Thrashinuva said: Not even the thickest and most sturdiest strawman can save you. I'll repeat for the hundredth time already. You don't know what net neutrality is. Your attemp to blur the relationship between title ii and net neutrality will not work. Your attempt to blur MY WORDS isn't working either.PeenusWeenusCaim said: LOL BTFO. I'll repeat it again since repeating myself has been most of what I've been doing this whole thread. I accept your surrender, despite how sore it is. "rate regulation" has nothing to do with "content regulation". This is what I meant when I said you had multiple ideas of "regulation" that you were conflating together. I've quoted rate regulation a billion times in this thread and now you're assuming I mean "content regulation". Fucking pathetic. Hilariously pathetic. Thrashinuva said: Regulate: There's literally nothing within Title II or the Title II order about this Open said: Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a ‘light-touch’ approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more, better, and open broadband. Thrashinuva said: To begin with no one repealed Net Neutrality. The Title II order was repealed. Someshityoupostedacouplepagesago said: You can't weasel your way out of this.While there is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality,” most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network,and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. Just stop. Please. While everybody else in this thread is either informed, uninformed, or extremely apathetic to the topic, you're completely misinformed. So so misinformed. |
 |
PeenusWeenusCaim said: I'll repeat for the hundredth time already. You don't know what net neutrality is. It's the only thing that you know how to say at this point. Your attemp to blur the relationship between title ii and net neutrality will not work. Your attempt to blur MY WORDS isn't working either. I've got bigger things to worry about than try to deceive you. Grow some common sense. I've quoted rate regulation a billion times in this thread and now you're assuming I mean "content regulation". Fucking pathetic. Hilariously pathetic. I've BEEN saying that. 3 or 4 times now. It's not that I'm "assuming" what you mean, I'm telling you what you are saying, because you for some reason think that what you mean is more important than what you say, so you just type some random shit and decide that you got your point across. News flash: You didn't. You've contributed nothing of value to this topic other than whining or trying to argue failed points that either had a lack of backbone or that someone already argued before. That's all that your actions in this topic have amounted to, regardless of what it is that you meant to do. Thrashinuva said: Regulate: There's literally nothing within Title II or the Title II order about this Open said: This is literally describing what the bill WON'T do. It's not describing what it's enforcing. It's describing what it's NOT enforcing. Which means, regardless of whether you mean "rate regulation" or "content regulation", you're still wrong, and you're still arguing a point that no one gives a single shit about, among any of the actual points you could potentially make.Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a ‘light-touch’ approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more, better, and open broadband. Thrashinuva said: To begin with no one repealed Net Neutrality. The Title II order was repealed. Someshityoupostedacouplepagesago said: And this is where your conflation is. This loose definition doesn't describe "rate regulation" at all. It only describes "content regulation". "How consumers lawfully use that network" describes what they do after they pay for the service, not what it is that they have to pay in order to gain access.While there is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality,” most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network,and they should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. you're completely misinformed. So so misinformed. Yet if you attempted to actually learn anything here, you'd understand that this is the opposite of true. But you likely will not ever understand that, because you likely will not ever learn. |
| You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol |
SpamuraiSensei said: You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol I remember when Net Neutrality existed and I was getting my speed throttled anyway and I'm not even from the USA ! |
ValaskjalfJan 15, 2018 11:29 AM
Valaskjalf said: SpamuraiSensei said: You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol I remember when Net Neutrality existed and I was getting my speed throttled, anyway Don't forget the magical raising rates on your next statement either! Aww yeahh!!! |
SpamuraiSensei said: You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol Yeah it's funny. I guess they never used the internet before then. |
Thrashinuva said: LOLI've BEEN saying that. 3 or 4 times now. It's not that I'm "assuming" what you mean, I'm telling you what you are saying "Rate regulation" "So you said content regulation" "No, rate regulation" "Ah, so content regulation" |
|
PeenusWeenusCaim said: Thrashinuva said: Title II was made to make sure ISPs don't regulate content.Regulate: There's literally nothing within Title II or the Title II order about this PeenusWeenusCaim said: I've quoted rate regulation a billion times in this thread and now you're assuming I mean "content regulation". Do you think this is fun? Is this challenging to you? All I have to do is re-read a few lines and find an inconsistency as clear as day. All I have to do is copy and paste your own words and you're proven wrong. It's brain dead easy. It's not fun to do such an easy task. It makes me feel guilty that I have to point out how brain dead stupid you are. I wish I didn't have to make it any more obvious to anyone who was having doubts thinking that maybe you actually knew what you were talking about. It's not that it feels like talking to a wall, it's that it feels like grinding you into dirt. I can only hope that at some point you'll actually grow a brain and learn some logic. Whether that logic helps you fake it, or actually have a well thought out point even if it's wrong, it's still better than you are now, where you're stumbling over yourself in defiance over literally nothing. |
SpamuraiSensei said: You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol Except the "NN didn't exist before" argument was already proven wrong. But, I guess I can't expect FCC supporters to do research. |
 |
Kittens-kun said: SpamuraiSensei said: You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol Except the "NN didn't exist before" argument was already proven wrong. But, I guess I can't expect FCC supporters to do research. Who said I supported NN? I guess I can't expect you to do your research. And no. The NN we are talking about today didn't exist back then. Sorry to ruin your fantasy. |
