4, 8:10 pm, dave wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about. *You are supporting Old Media's right to block New Media traffic on the internet, (which should be a dumb, content-neutral packet delivery service and nothing more.) LOL!!! *It's fun reading the tiny Red Book of 0baMa0 propaganda. Obama has nothing to do with it. *The internet should be free, like the mail. Slow and bankrupt - like you and 0baMa0 - LMFAO! |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
On Sep 30, 8:59*pm, Ima wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:36:42 -0700, N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech I see nothing wrong with prohibiting common carriers from censoring your internet. They took a big bite out-a usenet already The GOP Hypocritical do-nothing party of NO! They want to give all our constitutional rights to large trillion dollar corporations in the name of "not socialist" These people can't think past their large beacon beer belly but find it easy to cut-n-paste content from the republiCAN'T propaganda machine. Sorry bunch of folks. *No brains to think for themselves. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bmufQD9B54ACO2 |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
|
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sep 30, 8:59*pm, Ima wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:36:42 -0700, N? ?baMa? wrote: New Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski could have used a few more dollops of genuine humility in his Monday speech I see nothing wrong with prohibiting common carriers from censoring your internet. They took a big bite out-a usenet already The GOP Hypocritical do-nothing party of NO! They want to give all our constitutional rights to large trillion dollar corporations in the name of "not socialist" These people can't think past their large beacon beer belly but find it easy to cut-n-paste content from the republiCAN'T propaganda machine. Sorry bunch of folks. *No brains to think for themselves. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bmufQD9B54ACO2 What a bunch of SCUM! You can tell who bribed them. |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
federal COMMUNIST CRIMINALS Limit Freedom Of Speech On The Internet.
(Enterhernet) www.rense.com Teh article linky dinky parlez vouz, to www.guardian.co.uk Yeahhhh,,, Sure and Begorra, y'all Clinically INSANE democraps and libturds,,, blame tat one on Boosh too. www.devilfinder.com Dave Daubenmire And to the Republic AMERICA is a REPUBLIC, TEXAS is REPUBLIC too. Remember the ALAMO!!!!!! cuhulin |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... Heavy users downloading hd movies and tv shows, playing high speed games requiring large amounts of bandwidth, can cause performance problems for other users on the radius as the bandwidth limitations of the network are approached. In the case of Comcast or ATT U-Verse, this can actually cause TV performance compromises for users who are very light internet users, but pay heavily for cable TV. I've experienced this in prime time at my g/f's house with Comcast. Bandwidth limitations are necessary to prevent a few heavy users from compromising the performance of other users who equally pay the costs. Though Comcast abuses the privilege, to be sure. Further, bandwidth limitations prevent residential users, on less efficient pipes, from using the net for high bandwidth businesses, like hosting FTP sites, as I do on my T-1, video streams, and other servers. Again consuming the bandwidth of other users. Compromising their service, for which they pay. The way to solve this problem is not to oversell bandwidth. For instance, if they sell you a 15 Mb/s connection, then you should be able to have that 15 Mb/s available to you at all times, no matter what you are doing with it (running an FTP server, or whatever). If they don't want you to use 15 Mb/s, they shouldn't SELL it to you. They should sell you 680 Kb/s or whatever they really MEAN for you to have. Right now, we are paying for three 10 Mb/s cable drops, and between the three we're getting MAYBE a solid 1.5 Mb/s. One drop is dedicated to a 64 Kb MP3Pro audio stream, and yet it can't even always keep up with that! I've had to pay for the additional drops (from two different providers, two completely different systems) in order to have an almost constant net connections for the home computers (one drop), the audio stream (one drop) and our Vonage phone lines (one dedicated drop). Our internet drops on the line for the computers about once every 3-7 minutes for about a second and a half. It's annoying as hell. |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
On 10/6/09 18:40 , Brenda Ann wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... Heavy users downloading hd movies and tv shows, playing high speed games requiring large amounts of bandwidth, can cause performance problems for other users on the radius as the bandwidth limitations of the network are approached. In the case of Comcast or ATT U-Verse, this can actually cause TV performance compromises for users who are very light internet users, but pay heavily for cable TV. I've experienced this in prime time at my g/f's house with Comcast. Bandwidth limitations are necessary to prevent a few heavy users from compromising the performance of other users who equally pay the costs. Though Comcast abuses the privilege, to be sure. Further, bandwidth limitations prevent residential users, on less efficient pipes, from using the net for high bandwidth businesses, like hosting FTP sites, as I do on my T-1, video streams, and other servers. Again consuming the bandwidth of other users. Compromising their service, for which they pay. The way to solve this problem is not to oversell bandwidth. For instance, if they sell you a 15 Mb/s connection, then you should be able to have that 15 Mb/s available to you at all times, no matter what you are doing with it (running an FTP server, or whatever). If they don't want you to use 15 Mb/s, they shouldn't SELL it to you. They should sell you 680 Kb/s or whatever they really MEAN for you to have. Right now, we are paying for three 10 Mb/s cable drops, and between the three we're getting MAYBE a solid 1.5 Mb/s. One drop is dedicated to a 64 Kb MP3Pro audio stream, and yet it can't even always keep up with that! I've had to pay for the additional drops (from two different providers, two completely different systems) in order to have an almost constant net connections for the home computers (one drop), the audio stream (one drop) and our Vonage phone lines (one dedicated drop). Our internet drops on the line for the computers about once every 3-7 minutes for about a second and a half. It's annoying as hell. It is. And a lot of it has to do with the configuration of the network. You're not on a private radius. So you're sharing bandwidth. Cost saving measure for the carrier. Cable is a lot worse than DSL. Some cable installations have near an entire neighborhood on a single radius. Irritating isn't enough of a word for it. But that's how they keep end user costs manageable. The hard truth is, your 3 cable drops are on the same radius. You might as well be on a single drop. |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
On Oct 6, 9:55*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: * * Net neutrality is a good thing, to be sure. It's very democratic. Where do I vote!? How stupid can you get? |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
On Oct 6, 6:40*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote: "D. Peter Maus" wrote in ... * *Heavy users downloading hd movies and tv shows, playing high speed games requiring large amounts of bandwidth, can cause performance problems for other users on the radius as the bandwidth limitations of the network are approached. In the case of Comcast or ATT U-Verse, this can actually cause TV performance compromises for users who are very light internet users, but pay heavily for cable TV. I've experienced this in prime time at my g/f's house with Comcast. * *Bandwidth limitations are necessary to prevent a few heavy users from compromising the performance of other users who equally pay the costs. Though Comcast abuses the privilege, to be sure. * *Further, bandwidth limitations prevent residential users, on less efficient pipes, from using the net for high bandwidth businesses, like hosting FTP sites, as I do on my T-1, video streams, and other servers. Again consuming the bandwidth of other users. Compromising their service, for which they pay. The way to solve this problem is not to oversell bandwidth. *For instance, if they sell you a 15 Mb/s connection, then you should be able to have that 15 Mb/s available to you at all times, no matter what you are doing with it (running an FTP server, or whatever). If they don't want you to use 15 Mb/s, they shouldn't SELL it to you. They should sell you 680 Kb/s or whatever they really MEAN for you to have. Right now, we are paying for three 10 Mb/s cable drops, and between the three we're getting MAYBE a solid 1.5 Mb/s. One drop is dedicated to a 64 Kb MP3Pro audio stream, and yet it can't even always keep up with that! I've had to pay for the additional drops (from two different providers, two completely different systems) in order to have an almost constant net connections for the home computers (one drop), the audio stream (one drop) and our Vonage phone lines (one dedicated drop). *Our internet drops on the line for the computers about once every 3-7 minutes for about a second and a half. It's annoying as hell.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You can buy guaranteed bandwidth through most all major internet carriers. DSL or Cable is NOT a guaranteed bandwidth. |
Net neutrality rules face mounting GOP opposition
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... It is. And a lot of it has to do with the configuration of the network. You're not on a private radius. So you're sharing bandwidth. Cost saving measure for the carrier. Cable is a lot worse than DSL. Some cable installations have near an entire neighborhood on a single radius. Irritating isn't enough of a word for it. But that's how they keep end user costs manageable. The hard truth is, your 3 cable drops are on the same radius. You might as well be on a single drop. Well, two of them are. The third is a completely different provider and infrastructure. That company has 100 Mb/s services available, but unfortunately only to large apartment buildings.. wish I could glom onto one of those.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com