NET NEUTRALITY - The Google & Verizon Proposal as listed in todays CODE PROJECT newsletter - Are You Buying This?
-
I'm just curious as to what the feedback is from the developer community here about the NET NEUTRALITY proposal from Google and Verizon mentioned in today’s newsletter; are you buying this load of Bull from these 2 companies? My opinion: NET NEUTRALITY= Good GOOGLE and VERIZON Created Proposal that explicitly states the openness being limited to 'LEGAL' material = BAD, very bad. Why? ANSWER: The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet. If you think they won’t do this then simply do Google Searches on FREE SPEECH ZONES and GMO FOOD LABELING and see what they've already been doing with regarding free speech and information sharing. FREE SPPECH ZONES - The Feds & local governments have been using Free Speech Zones now for a few years to effectively limit and or nullify a citizen(s) ability to protest, something guaranteed in the 1st amendment. They’ve also charged protestors thru licenses and fees to help curtail protestors effectiveness. Paying for the ability to speak out? That is clearly a Violation of Free speech. BTW- The Free Speech Zones response by representatives if often that this is done to make sure n protests don’t interfere with traffic. The problem is the protests are not always in a traffic area but in a public place like a park. GMO FOOD LABELING – Whether you think GMO based foods are good or bad is not at issue here. The problem is a companies right to inform their customers that there food product is GMO Free. I don’t know the most recent status of this but as of July the Government with the heavy push of GMO Giant Monsanto is pushing to enact a law making it illegal for a food product that is GMO Free to say as much on its labeling. You probably thought this would be about NOT requiring GMO based foods to have labels that say GMO but that’s not the case. They don’t want customers to know when a product is GMO Free because they (Monsanto thru the paid for service of the government) say it hurts the image of their food products and there for the sales and should therefore be illegal.
-
I'm just curious as to what the feedback is from the developer community here about the NET NEUTRALITY proposal from Google and Verizon mentioned in today’s newsletter; are you buying this load of Bull from these 2 companies? My opinion: NET NEUTRALITY= Good GOOGLE and VERIZON Created Proposal that explicitly states the openness being limited to 'LEGAL' material = BAD, very bad. Why? ANSWER: The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet. If you think they won’t do this then simply do Google Searches on FREE SPEECH ZONES and GMO FOOD LABELING and see what they've already been doing with regarding free speech and information sharing. FREE SPPECH ZONES - The Feds & local governments have been using Free Speech Zones now for a few years to effectively limit and or nullify a citizen(s) ability to protest, something guaranteed in the 1st amendment. They’ve also charged protestors thru licenses and fees to help curtail protestors effectiveness. Paying for the ability to speak out? That is clearly a Violation of Free speech. BTW- The Free Speech Zones response by representatives if often that this is done to make sure n protests don’t interfere with traffic. The problem is the protests are not always in a traffic area but in a public place like a park. GMO FOOD LABELING – Whether you think GMO based foods are good or bad is not at issue here. The problem is a companies right to inform their customers that there food product is GMO Free. I don’t know the most recent status of this but as of July the Government with the heavy push of GMO Giant Monsanto is pushing to enact a law making it illegal for a food product that is GMO Free to say as much on its labeling. You probably thought this would be about NOT requiring GMO based foods to have labels that say GMO but that’s not the case. They don’t want customers to know when a product is GMO Free because they (Monsanto thru the paid for service of the government) say it hurts the image of their food products and there for the sales and should therefore be illegal.
YSLGuru wrote:
BTW- The Free Speech Zones response by representatives if often that this is done to make sure n protests don’t interfere with traffic. The problem is the protests are not always in a traffic area but in a public place like a park.
Pretty sure I saw one of those at the airport the other day. I was a little weired out by it.
