For Canadians - HL2DMU Forum Archive

haymaker

2011-01-27 23:13:21

http://openmedia.ca/meter

Quote:
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are about to impose usage-based billing on YOU.

This means we're looking at a future where ISPs will charge per byte, the way they do with smart phones. If we allow this to happen Canadians will have no choice but to pay MUCH more for less Internet. Big Telecom companies are obviously trying to gouge consumers, control the Internet market, and ensure that consumers continue to subscribe to their television services.

( end quote )

Sign the petition and add some clout to the opposition

REJECTED

2011-01-28 00:27:27

This isn't just an issue for Canadians, it's an issue for Americans too.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

What is this about?

When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose. What makes all these assumptions possible is Net Neutrality.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

provost

2011-01-28 00:32:49

As much as I believe such petitions can have some weight in the balance in certain given situations, ISP's already won.

What will we do, boycott...internet?

L.O fucking L.

With the increasing population and evolving computer hardware and rich medias. Bandwith IS the oil on wich the economy runs. And just like oil, prices will fluctuate up and down for no specific reason.

I wouldn't mind paying more if it meant having the internet speed Japan , south korea or Europe has. But paying more for the same piss poor bandwith is just .... bleargh.

s0iz

2011-01-28 00:40:30

I have a free national usage of my Internet in my Smartphone, lol

They wanted to do that here in Argentina longtime ago but people complained.

Uncle Rico

2011-01-28 01:05:49

s0iz wrote:They wanted to do that here in Argentina longtime ago but people complained.

That's one of the things I admire about South American countries - shits not right, people raise hell until something happens.
Here - people are too fucking busy playing around on Facebook, reading Twilight, and watching American fucking Idol to pay attention to the fact that they are getting royally fucked in the corn hole. Net neutrality has been on the verge of being shit on for the last couple of years and I can guaran-goddamn-tee you 99.8% of Americans has no fucking clue what the issue is or how it will affect them in the long run. All the while dipshit politicians, greedy fucking corporate lawyers and board members meet behind closed doors to decide which type of anal lube to use.

: 1281534568992.jpg (128.67 KiB) Viewed 655 times

The Argumentalizer

2011-01-28 06:52:21

That's a lot of Leftist Hype. Net Neutrality is just an attempt by the Gubbmint to seize control over the internet.
After that, they will add a huge VAT to everything sold on the Internet.

All the Internet needs is more competition, not more regulation. It works just fine now and there is no problem with slowdowns and such. It's bullshit. I watch Netflix, game, W/E, no slowdowns, ever.

Just another FALSE problem the solution to which, is more gubbmint intervention, which is fucking STUPID!

Ever notice what a fine job they do everywhere else? Duhhhh. No brainer.

the_big_cheese

2011-01-28 07:31:32

The Argumentalizer wrote: All the Internet needs is more competition, not more regulation. It works just fine now and there is no problem with slowdowns and such. It's bullshit. I watch Netflix, game, W/E, no slowdowns, ever.

Just another FALSE problem the solution to which, is more gubbmint intervention, which is fucking STUPID!

Well aren't you lucky then.

Va|iums

2011-01-28 11:29:50

The Argumentalizer wrote:That's a lot of Leftist Hype. Net Neutrality is just an attempt by the Gubbmint to seize control over the internet.
After that, they will add a huge VAT to everything sold on the Internet.

All the Internet needs is more competition, not more regulation. It works just fine now and there is no problem with slowdowns and such. It's bullshit. I watch Netflix, game, W/E, no slowdowns, ever.

Just another FALSE problem the solution to which, is more gubbmint intervention, which is fucking STUPID!

Ever notice what a fine job they do everywhere else? Duhhhh. No brainer.

You know as a true moderate (I've tallied my voting as a dead-even 50/50 ticket to republican/democrat throughout my voting history) I have to say you're dead wrong here. This is truly a conglomerate of financially self-interested corporations (RIAA and partners) vs a still liberal minded (liberal in the classical sense which would mean republican today) government where government intervention would actually be good. Mind=blown? Go read up; oh wait you won't do it, fuck it then I quti.

Problem is liberty has yet to come to hard drawn definitions in terms of the internet which has become liberty itself. Unfortunately you don't realize that financially minded corporations will censor and block their way to profit much like monarchies did. Then again your generation is the past and we are the future, and time has shown us the future generations win so I will not worry about progressive constitutions involving the rise of a legally stable free internet.

