Probably as predictable as you trolling and throwing insults.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
The FCC will vote on its proposal to end net neutrality on December 14th.
- Thread starter Gry
- Start date
Probably as predictable as you trolling and throwing insults.
Vta
In post 18 you tell us you do not want corporations to run the net.
In post 22 you show us you not want uncle sam to run the net .
You seem to like free.
Where have you ever found anything in life that is free ?
You speak of a free market , that is a rich man's lingo.
Like many things in life it is a matter of perspective,
the rich folk knew they did not pay for the us marines
which were sent out to enforce their "free market".
So for the rich and well heeled that market did indeed seem free.
The marines knew damn good and well that nothing was free.
Smedley Butler wrote a book about it.
In post 18 you tell us you do not want corporations to run the net.
In post 22 you show us you not want uncle sam to run the net .
You seem to like free.
Where have you ever found anything in life that is free ?
You speak of a free market , that is a rich man's lingo.
Like many things in life it is a matter of perspective,
the rich folk knew they did not pay for the us marines
which were sent out to enforce their "free market".
So for the rich and well heeled that market did indeed seem free.
The marines knew damn good and well that nothing was free.
Smedley Butler wrote a book about it.
its very simple, the fcc got busted faking the comments and feed back they asked for.
they faked a consensus for something that will stop the great way that people can get their shit out there. in favor of those with money only being able to get their shit out there.
the fcc wants to allow internet giants to decide how fast any given site should load. they want facefucker and company to pay for faster access while the alternative voices, including sites like icmag will be slowed down to a crawl.
if it's to be a free internet then the internet needs to run at the same speed no matter what site someone is looking at. make it faster by upgrading the whole system, not by stealing it from the little guy.
equal speed for all users with the same plan! thats free market and thats what allows innovation and freedom of information. bottlenecking the internet in favor of twitheads and their corporate shill ilk, is as good as going to a world wide information monopoly.
it's real sick and goes against everything the internet is supposed to stand for. with any luck the EU won't let the corporations bribe lobby and pressure them into this .... bull shit.
they faked a consensus for something that will stop the great way that people can get their shit out there. in favor of those with money only being able to get their shit out there.
the fcc wants to allow internet giants to decide how fast any given site should load. they want facefucker and company to pay for faster access while the alternative voices, including sites like icmag will be slowed down to a crawl.
if it's to be a free internet then the internet needs to run at the same speed no matter what site someone is looking at. make it faster by upgrading the whole system, not by stealing it from the little guy.
equal speed for all users with the same plan! thats free market and thats what allows innovation and freedom of information. bottlenecking the internet in favor of twitheads and their corporate shill ilk, is as good as going to a world wide information monopoly.
it's real sick and goes against everything the internet is supposed to stand for. with any luck the EU won't let the corporations bribe lobby and pressure them into this .... bull shit.
Last edited:
not to make things too heated, but Fascism means the cooperation between state and private corporations in order to rule the masses. Facefook, Google, Twitter, all work with the state, much of the money they make is from making information about us available to the state and others. so when you have the state getting together with market monopolies i think it's not too much to call it fascist. specially when you want to allow those partner corporations to have premium internet speeds while slowing down those that are not in the state sponsored club of elite internet giants.
internet speed should depend on what i pay to get and not what sites i chose to visit.
i know that fascism has other connotations now, but the actual meaning of the word doesn't include the extermination camps etc.
internet speed should depend on what i pay to get and not what sites i chose to visit.
i know that fascism has other connotations now, but the actual meaning of the word doesn't include the extermination camps etc.
ah just like all the altruistic capitalists in the theoretical libertardian ideology. no evidence it would ever work am i right?
k my trolling segment of the post is over
...so i pose one question;how will startups compete against the likes of Google and Facebook when ISP's will simply side with the corporations? Companies like Google and Facebook will pay off ISP's to slow down their competition. It's called paid prioritization.
Many of the services people currently use would not exist (Netflix would be one example) without Net Neutrality.
NN is literally a regulation to keep the internet free from such regulation lol. It literally prevents what you're afraid of.
Some people believe corporate stuff ...is full of nutrition.
Then there are those who understand Chattanooga has
the fastest system with the best prices in america.
Fully paid for and producing a profit for the community
in under ten years.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The FCC will vote on its proposal to end net neutrality on December 14th.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If we loose net neutrality, we will pay more for slower speeds. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
If you care :
(202) 224-3121 Capitol switchboard.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Then there are those who understand Chattanooga has
the fastest system with the best prices in america.
Fully paid for and producing a profit for the community
in under ten years.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The FCC will vote on its proposal to end net neutrality on December 14th.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If we loose net neutrality, we will pay more for slower speeds. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
If you care :
(202) 224-3121 Capitol switchboard.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
So, We pay for the internet with tax dollars and the military develops it.
Now it gets sold off to corporations so it can be used for the few controlling the many.
This sounds allot like Putin giving away state assets to his buddies, the oligarchs who get richer.
Now it gets sold off to corporations so it can be used for the few controlling the many.
This sounds allot like Putin giving away state assets to his buddies, the oligarchs who get richer.
CannasaurusR
Member
That happened a couple years ago. Right after analog TV broadcasting bandwidth was carved up.
SACRAMENTO — California consumers will be given sweeping new internet privacy protections beginning in 2020 under a bill hurriedly passed by the state Legislature on Thursday and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown, who promptly signed it.
The governor signed AB375 within hours of its final approval by the Assembly, heading off a similarly worded initiative that had been headed to the November ballot. The bill’s co-author said lawmakers may need to fine-tune the law down the line, but they had been forced to pass something now because of the prospect that voters would approve an initiative that couldn’t easily be changed.
The backer of the ballot measure, San Francisco housing developer Alastair Mactaggart, had said he would withdraw it if the privacy bill were approved, and did so when Brown signed the bill. Thursday was the deadline to pull initiatives from the Nov. 6 ballot.The deadline prompted lawmakers to jump-start efforts on a bill, which became AB375. It was introduced Friday and heard in committees this week before coming to the votes Thursday in both houses.
The Assembly voted 69-0 to approve it. A short time before, the Senate had approved it 36-0.
Under AB375, web users can demand that a business tell them what personal information it is collecting about them, whether it is selling or sharing it, and who is ending up with it. Consumers can also tell a company to delete their personal information.
Parents will have to give permission before a website, online service or mobile app directed toward children can sell the youths’ user data. The bill also allows consumers to sue companies that fail to adequately safeguard their personal data, a provision that comes in response to data breaches such as the ones at Target and Equifax.
Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park (Los Angeles County), one of the authors of the bill, said the changes will empower consumers by putting them in control of how their personal information is being used.
Both Chau and co-author Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, said that the tight timeline for passing the bill made it impossible to pull together an airtight measure, but that the protections in the measure were better than nothing. Legislators have suggested they could make changes with future bills, something that would be far more difficult if a ballot initiative passed.
“I’m the first one to admit that the process could have been better if we had more time,” Chau said. “It moves the ball forward in advancing privacy protections of consumers and puts California ahead of the curve. I commit myself to working with all stakeholders to see if and how we can fine-tune this bill.”
Opponents said they feared the bill could lead to a flood of lawsuits. A representative of the California News Publishers Association said the bill was so broadly defined — with vague definitions of what information a consumer can prevent a company from using — that it could be used by the subject of an investigation to thwart a story from being published online.
The California Chamber of Commerce and other opponents, however, said they preferred AB375 to the ballot measure because of the possibility the Legislature could refine it before it takes effect in 2020.
The opponents held out little hope they could defeat an initiative. Strengthening internet privacy gained traction with the public this year after Facebook acknowledged that the political data firm Cambridge Analytica had ended up with information from 87 million users’ profiles without their consent.
Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez
The governor signed AB375 within hours of its final approval by the Assembly, heading off a similarly worded initiative that had been headed to the November ballot. The bill’s co-author said lawmakers may need to fine-tune the law down the line, but they had been forced to pass something now because of the prospect that voters would approve an initiative that couldn’t easily be changed.