-
I'm just curious as to what the feedback is from the developer community here about the NET NEUTRALITY proposal from Google and Verizon mentioned in today’s newsletter; are you buying this load of Bull from these 2 companies? My opinion: NET NEUTRALITY= Good GOOGLE and VERIZON Created Proposal that explicitly states the openness being limited to 'LEGAL' material = BAD, very bad. Why? ANSWER: The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet. If you think they won’t do this then simply do Google Searches on FREE SPEECH ZONES and GMO FOOD LABELING and see what they've already been doing with regarding free speech and information sharing. FREE SPPECH ZONES - The Feds & local governments have been using Free Speech Zones now for a few years to effectively limit and or nullify a citizen(s) ability to protest, something guaranteed in the 1st amendment. They’ve also charged protestors thru licenses and fees to help curtail protestors effectiveness. Paying for the ability to speak out? That is clearly a Violation of Free speech. BTW- The Free Speech Zones response by representatives if often that this is done to make sure n protests don’t interfere with traffic. The problem is the protests are not always in a traffic area but in a public place like a park. GMO FOOD LABELING – Whether you think GMO based foods are good or bad is not at issue here. The problem is a companies right to inform their customers that there food product is GMO Free. I don’t know the most recent status of this but as of July the Government with the heavy push of GMO Giant Monsanto is pushing to enact a law making it illegal for a food product that is GMO Free to say as much on its labeling. You probably thought this would be about NOT requiring GMO based foods to have labels that say GMO but that’s not the case. They don’t want customers to know when a product is GMO Free because they (Monsanto thru the paid for service of the government) say it hurts the image of their food products and there for the sales and should therefore be illegal.
I'm not sure how I feel about Net Neutrality or the recent Google/Verizon proposal. I guess I need more time and information. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main issue of whether or not ISPs can charge different rates for specific types/sources of data? Not sure I see a free speech issue here. Kind of reminds me of many toll roads in the US. If you choose to use them - they cost varying rates of money depending on type of vehicle, number of axles and method of payment.
-
I'm just curious as to what the feedback is from the developer community here about the NET NEUTRALITY proposal from Google and Verizon mentioned in today’s newsletter; are you buying this load of Bull from these 2 companies? My opinion: NET NEUTRALITY= Good GOOGLE and VERIZON Created Proposal that explicitly states the openness being limited to 'LEGAL' material = BAD, very bad. Why? ANSWER: The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet. If you think they won’t do this then simply do Google Searches on FREE SPEECH ZONES and GMO FOOD LABELING and see what they've already been doing with regarding free speech and information sharing. FREE SPPECH ZONES - The Feds & local governments have been using Free Speech Zones now for a few years to effectively limit and or nullify a citizen(s) ability to protest, something guaranteed in the 1st amendment. They’ve also charged protestors thru licenses and fees to help curtail protestors effectiveness. Paying for the ability to speak out? That is clearly a Violation of Free speech. BTW- The Free Speech Zones response by representatives if often that this is done to make sure n protests don’t interfere with traffic. The problem is the protests are not always in a traffic area but in a public place like a park. GMO FOOD LABELING – Whether you think GMO based foods are good or bad is not at issue here. The problem is a companies right to inform their customers that there food product is GMO Free. I don’t know the most recent status of this but as of July the Government with the heavy push of GMO Giant Monsanto is pushing to enact a law making it illegal for a food product that is GMO Free to say as much on its labeling. You probably thought this would be about NOT requiring GMO based foods to have labels that say GMO but that’s not the case. They don’t want customers to know when a product is GMO Free because they (Monsanto thru the paid for service of the government) say it hurts the image of their food products and there for the sales and should therefore be illegal.
YSLGuru wrote:
The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet.
against my better judgment, i'm going to ask: what are you talking about ? "the government" is not only allowed to decide what is legal and what isn't (by virtue of it's legislating function), it is also responsible for interpreting those laws (by virtue of the fact that "interpretation" is how one decides if a law applies in a certain situation and that's why courts and judges exist). that's how the US government is designed. legislation, regulation, and interpretation are among its intended functions.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about Net Neutrality or the recent Google/Verizon proposal. I guess I need more time and information. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main issue of whether or not ISPs can charge different rates for specific types/sources of data? Not sure I see a free speech issue here. Kind of reminds me of many toll roads in the US. If you choose to use them - they cost varying rates of money depending on type of vehicle, number of axles and method of payment.
Yes, because the different type of vehicles have a different impact on the pavement wearing and on the environment/pollution. If you are stupid enough to drive four metric tons SUV you need to pay for your stupidity somehow. However, this is not the case with the data transfer.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Yes, because the different type of vehicles have a different impact on the pavement wearing and on the environment/pollution. If you are stupid enough to drive four metric tons SUV you need to pay for your stupidity somehow. However, this is not the case with the data transfer.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Yes, because the different type of vehicles have a different impact on the pavement wearing and on the environment/pollution. If you are stupid enough to drive four metric tons SUV you need to pay for your stupidity somehow.