Panic

2011-01-28 15:22:11

lol

Attachments

: 1296126477205s.jpg (3.47 KiB) Viewed 541 times

Ghost Dog_TSGK

2011-01-30 23:34:30

My family got wind of one a dem internet springs under our property, we're set for life.

The Argumentalizer

2011-01-31 00:14:37

Yeah Val, you just prove your view is a steaming hunk of nonsense Leftism.

Maybe you could name me ONE business that isn't self interested? Maybe find that one and make sure it is not in the investment portfolio.

I stand by my analysis that this issue is NONSENSE. That there IS no massive problem with slowdowns or stopping acces to anything.
It is a lot of Leftist crap, designed to seize control over the Internet.

My view is, everything is working just fine, maybe more competition is good.
More Gubbmint in our internet is BAD.

If anyone here would like to mount an argument that more Gubbmint in the Internet is a GOOD THING and argue that there IS A massive problem, i will hear that and dismantle that.

EDIT: I guarandamntee you that wherever you find problems with crappy internet, there is probably a gubbmint monopoly there, for whatever reason.
Get busy pushing to open up markets, to lower prices, to bundle better packages and DISABUSE Yourself of this notion business is charity, or should be concerned with liberty or any other nonsense.

Va|iums

2011-01-31 09:53:52

wow I don't even remember writing that. Didn't realize I turned into Thomas Jefferson when I get drunk. Oh BTW I didn't even read your response Impala, GG. I would guess it entails something about leftist crap ect.

Mr. Nervous

2011-01-31 10:39:45

: not_this_shit_again.jpeg (30.41 KiB) Viewed 432 times

Va|iums

2011-01-31 11:10:00

Mr. Nervous wrote:
not_this_shit_again.jpeg

I'm gonna ask your parents permission to ban you from real life

Panic

2011-01-31 11:32:30

Mr. Nervous wrote:
The attachment not_this_shit_again.jpeg is no longer available

: 1296115787875.jpg (25.17 KiB) Viewed 428 times

: 1296114086714.jpg (14.94 KiB) Viewed 427 times

L2k

2011-01-31 18:04:48

I have generally been against more government regulation and control of our lives but this net neutrality issue is likely one we need. The thing is many people don't understand it because it hasn't fully blown up yet, but it likely will in the near future without some protections put into place.
We all know that the big corporations are trying to do one thing and that is make billions more at our expense and looking forward what is the most likely needed thing that could generate those billions?, the internet and bandwidth.
Net neutrality goes farther than protecting us from internet rape though, it can also be looked at as a way of protecting our freedom.

Below is a copy of a post from another board discussing the issue, from a person who is in favor of NN and why. People who are against NN but in favor of protecting their freedoms might want to read it as it explains it pretty well.

Copy from Hard forums written by member Zarathustra[H]

I should preface this with that I am very heavily in favor of net neutrality, and I feel like the FCC did not go far enough in this ruling, but I can see where some of the side effects may arise.

It relies on political appointees to write rules for what traffic may be managed and what traffic may not be managed on backbone systems. If this is written incorrectly, it could hamper attempts to limit or block abuses of the network. Because of this, great care must be taken when the rules are written. I generally don't trust government enough to believe that they can write these things correctly, but IMHO even if they get it slightly wrong, the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.

Some might also argue that the laws are superflous. In a way these FCC regulations are a new form of protection of free commerce and free markets and a limitation of monopolistic behaviors as regards the internet. Let's say Verizon blocks or lowers access speeds to the extent of unusability, or charges extra fees for access to Netflix, in order to protect their own pay per view system. I think we can all agree this would be bad for competition. You could - however - argue that we already have laws prohibiting monopolistic behaviors.

The problem with these laws is that they are not specific enough to network traffic, and because of their broadness and vagueness often take years if not decades in court before they are resolved. (Take the Microsoft issue as an example) In the meantime, new ideas could be stifled in their tracks, and scared away to other markets where they have more network freedom, creating the next billion dollar google or facebook in Europe instead of here. Not to mention the harm it does to consumer choices. With more specific FCC rules violations of this sort could be dealt with more swiftly. That being said, there will likely be a lot of legal wrangling up front before we reach that state.

Current monopoly laws also would not apply to political wrangling. For instance, if Verizon didn't like a certain political candidate, and feared they might vote for more ISP regulation, they could simply block their ads from getting through, or block their political webpages and emails, thus harming the political process, the very source of our freedom as a nation.

There is precedent here. Current telecommunication laws prevent telephone companies from blocking access to, or discrimination against calling certain numbers (like political rivals, or market competitors), but it does not specifically apply to the internet.

The biggest issue - IMHO - with the FCC rules right now is that they don't apply to mobile networks (and we all know which direction the market is going, at least for non-techie consumer use).

Mr. Nervous

2011-01-31 18:28:34

Va|iums wrote:
Mr. Nervous wrote:
not_this_shit_again.jpeg
I'm gonna ask your parents permission to ban you from real life

Panic

2011-01-31 18:37:28

the_big_cheese

2011-01-31 23:02:25

Panic

2011-01-31 23:04:36

the_big_cheese wrote:

->edit

Holy fuck I forgot peewee

also, dat baby..

Attachments

: Shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg (114.21 KiB) Viewed 360 times

Constipator

2011-02-01 00:35:19

L2k wrote:

Va|iums

2011-02-01 01:26:16

L2k wrote:I have generally been against more government regulation and control of our lives but this net neutrality issue is likely one we need. The thing is many people don't understand it because it hasn't fully blown up yet, but it likely will in the near future without some protections put into place.
We all know that the big corporations are trying to do one thing and that is make billions more at our expense and looking forward what is the most likely needed thing that could generate those billions?, the internet and bandwidth.
Net neutrality goes farther than protecting us from internet rape though, it can also be looked at as a way of protecting our freedom.

Below is a copy of a post from another board discussing the issue, from a person who is in favor of NN and why. People who are against NN but in favor of protecting their freedoms might want to read it as it explains it pretty well.

Copy from Hard forums written by member Zarathustra[H]

I should preface this with that I am very heavily in favor of net neutrality, and I feel like the FCC did not go far enough in this ruling, but I can see where some of the side effects may arise.

It relies on political appointees to write rules for what traffic may be managed and what traffic may not be managed on backbone systems. If this is written incorrectly, it could hamper attempts to limit or block abuses of the network. Because of this, great care must be taken when the rules are written. I generally don't trust government enough to believe that they can write these things correctly, but IMHO even if they get it slightly wrong, the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.

Some might also argue that the laws are superflous. In a way these FCC regulations are a new form of protection of free commerce and free markets and a limitation of monopolistic behaviors as regards the internet. Let's say Verizon blocks or lowers access speeds to the extent of unusability, or charges extra fees for access to Netflix, in order to protect their own pay per view system. I think we can all agree this would be bad for competition. You could - however - argue that we already have laws prohibiting monopolistic behaviors.

The problem with these laws is that they are not specific enough to network traffic, and because of their broadness and vagueness often take years if not decades in court before they are resolved. (Take the Microsoft issue as an example) In the meantime, new ideas could be stifled in their tracks, and scared away to other markets where they have more network freedom, creating the next billion dollar google or facebook in Europe instead of here. Not to mention the harm it does to consumer choices. With more specific FCC rules violations of this sort could be dealt with more swiftly. That being said, there will likely be a lot of legal wrangling up front before we reach that state.

Current monopoly laws also would not apply to political wrangling. For instance, if Verizon didn't like a certain political candidate, and feared they might vote for more ISP regulation, they could simply block their ads from getting through, or block their political webpages and emails, thus harming the political process, the very source of our freedom as a nation.

There is precedent here. Current telecommunication laws prevent telephone companies from blocking access to, or discrimination against calling certain numbers (like political rivals, or market competitors), but it does not specifically apply to the internet.

The biggest issue - IMHO - with the FCC rules right now is that they don't apply to mobile networks (and we all know which direction the market is going, at least for non-techie consumer use).

Citations and bibliography next time please. Nah, jk I actually read all the way through that and generally agree. The internet is the new freedom of the world and it needs a constitution of some sort, preferably not one drafted by a conglomerate of internet CEO's.

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-01 03:27:41

First off, Canadians being charged by the byte and getting fucked or whatever has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

Right now, Internet providers set aside portions of bandwidth for large business users and charge them through the ass.
The owners of the bandwidth reserve an amount for ENTERPRISE users, Companies, Hospitals...that have important business traffic. Maybe YOUR workload.

So, here come ASSHOLES who LOVE Gubbmint to get all up in and FUCK UP everything, that want bandwidth used for DLing Music and Watching TV (Which was meant for the Cable traffic in the first place), is treated JUST LIKE Premier Enterprise users.

As there will always a finite supply of anything except stupidity, folks are all pantywadded that 4Chan will be slowed down, access to certain sites cut off ...ALL THIS FUCKING NONSENSE that has never happened and never will as long as there is folks paying for bandwidth.

Net Neutrality is Solution in search of a Problem.
It's a Load of crap, made up. A Power grab by Gubbmint so THEY CAN control the internet.
Always be careful of what you ask for.

SO, HERE is one unintended consequence: Forced to apportion bandwidth the Soviet Way, ISPs will just refuse to carry large chunks of garbage, like 4 chan and Porn. Stop carrying Netflicks.

Yep. If you seize control over the apportionment, a certain backlash will occur.
The ISPs OWN these networks, not the Gubbmint.

But go ahead. Bitch and Moan we need more Gubbmint like a bunch of fucking Pussies and see what you get.
All your good intentions will probably fuck it all up for everybody because you have these false Marxist beliefs that the Internet is any different from any Good or Service.

Frankly, you little gubbmint loving Leftist pantywaist fools make me sick.
I'd like to punkslap every one of you faggots.

Uncle Rico

2011-02-01 03:57:59

The Argumentalizer wrote:access to certain sites cut off ...ALL THIS FUCKING NONSENSE that has never happened

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-bl ... -get-ugly/
http://gizmodo.com/5323800/the-official ... cked-4chan
http://www.technews.biz/att-blocking-ac ... chan-2336/

Pernicious

2011-02-01 10:52:19

pwnt!

Panic

2011-02-02 12:29:44

: 1296638198985.jpg (108.75 KiB) Viewed 418 times

i had to

Blasphemy

2011-02-02 16:34:33

When did we start communicating through pictures?

Sometimes I have no hope for humanity...

inb4 lolumad?.jpeg

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-03 01:39:48

Hey, did someone find an internet article that states somethi8ng MIGHT have happened!Q!Q

Wowie Zowie.

It's a lot of nonsense. There isn't any problem with slowdowns or cutoff service.

These reports claim that /b/ had been blocked due to costly DDOS attacks, stemming from AT&T customers. We have been unable to confirm this.

Mr. Nervous

2011-02-03 02:12:41

The Argumentalizer wrote:Hey, did someone find an internet article that states somethi8ng MIGHT have happened!Q!Q
Wowie Zowie.
It's a lot of nonsense. There isn't any problem with slowdowns or cutoff service.

These reports claim that /b/ had been blocked due to costly DDOS attacks, stemming from AT&T customers. We have been unable to confirm this.

: wowimpala.JPG (70.55 KiB) Viewed 351 times

: lukeskywalker.jpg (29.26 KiB) Viewed 355 times

Blasphemy wrote:When did we start communicating through pictures?

Sometimes I have no hope for humanity...

inb4 lolumad?.jpeg

provost

2011-02-03 03:06:41

Blasphemy wrote:When did we start communicating through pictures?

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-03 05:02:54

So, is one incident of 4Chan (who really gives a fuck anyways!?!) a resounding convincing argument that there is some massive problem that requires the fruitcakes in the Federal Gubbmint to seize control over the internet!?

Have you ever heard of a FREE COUNTRY, where people and companies can own property and businesses and run them for a profit?

What planet do some of you come from? France?

Planet Retard!?

Uncle Rico

2011-02-03 05:29:26

: 1296699881150.jpg (242.3 KiB) Viewed 319 times

Panic

2011-02-03 06:35:12

: lol.jpg (98.2 KiB) Viewed 303 times

I see your Merlin in a firebird orbiting the earth, and raise you this

the_big_cheese

2011-02-03 07:21:14

I generally hate cancer threads like this, but it drowns out Impala's stupidity so...

Attachments

: how-to-pose.jpg (38.23 KiB) Viewed 291 times

Pernicious

2011-02-03 08:05:43

The Argumentalizer wrote:ALL THIS FUCKING NONSENSE that has never happened

The Argumentalizer wrote:What planet do some of you come from? France?

Planet Retard!?

It happened, point was made. Not everyone cares enough to really think about this shit but u got pwnt sonny jim.

L2k

2011-02-03 08:22:40

I'd like to see impalas face when he gets a letter from his isp telling him that they now are going to charge by the byte and there are no other plans.
Sounded far fetched to me a few years ago, but not so much now

<kyle>

2011-02-03 08:50:17

inb4 impala hits the liquor cabinet again.

Attachments

: dying.jpg (101.25 KiB) Viewed 264 times

Va|iums

2011-02-03 10:24:41

The Argumentalizer wrote:So, is one incident of 4Chan (who really gives a fuck anyways!?!) a resounding convincing argument that there is some massive problem that requires the fruitcakes in the Federal Gubbmint to seize control over the internet!?