The backer of the ballot measure, San Francisco housing developer Alastair Mactaggart, had said he would withdraw it if the privacy bill were approved, and did so when Brown signed the bill. Thursday was the deadline to pull initiatives from the Nov. 6 ballot.The deadline prompted lawmakers to jump-start efforts on a bill, which became AB375. It was introduced Friday and heard in committees this week before coming to the votes Thursday in both houses.
The Assembly voted 69-0 to approve it. A short time before, the Senate had approved it 36-0.
Under AB375, web users can demand that a business tell them what personal information it is collecting about them, whether it is selling or sharing it, and who is ending up with it. Consumers can also tell a company to delete their personal information.
Parents will have to give permission before a website, online service or mobile app directed toward children can sell the youths’ user data. The bill also allows consumers to sue companies that fail to adequately safeguard their personal data, a provision that comes in response to data breaches such as the ones at Target and Equifax.
Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park (Los Angeles County), one of the authors of the bill, said the changes will empower consumers by putting them in control of how their personal information is being used.
Both Chau and co-author Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, said that the tight timeline for passing the bill made it impossible to pull together an airtight measure, but that the protections in the measure were better than nothing. Legislators have suggested they could make changes with future bills, something that would be far more difficult if a ballot initiative passed.
“I’m the first one to admit that the process could have been better if we had more time,” Chau said. “It moves the ball forward in advancing privacy protections of consumers and puts California ahead of the curve. I commit myself to working with all stakeholders to see if and how we can fine-tune this bill.”
Opponents said they feared the bill could lead to a flood of lawsuits. A representative of the California News Publishers Association said the bill was so broadly defined — with vague definitions of what information a consumer can prevent a company from using — that it could be used by the subject of an investigation to thwart a story from being published online.
The California Chamber of Commerce and other opponents, however, said they preferred AB375 to the ballot measure because of the possibility the Legislature could refine it before it takes effect in 2020.
The opponents held out little hope they could defeat an initiative. Strengthening internet privacy gained traction with the public this year after Facebook acknowledged that the political data firm Cambridge Analytica had ended up with information from 87 million users’ profiles without their consent.
Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez
A state Assembly panel on Wednesday advanced major legislation to prevent companies from hindering access to the internet, setting up a battle on the floor next week over whether California will enact the strongest net neutrality protections in the country. The 9-4 approval by the Communications and Conveyance Committee came more than three months after it initially tried to scale back the proposal but retreated amid fierce backlash from net neutrality proponents.
Senate Bill 822 would bar internet service providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down websites and video streams, or charging websites fees for faster speeds.
The committee also advanced a complementary proposal, Senate Bill 460, to cheers and applause from the audience. It would prohibit companies that violate the net neutrality rules in SB 822 from receiving public contracts.
Concerns were voiced as a federal lawsuit this week said Santa Clara County firefighters were hindered by inadequate internet service while they helped battle the massive Mendocino Complex fire in July. The court records said Verizon slowed the speed of the Fire Department’s wireless data. A Verizon lobbyist told the committee there was no evidence the case was related to net neutrality. The company had acknowledged a mistake had been made and was looking into the incident, she said.
Wiener said details about the wildfire incident were still emerging but called it evidence of “how critical internet access is to everything — including public safety.”
clipped from a longer article by By Jazmine Ulloa
https://www.latimes.com/politics/es...trality-bill-passes-1534985347-htmlstory.html
Senate Bill 822 would bar internet service providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down websites and video streams, or charging websites fees for faster speeds.
The committee also advanced a complementary proposal, Senate Bill 460, to cheers and applause from the audience. It would prohibit companies that violate the net neutrality rules in SB 822 from receiving public contracts.
Concerns were voiced as a federal lawsuit this week said Santa Clara County firefighters were hindered by inadequate internet service while they helped battle the massive Mendocino Complex fire in July. The court records said Verizon slowed the speed of the Fire Department’s wireless data. A Verizon lobbyist told the committee there was no evidence the case was related to net neutrality. The company had acknowledged a mistake had been made and was looking into the incident, she said.
Wiener said details about the wildfire incident were still emerging but called it evidence of “how critical internet access is to everything — including public safety.”
clipped from a longer article by By Jazmine Ulloa
https://www.latimes.com/politics/es...trality-bill-passes-1534985347-htmlstory.html