Not necessarily. A modern semi-truck can be more efficient and produce less emissions than an old gas guzzling muscle car yet the truck pays significantly more than the car.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
However, this is not the case with the data transfer.
So streaming HD video requires the same speed & bandwidth as a 2k e-mail? Interesting...
-
YSLGuru wrote:
The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet.
against my better judgment, i'm going to ask: what are you talking about ? "the government" is not only allowed to decide what is legal and what isn't (by virtue of it's legislating function), it is also responsible for interpreting those laws (by virtue of the fact that "interpretation" is how one decides if a law applies in a certain situation and that's why courts and judges exist). that's how the US government is designed. legislation, regulation, and interpretation are among its intended functions.
Chris, please refrain from letting facts and common sense get in the way of an enlightened internet discussion! Jeez, you should know better by now!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Yes, because the different type of vehicles have a different impact on the pavement wearing and on the environment/pollution. If you are stupid enough to drive four metric tons SUV you need to pay for your stupidity somehow.
Not necessarily. A modern semi-truck can be more efficient and produce less emissions than an old gas guzzling muscle car yet the truck pays significantly more than the car.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
However, this is not the case with the data transfer.
So streaming HD video requires the same speed & bandwidth as a 2k e-mail? Interesting...
Mike Mullikin wrote:
So streaming HD video requires the same speed & bandwidth as a 2k e-mail? Interesting...
No but it generates a different traffic and you can be charged regarding your mileage if that's what concerns Comcast.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
So streaming HD video requires the same speed & bandwidth as a 2k e-mail? Interesting...
No but it generates a different traffic and you can be charged regarding your mileage if that's what concerns Comcast.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about Net Neutrality or the recent Google/Verizon proposal. I guess I need more time and information. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main issue of whether or not ISPs can charge different rates for specific types/sources of data? Not sure I see a free speech issue here. Kind of reminds me of many toll roads in the US. If you choose to use them - they cost varying rates of money depending on type of vehicle, number of axles and method of payment.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main issue of whether or not ISPs can charge different rates for specific types/sources of data? Not sure I see a free speech issue here.
I do. it leaves room for BigCorp and Isp to collude so that only companies paying for premium bandwidth rates/latencies can have acceptable performance levels for real-time uses, and either refuse to sell the premium access to BigCorp competitors or simply price it high enough that startups are screwed even if they could afford enough contracts people to make deals with every ISP nationwide.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main issue of whether or not ISPs can charge different rates for specific types/sources of data? Not sure I see a free speech issue here.
I do. it leaves room for BigCorp and Isp to collude so that only companies paying for premium bandwidth rates/latencies can have acceptable performance levels for real-time uses, and either refuse to sell the premium access to BigCorp competitors or simply price it high enough that startups are screwed even if they could afford enough contracts people to make deals with every ISP nationwide.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Maybe so, but the 1st amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". At the moment I don't see how Net neutrality or lack of neutrality is Congress prohibiting/abridging anything.
-
YSLGuru wrote:
The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet.
against my better judgment, i'm going to ask: what are you talking about ? "the government" is not only allowed to decide what is legal and what isn't (by virtue of it's legislating function), it is also responsible for interpreting those laws (by virtue of the fact that "interpretation" is how one decides if a law applies in a certain situation and that's why courts and judges exist). that's how the US government is designed. legislation, regulation, and interpretation are among its intended functions.
So you really believe that the government can do whatever it wants because its the government. You are a worthless fucking piece of shit. A pitiful scumbag that does nothing but support degeneracy and destruction of everything good and right. A piece of slime, a rotten sack of vomit. Go have sex with your stuffed animals and lick boot.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
So you really believe that the government can do whatever it wants because its the government. You are a worthless fucking piece of shit. A pitiful scumbag that does nothing but support degeneracy and destruction of everything good and right. A piece of slime, a rotten sack of vomit. Go have sex with your stuffed animals and lick boot.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Wow you really did crawl out from under you rock. Take your vitriol back to your pit - begone foul beast!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
So you really believe that the government can do whatever it wants because its the government. You are a worthless fucking piece of shit. A pitiful scumbag that does nothing but support degeneracy and destruction of everything good and right. A piece of slime, a rotten sack of vomit. Go have sex with your stuffed animals and lick boot.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
are you really that fucking stupid? really?
-
So you really believe that the government can do whatever it wants because its the government. You are a worthless fucking piece of shit. A pitiful scumbag that does nothing but support degeneracy and destruction of everything good and right. A piece of slime, a rotten sack of vomit. Go have sex with your stuffed animals and lick boot.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
So your Dad has taken a break from fucking you up the arse and you have taken the opportunity to post drivel. Fuck off moron.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
So your Dad has taken a break from fucking you up the arse and you have taken the opportunity to post drivel. Fuck off moron.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Didn't your dad do something like that to you?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Didn't your dad do something like that to you?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Didn't your dad do something like that to you?
Close, but no cigar knobhead. My Dad was a paedophile and molested other kids, I was molested at 9-10 years old by his partner. I eventually went to court and put both of them in gaol. Since then I have grown up, manned up and become a productive member of society. Married (19th anniversary next week) had 2 kids and have a job. You meanwhile dribble around, take drugs and talk shit on a web site. Have half a cup of harden up, set some goals, stop being scared of your own shadow, stop listening to your Dad's retarded ideas and make something of your life.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
YSLGuru wrote:
The government will use their fondness for ‘interpreting’ to radically change what is considered legal and what is not, thereby limiting free speech on the internet.
against my better judgment, i'm going to ask: what are you talking about ? "the government" is not only allowed to decide what is legal and what isn't (by virtue of it's legislating function), it is also responsible for interpreting those laws (by virtue of the fact that "interpretation" is how one decides if a law applies in a certain situation and that's why courts and judges exist). that's how the US government is designed. legislation, regulation, and interpretation are among its intended functions.
Actually the governement is allowed to effect legal actions, the pasisng of laws as well as the repealing of them, within a defined set of parameters spelled out in the documents that founded this nation. So NO the governement does not have the legal right to decide anything it desires. It is this mindset that you have spelled out in your post that has lead to this misunderstanding of what power the governement has that has allowed them to act outside their defined role. The growing number of those from all walks of life (and not simply the supposed dumb mountain folks that elitist and supposed enlightened ones like to label everyone as) who have had enough with what the federal governement does is an undeniable fact that more and not less are more in agreement with what I have outlined. You can make cheap shots and insults all you like but the days of keeping people down who believe in Constitutionalyl prescribed actions by a smaller governement are coming to and end.
-
Actually the governement is allowed to effect legal actions, the pasisng of laws as well as the repealing of them, within a defined set of parameters spelled out in the documents that founded this nation. So NO the governement does not have the legal right to decide anything it desires. It is this mindset that you have spelled out in your post that has lead to this misunderstanding of what power the governement has that has allowed them to act outside their defined role. The growing number of those from all walks of life (and not simply the supposed dumb mountain folks that elitist and supposed enlightened ones like to label everyone as) who have had enough with what the federal governement does is an undeniable fact that more and not less are more in agreement with what I have outlined. You can make cheap shots and insults all you like but the days of keeping people down who believe in Constitutionalyl prescribed actions by a smaller governement are coming to and end.
YSLGuru wrote:
So NO the governement does not have the legal right to decide anything it desires.
good thing i didn't claim otherwise. but it does have the power to write laws, interpret them and to change "the documents that founded this nation", by a process described in those very documents.
YSLGuru wrote:
You can make cheap shots and insults all you like but the days of keeping people down who believe in Constitutionalyl prescribed actions by a smaller governement are coming to and end.
Wolverines!
-
YSLGuru wrote:
So NO the governement does not have the legal right to decide anything it desires.
good thing i didn't claim otherwise. but it does have the power to write laws, interpret them and to change "the documents that founded this nation", by a process described in those very documents.
YSLGuru wrote:
You can make cheap shots and insults all you like but the days of keeping people down who believe in Constitutionalyl prescribed actions by a smaller governement are coming to and end.
Wolverines!
Actually you did. If you re-read your first reply you'll see that you cliamed the government is allowed to decide what is legal and what isn;t and did so without any qualifications (scope or limit of that ability) except to say by their legislative function whcih means thru the use of passing lesgislation. The Federal Governement has passed many pieces of legislation that range from being highly questionable to out right unconstitutional. Go wolverines