Have you ever heard of a FREE COUNTRY, where people and companies can own property and businesses and run them for a profit?

What planet do some of you come from? France?

Planet Retard!?

So in this hypothetical free country (none really exist to this day) business are allowed to turn a profit at the expense of censorship? Also a CSS bud of mine has his internet suspended for downloading a torrent and has to go back a "probationary period with monitoring" for a month or so to get back in full graces. You realize big brother can come not just from government but corporations too?

You keep saying oh nothing's happening yet, then get proven wrong there is something happening, then say oh thats not even that bad when proven there are things happening, next you'll say oh that serves them right when account suspending starts to become common practice.

Panic

2011-02-03 17:07:56

might aswell throw some more aids up in this bitch

Attachments

: hahaha.jpg (74.25 KiB) Viewed 227 times

provost

2011-02-03 17:13:08

Ottawa overturned the CRTC's decision.

For now.

CellarDweller

2011-02-03 19:36:46

if i found out my ISP could prevent/stop a DDoS on my box and didn't? i'd be one pissed mofo. i actually give at&t some credit for doing so. and you all know, i can't stand at&t.

i don't see the problem with ISP's blocking sites, as long as the consumer is aware of the criteria upfront or allowed out of existing contracts w/o penalty. after all, it is a business. and i am one to frequent food joints, for example, that don't serve dirty shirtless/shoeless hippies with mushrooms growing in their armpits and cottage cheese between their toes.

you think the government is less greedy? gtfo! the IRS refunded me $900 from my 2007 taxes, saying i made an error. ok, thx! now its 2010, and the IRS says THEY erred by refunding $900 to me, I was CORRECT FROM THE BEGINNING and oh btw, you not only owe the $900... but also the accrued PENALTY for being 3 years late with your payment! WTF?

you're also being delusional if you think government intervention is better suited than free market competition. http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/01 ... interests/

Va|iums

2011-02-04 01:52:45

CellarDweller wrote:if i found out my ISP could prevent/stop a DDoS on my box and didn't? i'd be one pissed mofo.

i don't see the problem with ISP's blocking sites, as long as the consumer is aware of the criteria upfront or allowed out of existing contracts w/o penalty.\

For one nothing can stop DDoS attacks, nothing if the person is ambitious enough. Not even the most elite corporations and government defenses are able to stop it. Secondly what happens as it often is if there is only at most two ISP's in the area you live, and all are beginning to practice site blocking? Who to go to anymore?

Lastly I don't want to live in fucking China where government AND corporations get to block whatever sites they deem harmful to government face, and harmful to corporation profit. I'd rather die with my freedom or become a largely irrelavent free country like Sweden then become China. The reason I say this is because in China there has a developed a reciprocal relationship between ISP's and government, the Chinese government has allowed ISP's unlimited power to block whatever sites they choose as long as they "listen" to suggestions of sites the government wants blocked.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of you still don't get the picture yet.

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-04 02:39:26

I'll repeat: These isn't any major problem that requires a Gibbmint takeover solution. PERIOD. There isn't a anything approaching a strong logical unemotional argument for the Gubbmint stepping in.

There IS a lot of BULLSHIT flying around about a couple of supposed slowdowns.

Which brings up a point: I assume all servers and users are paying for their service.
Has anyone ever known the phone companies from shutting down a 900 number site, because of evangelistic reasons!?

Why the fuck WOULD ATT shut down 4Chan, it's customer?
Why would they screw with any service, if there was competition and folks can go elsewhere,
Here, we have FIOS, COX, DISH, and Direct.

Move to some area that isn't shit, maybe.
Or start a campaign of your Rep and Senator to open up comp and service in your area.

At the heart of this matter is a pathetic false little leftist gremlin that says COMPANIES ARE ALL EVIL! They are screwing everyone! Gubbmint MUST help!
Gubbmint should takeover... Oooops. It's Bullshit.

Buy some ATT stock if they are so fucki8ng everyone. It's nonsense. Ignorance.

Uncle Rico

2011-02-04 02:41:13

Va|iums wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if some of you still don't get the picture yet.

Page 2 of this thread went full retard and I gave up. I applaud your tenacity, but there is no facepalm.jpg big enough for page 3.

: fuck_it.jpg (9.34 KiB) Viewed 466 times

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-04 02:45:10

Just where is the evidence of this SITE BLOCKING and for what fucking reason is it going on!?~!?

It doesn't even make economic sense!

Imagine execs at ISPs "Hey, let's block sites and lower revenue, just to fuck with the trolls at 4 chan!"
Bullshit. Some folks are paranoid conspiracy dipshits and that really sums up this matter.
---------------------------------------------
"Lastly I don't want to live in fucking China"

Well don't MOVE TO CHINA Numbnuts!
Problem solved.

Move to Sweden please.

the_big_cheese

2011-02-04 03:14:25

You're acting like ISP's make more money if people use the internet more.
In fact they make LESS money because they have to work on their lines to increase bandwidth.
In this age everybody needs the internet, regardless of how MUCH they use it, so everyone has to buy a plan anyways.
And where i live it's either Comcast or dial-up. No one's going to set up a host in the middle of nowhere to compete for 50 customers, it's not worth it.
That's why there's a problem. That's why there's no competition in a lot of places. That's why you're a dumbass.

provost

2011-02-04 04:14:03

Sup 2011 arguing with impala will lead you nowhere.

sincerely, 2055.

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-04 04:48:06

That's true! Nowhere is where it leads.
---------------------------------------

"You're acting like ISP's make more money if people use the internet more.
In fact they make LESS money because they have to work on their lines to increase bandwidth."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You pay for levels of service or bandwidth. Working on lines is part of their budget and business plan.
If bandwidth becomes scarce, supply and demand is still in effect, the gubbmint can do nothing at all to ensure X's service is treated like Ys service.

The point of Net Neutrality is to treat unequally important demands equally, a constant leftist theme.
In other words, PORN should be treated with the same priority as your Business website or a Hospitals bandwidth for medical recording.

It's absurd. Leftists are absurd. Just the stupidest people on earth.
And then there is the simple elegant demand that there be a real big problem before resorting to Gubbmint takeovers and the that argument is so weak as to be laughable.

the_big_cheese

2011-02-04 05:29:05

Link

provost

2011-02-04 08:13:35

So, about canada

Va|iums

2011-02-04 09:25:54

provost wrote:So, about canada

Wat.

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-04 09:43:37

They're doing it wrong. They need to move in a straight line, silly Deer.

L2k

2011-02-05 08:05:29

http://www.pcworld.com/article/218640/v ... _hogs.html

Pernicious

2011-02-05 11:04:19

The Argumentalizer wrote:Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint

u say this word too much.

/slap

Va|iums

2011-02-05 11:14:04

L2k wrote:http://www.pcworld.com/article/218640/v ... _hogs.html

https://ecache.vzw.com/imageFiles/Myacc ... mation.pdf

One of many reasons I'll never become a corporate lawyer *puke*. Jesus....in no circumstance could I imagine myself writing the latter half of the contract update, I'd rather kill myself or work for min wage.

Constipator

2011-02-05 22:34:09

5% of about 100 million customers is still 5 million people to restrict lol

EDIT: Ya know, I always figured that, with the way the internet has grown, 10 to 15 years from now it will be blazing fast and EVERYWHERE. You'll be able to get internet anywhere, and it'll be ridiculously fast, wireless or wired. Phones will be such processing brutes that you'll have a full version of windows on it and all other kinds of crazy shit. I'm not sure, now, with how companies are, if that's going to happen or be delayed a long time.

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-06 01:15:37

Pernicious wrote:
The Argumentalizer wrote:Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint
u say this word too much.

/slap

It's MY word. I almost always use it instead of Government, because Government denotes some kind of governing going on, which we all know is bullshit. There are powerplays. There is no governing. That would mean passing balanced budgets, keeping an eye on lending standards, regulating in a reasonable manner, IE doing their limited duties.

But, if you folks want to hand over incredible unlimited power to Gubbmint, than, i believe you are a fool.
-------------------
Verizon says REDUCE SPEEDS occasionally during peak hours to ensure everyone has access and bandwidth. Why does this sound perfectly reasonable to me but is the end of Internet "freedom" "Rights", whatever.
I thought the argument was that sites were being BLOCKED, that it is a big problem, and Gubbmint needs to step in.
That argument is lame in the first place and now seems to morph into "Reducing speeds occasionally if needed" ridiculousness.

Pernicious

2011-02-06 06:39:40

All i heard was this.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint Gubbmint

The Argumentalizer

2011-02-06 10:47:59

You have a comprehension problem. Not my problem.

Pernicious

2011-02-06 21:52:23

Really, i assume u can comprehend that i was kidding?
srsface, ....nawt!