SpamuraiSensei said: Kittens-kun said: Except the "NN didn't exist before" argument was already proven wrong. But, I guess I can't expect FCC supporters to do research. Who said I supported NN? I guess I can't expect you to do your research. And no. The NN we are talking about today didn't exist back then. Sorry to ruin your fantasy. He's right though, kind of. He paid some amount of attention to this topic, I guess, though he probably lumps me in with those "FCC supporters" despite myself doing the most research here. Though now that I think on it, he probably means the argument was proven wrong, and that the internet is going to shit because of the wrong basis of understanding. In actuality, what's wrong is that Net Neutrality did exist before 2015, and continues to exist (because Net Neutrality is not the same thing as the 2015 Open Internet Order). The only rule the Open Internet Order created to "adhere to Net Neutrality ideals" was to make it so that all data was treated equally. Throttling, blocking, and transparency rules were already in place, specifically by the FCC, as well as by other more prominent laws. This is the biggest reason that the internet won't go to shit, because NN is still in effect. The Open Internet Order introduced many other regulations, which had nothing to do with the actual data specifically, and aren't being referred to at all as net neutrality ideals. |
Thrashinuva said: SpamuraiSensei said: Who said I supported NN? I guess I can't expect you to do your research. And no. The NN we are talking about today didn't exist back then. Sorry to ruin your fantasy. He's right though, kind of. He paid some amount of attention to this topic, I guess, though he probably lumps me in with those "FCC supporters" despite myself doing the most research here. Though now that I think on it, he probably means the argument was proven wrong, and that the internet is going to shit because of the wrong basis of understanding. In actuality, what's wrong is that Net Neutrality did exist before 2015, and continues to exist (because Net Neutrality is not the same thing as the 2015 Open Internet Order). The only rule the Open Internet Order created to "adhere to Net Neutrality ideals" was to make it so that all data was treated equally. Throttling, blocking, and transparency rules were already in place, specifically by the FCC, as well as by other more prominent laws. This is the biggest reason that the internet won't go to shit, because NN is still in effect. The Open Internet Order introduced many other regulations, which had nothing to do with the actual data specifically, and aren't being referred to at all as net neutrality ideals. Lolwut? Companies were running wild among each other back in the day, But that didn't effect your average user. Not really. The spotlight was put on Net Neutrality during Obama's era. And now that it's a Trump issue... Bring out the pitch forks. Most people weren't even aware of what went on back then. They have to go back in the history archives and look at timelines to try and support whatever case they're trying to make. Fortunately for me, I never bought into the whole fearmongering angle. |
SpamuraiSensei said: How does any of this disagree with what I said?Thrashinuva said: He's right though, kind of. He paid some amount of attention to this topic, I guess, though he probably lumps me in with those "FCC supporters" despite myself doing the most research here. Though now that I think on it, he probably means the argument was proven wrong, and that the internet is going to shit because of the wrong basis of understanding. In actuality, what's wrong is that Net Neutrality did exist before 2015, and continues to exist (because Net Neutrality is not the same thing as the 2015 Open Internet Order). The only rule the Open Internet Order created to "adhere to Net Neutrality ideals" was to make it so that all data was treated equally. Throttling, blocking, and transparency rules were already in place, specifically by the FCC, as well as by other more prominent laws. This is the biggest reason that the internet won't go to shit, because NN is still in effect. The Open Internet Order introduced many other regulations, which had nothing to do with the actual data specifically, and aren't being referred to at all as net neutrality ideals. Lolwut? Companies were running wild among each other back in the day, But that didn't effect your average user. Not really. The spotlight was put on Net Neutrality during Obama's era. And now that it's a Trump issue... Bring out the pitch forks. Most people weren't even aware of what went on back then. They have to go back in the history archives and look at timelines to try and support whatever case they're trying to make. Fortunately for me, I never bought into the whole fearmongering angle. |
SpamuraiSensei said: Kittens-kun said: Except the "NN didn't exist before" argument was already proven wrong. But, I guess I can't expect FCC supporters to do research. Who said I supported NN? I guess I can't expect you to do your research. And no. The NN we are talking about today didn't exist back then. Sorry to ruin your fantasy. It still existed in one form or another. |
|
Kittens-kun said: SpamuraiSensei said: You guys remember the time before Net Neutrality existed? Like pre 2015? Man.. the internet was so bad back then. I was constantly getting my speeds throttled and was blocked from accessing certain websites by my ISP. Only that never happened... Not even once. lol Except the "NN didn't exist before" argument was already proven wrong. But, I guess I can't expect FCC supporters to do research. That's a good one. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Kittens-kun said: Except the "NN didn't exist before" argument was already proven wrong. But, I guess I can't expect FCC supporters to do research. That's a good one. It's not a joke. It DID exist before. That's a fact. |
|
Except it didn't. |
| Except it did. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf Please if you're going to try to prove him wrong, at least prove him wrong on the things that he's wrong about. |
Thrashinuva said: Except it did. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf Please if you're going to try to prove him wrong, at least prove him wrong on the things that he's wrong about. Then all you need to do is change it by 5 years. The internet has existed since 1991. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Thrashinuva said: Except it did. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf Please if you're going to try to prove him wrong, at least prove him wrong on the things that he's wrong about. Then all you need to do is change it by 5 years. The internet has existed since 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 The United States Federal Communications Commission established four principles of "open internet" in 2005: Consumers deserve access to the lawful Internet content of their choice. Consumers should be allowed to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement. Consumers should be able to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network. Consumers deserve to choose their network providers, application and service providers, and content providers of choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890 under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony" Which is basically the foundation of Net Neutrality, before the internet could have ever been dreamed of. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |