#2 2008-08-12 19:27:07

What a load of bullshit. First of all, the FCC has no legal authority over the internet, there are no licenses the FCC can withhold, so they cannot compel anyone on the internet what they must "broadcast". Second, what the fuck is an internet "network"? An ISP? A website? An application provider? Lastly, net neutrality is a purely technical issue. It has no application towards political content, it regulates a neutral policy for internet providers for different sorts of network usages, such as Web, P2P, Email, etc. One could expand the definition to include different network address spaces, such as boosting the perceived performance of a particular address space by slow down other address spaces (say CNN pays Comcast to keep their stuff fast, so the CNN address space gets Class A network preference while High-street.org's address space is slowed down to preserve bandwidth for Comcast's preferred customers.) Net neutrality does not and cannot reliably be used to control content within a network type or address space, it cannot read.

The author is an idiot putting out FUD for conservatives attempting to make an apple and oranges comparisson where none exists to preserve the last remaining part of the culture where they hold some sort of primacy. But seriously, only buttfuck idiot backwoods conservative cocksuckers who would bother to read this piece without understanding it, and think it actually means something. These are the same prehistoric dickheads who still listen to network radio. Fuck it, they'll all be dead before long anyway, them and their only suitable for dittohead technology.

Offline

 

#3 2008-08-12 19:42:58

orangeplus wrote:

What a load of bullshit. First of all, the FCC has no legal authority over the internet, there are no licenses the FCC can withhold, so they cannot compel anyone on the internet what they must "broadcast". Second, what the fuck is an internet "network"? An ISP? A website? An application provider? Lastly, net neutrality is a purely technical issue. It has no application towards political content, it regulates a neutral policy for internet providers for different sorts of network usages, such as Web, P2P, Email, etc. One could expand the definition to include different network address spaces, such as boosting the perceived performance of a particular address space by slow down other address spaces (say CNN pays Comcast to keep their stuff fast, so the CNN address space gets Class A network preference while High-street.org's address space is slowed down to preserve bandwidth for Comcast's preferred customers.) Net neutrality does not and cannot reliably be used to control content within a network type or address space, it cannot read.

The author is an idiot putting out FUD for conservatives attempting to make an apple and oranges comparisson where none exists to preserve the last remaining part of the culture where they hold some sort of primacy. But seriously, only buttfuck idiot backwoods conservative cocksuckers who would bother to read this piece without understanding it, and think it actually means something. These are the same prehistoric dickheads who still listen to network radio. Fuck it, they'll all be dead before long anyway, them and their only suitable for dittohead technology.

Are you finished now?  The author is an FCC Commissioner.  If there is one thing we all should know about the federal government, it is that it cannot abide the unfettered free flow of information.  Why the fuck do we have licenses by the FCC for any media?  Why not just register frequencies with something like icann?  Because if it exits, it must be regulated and taxed if possible.  Never say never when it comes to regulation of cyberspace.  And if they ever get the power to regulate, they can regulate content as well.  Ask any Chinaman.

Offline

 

#4 2008-08-12 20:04:55

phreddy wrote:

Are you finished now?

What the fuck sorta stupid question is that? Are you a flaming moron?


phreddy wrote:

The author is an FCC Commissioner.

And like most of GWBs appointees, he's a fellow flaming moron.

phreddy wrote:

Why the fuck do we have licenses by the FCC for any media?  Why not just register frequencies with something like icann?

Why compare something created to regulate a technology based on very limited resources (frequencies) from almost 100 years ago with relatively few changes with a non-governmental organization regulating technology from 20 years ago based on more numerous resources (names and address spaces) which is constantly changing? Because you're a flaming moron.

Since paranoia is an integral part of being a backwards ass flaming moron conservative, I can see how you guys get your irritated panties in a bunch over some paleo-liberal's dream of 1960s radio. But no one really gives a fuck anymore. No one with half a brain listens to radio, fewer and fewer people watch broadcast TV. No one is bringing back the fairness doctrine, the great firewall of china will not be erected in the US, the UN will not fly black helicopters into your shitville and force you to take a black man for your husband and worship at the altar of Osama the Mighty.

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-08-12 20:45:09)

Offline

 

#5 2008-08-12 21:38:00

orangeplus wrote:

Since paranoia is an integral part of being a backwards ass flaming moron conservative, I can see how you guys get your irritated panties in a bunch over some paleo-liberal's dream of 1960s radio. But no one really gives a fuck anymore. No one with half a brain listens to radio, fewer and fewer people watch broadcast TV. No one is bringing back the fairness doctrine, the great firewall of china will not be erected in the US, the UN will not fly black helicopters into your shitville and force you to take a black man for your husband and worship at the altar of Osama the Mighty.

So... tell Phwedski how you really feel, okay? 



Offline

 

#6 2008-08-13 01:20:09

phreddy wrote:

Because if it [exists], it must be regulated and taxed if possible.

Just like whores and crack, right? It's not like someone just invented them. A whole consumer system exists for both. That's one of the issues with the FCC, and what fortunately continues to hold them in check. All glory to free market capitalism, perhaps, but when you regulate some Internet content, on some sites, serving some purposes, you are at a loss not to apply these regulations to like sites conducting their business similarly. Consumer interest drives most of the governmental concessions even the biggest, most corrupt and indulged industries in America. Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Whatever. China is a different consumer culture, not just an oppressive political system. People there do not feel the same sense of entitlement we and our elected officials espouse.

The Fairness Doctrine is outmoded policy, which could no more have predicted contemporary society and infotech than the Framers of the Constitution. In upholding the Constitutionality of the Doctrine in the oft-mentioned 1969 case, a word like "exclusion" pops up to describe radio programming. The parlance is poorly suited to Internet traffic and consumer demand.

The FCC can WANT to control a lot of things, but when all is said and done, the consumer system will not bear certain restrictions. Witness the waxing and waning of regulation 2257 and COPPA enforcement. These too are putatively entangled with First Amendment concerns. Under the guise of "doing good," the FCC has already impinged on the rights--perhaps it is better put as "expectations"--of content providers because, as we all know, we must Think of the Children when we rob adults of their much needed [online] smut and drugs.

Offline

 

#7 2008-08-13 01:22:58

at least throw in a fuck or a cocksucker somewhere. you really need to liven up your prose.

Offline

 

#8 2008-08-13 01:56:56

What, the whole "whores and crack" leit motif didn't suit you?

Offline

 

#9 2008-08-13 02:09:35

Like any good friday night, if you start with whores and crack and leave them be,  the rest of the event loses definition.

Offline

 

#10 2008-08-13 02:22:08

I don't suppose it would help to remind you that it's Tuesday.

Offline

 

#11 2008-08-13 04:38:55

orangeplus wrote:

Since paranoia is an integral part of being a backwards ass flaming moron conservative, I can see how you guys get your irritated panties in a bunch over some paleo-liberal's dream of 1960s radio. But no one really gives a fuck anymore. No one with half a brain listens to radio, fewer and fewer people watch broadcast TV. No one is bringing back the fairness doctrine, the great firewall of china will not be erected in the US, the UN will not fly black helicopters into your shitville and force you to take a black man for your husband and worship at the altar of Osama the Mighty.

Now to be fair, Orange, phreddy is trying his hardest, and foot-in-ass doesn't come around much anymore to give him backup.  Give the little fella a break.

Offline

 

#12 2008-08-13 04:40:46

BTW, even assuming that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would do this, wouldn't someone have to be pushing for a return of the Fairness Doctrine for that to matter?

Offline

 

#13 2008-08-13 11:19:42

Tojo wrote:

Now to be fair, Orange, phreddy is trying his hardest, and foot-in-ass doesn't come around much anymore to give him backup.  Give the little fella a break.

Phreddy isn't really trying all that hard.  It's too much trouble to argue with a nut job.  OP brings to mind a tweeker bitch who's caught her hair on fire.  It's difficult to determine whether I've hit a nerve with him or if he's one of those ambulatory schizophrenics who stands on a corner spitting vituperation at the world.

And Phreddy is not a "little fella".  Phreddy is 6' 2", 240 lbs and competed on the NCAA championship judo team.  If Phreddy was so lucky as to meet OP on the street, he would kick is smart ass up into his caustic mouth.

Sorry for the outburst, I'm normally a gentle sort.  Carry on.

Offline

 

#14 2008-08-13 15:15:31

douchebag wrote:

Phreddy is 6' 2", 240 lbs and competed on the NCAA championship judo team.

Listen here little fella, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Why is that flaming moron conservative douchebags threaten violence when they don't want to argue a point anymore? What is it about your backwards dipshit douchebag outlook on the world that creates fear as being the only argument you are capable of making? Fear of liberals conspiring against your dust covered tech, fear of Chinese firewalls, fear of physical violence. What in the world makes you do something so stupid as to make a threat against me in a public sphere? Who are you trying to impress? What in the world would make you think making a threat on the internets makes anyone think other than the fact you are pussy douchebag? Seriously, on High Street at that?

And as to my nerve, yeah, you did strike one. I have a nerve about dumbfucked bureaucrats trying to spread fear about things they are demonstrably ignorant of, particularly when they are speaking to something, internet technology, in which I am a professional. But then again, you're a conservative mongoloid, you love bureaucrats who gives ya the scares, so I shouldn't expect any worthwhile discussion.

douchebag wrote:

kick is smart ass up into his caustic mouth.

oh, that does give me the chuckles though, you are SUCH a douchebag.

Offline

 

#15 2008-08-13 16:10:16

Huh

Last edited by raoul.duke (2008-08-13 16:10:54)

Offline

 

#16 2008-08-13 16:25:30

phreddy wrote:

Tojo wrote:

Now to be fair, Orange, phreddy is trying his hardest, and foot-in-ass doesn't come around much anymore to give him backup.  Give the little fella a break.

Phreddy isn't really trying all that hard.  It's too much trouble to argue with a nut job.  OP brings to mind a tweeker bitch who's caught her hair on fire.  It's difficult to determine whether I've hit a nerve with him or if he's one of those ambulatory schizophrenics who stands on a corner spitting vituperation at the world.

And Phreddy is not a "little fella".  Phreddy is 6' 2", 240 lbs and competed on the NCAA championship judo team.  If Phreddy was so lucky as to meet OP on the street, he would kick is smart ass up into his caustic mouth.

Sorry for the outburst, I'm normally a gentle sort.  Carry on.

Oh, okay, in that case you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know when he's stuck his sizeable foot in his virtual mouth.  Maybe one too many judo chops to the cranium? 

As has been pointed out before, Net Neutrality != Fairness Doctrine.  They're not even similar.

P.S.  On the Internet I'm ten feet tall and have chainsaws for hands.

Offline

 

#17 2008-08-13 16:44:28

opie wrote:

Why is that flaming moron conservative douchebags threaten violence when they don't want to argue a point anymore?

If you had something to argue about, or even had a civil way of arguing your extremist positions I might be interested.  But you're a loud-mouthed boor who could do with the ass whippin' your daddy should have given you back when you first forgot your manners.

P.S.  Take Tojo with you behind the wood shed.

Last edited by phreddy (2008-08-13 16:46:36)

Offline

 

#18 2008-08-13 17:27:24

Awww, did I hurt your wittle feewings? I do so hate to see an idiot cry. You came to High-Street for civilities and manners? You are an idiot sure, but you've been around here, did you expect everyone to say "Mega-Dittos, Fella" when you posted your shrine to an idiot bureaucrats? The fact that you can't see solid arguments against your dear appointee in my posts is not my problem. They are there however, you even attempted, pathetically, to argue against before bloviating about your alleged physical prowess instead. I need not take Tojo anywhere, he's a technology professional himself and knows far more about the subject than you can fit in your pathetic little brain.

douchebag wrote:

wood shed

Ha!

Offline

 

#19 2008-08-13 17:40:00

phreddy wrote:

opie wrote:

Why is that flaming moron conservative douchebags threaten violence when they don't want to argue a point anymore?

If you had something to argue about, or even had a civil way of arguing your extremist positions I might be interested.  But you're a loud-mouthed boor who could do with the ass whippin' your daddy should have given you back when you first forgot your manners.

P.S.  Take Tojo with you behind the wood shed.

Why try, phred? The leftist folk around here, when faced with a valid debate, quickly fall to "idiot", "moron" and "douchebag"-laden commentary.

They know they are ignorant so they quickly fold to the insults and bragging about their 1337 h@x0r skilz in the IT fields they claim to belong to (sorry guys but being "tech support level 1" for some DSL company does not make you a CCIE).

Nice try, though. I'm surprised they didn't rant about their hot girlfriends and penis size as they hack away at their keyboards in their parents basement.

I will wager, however, that they all have high-level dudes on WoW. That is for certain!

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-13 17:40:47)

Offline

 

#20 2008-08-13 17:46:34

ptah13 wrote:

Why try, phred? The leftist folk around here, when faced with a valid debate, quickly fall to "idiot", "moron" and "douchebag"-laden commentary.

They know they are ignorant so they quickly fold to the insults and bragging about their 1337 h@x0r skilz in the IT fields they claim to belong to (sorry guys but being "tech support level 1" for some DSL company does not make you a CCIE).

Nice try, though. I'm surprised they didn't rant about their hot girlfriends and penis size as they hack away at their keyboards in their parents basement.

I will wager, however, that they all have high-level dudes on WoW. That is for certain!

All right fool, tell me where I'm wrong. What exactly does Net Neutrality have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine? What is an Internet "network" that can have something akin to the Fairness Doctrine applied to it?

And as to bragging bullshit, the only thing I've claimed is to be an IT professional, something at least Choad can back me up on, it's little fella who did the idiot bragging, not I.

Offline

 

#21 2008-08-13 18:14:14

Don't ask ptah for facts or actual arguments.  He's just a provocateur--good at throwing gasoline on fading fires, but not at much else.

Offline

 

#22 2008-08-13 18:17:31

George Orr wrote:

Don't ask ptah for facts or actual arguments.  He's just a provocateur--good at throwing gasoline on fading fires, but not at much else.

Well, ok then. I can respect that.

Offline

 

#23 2008-08-13 18:37:40

I can't believe that phreddy and Ptah are such willing tools to fall for this and are not able to see throuigh the manipulation in the first link. I don't care what your political ideology is, if someone can't see this spin for what it is, you are a sheeple. who will spend the rest of his life as fodder for the wolves.

This FCC guy was speaking at the Heritage Foundation trying to raise support for the far fetched spin that conservative voters supporting net neutrality = supporting a return of the fairness doctrine.

The purpose behind of all this political doublespeak is to float the idea amongst conservatives that they should support certain special interests who are spending millions buying political favor for gutting any net neutrality. This isn't about the old fairness doctrine from days of yore at all.

So Phred and Ptah, are you telling me that you are falling for this hook, line and sinker and are against net neutrality?


The commissioner ... McDowell, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

...


     McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-08-13 18:49:07)

Offline

 

#24 2008-08-13 18:45:49

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

I can't believe that phreddy and Ptah are such willing tools to fall for this and are not able to see throuigh the manipulation in the first link.

This FCC guy was speaking at the Heritage Foundation trying to raise support for the far fetched spin that conservative voters supporting net neutrality = supporting a return of the fairness doctrine.

The purpose behind of all this political doublespeak is to float the idea amongst conservatives that they should support certain special interests who are spending millions buying political favor for gutting any net neutrality. This isn't about the old fairness doctrine from days of yore at all.

So Phred and Ptah, are you telling me that you are falling for this hook, line and sinker and are against net neutrality?


The commissioner ... McDowell, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

...


     McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar.

Actually, I'm only commenting on how it's pointless to argue with people who can't argue without calling names. Even in his reply to me the guy had to call me a "fool".

Sorry, George, but the "facts" I need to support my position are in this thread. Nice try, though. For an older chick, you sure got spunk!

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-13 18:47:34)

Offline

 

#25 2008-08-13 18:51:46

Johnny wrote:

I can't believe that phreddy and Ptah are such willing tools to fall for this and are not able to see throuigh the manipulation in the first link.

Fact is I have no fear of the FCC applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internets.  It was a good story to throw on this crowd though, don't you think?  I do believe the feds would regulate cyberspace if given a chance, and I believe they will try to do so at some point.  It may begin as a tax move, or maybe an attempt to control fraud or even porn.  There are no guarantees when it comes to government intervention.

Offline

 

#26 2008-08-13 18:54:54

ptah13 wrote:

Actually, I'm only commenting on how it's pointless to argue with people who can't argue without calling names. Even in his reply to me the guy had to call me a "fool".

Sorry, George, but the "facts" I need to support my position are in this thread. Nice try, though. For an older chick, you sure got spunk!

Pointless? What sort of pantywaist are you? This site is supposed to be the wayward home of the cast out redheaded stepchildren. The only thing I demand is that if you are going to call me names you at least be creative about it.

Offline

 

#27 2008-08-13 19:09:08

As a side note on the Fairness Doctrine (now there's an Orwellian phrase).  A friend of mine was manager of a group of radio stations back when this was in effect.  He told me that broadcast media bosses were so afraid of having to offer equal time for any perceived position voiced on their stations that they eschewed any and all political speech and any guests with an agenda.  This had the effect of shutting down all dialogue and opinion.  I just hope we don't go back to that era just because our Congress and President decide they want to silence right wing talk radio.  Like I said in my first post on this thread, "Be careful what you wish for".

Offline

 

#28 2008-08-13 21:41:34

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Actually, I'm only commenting on how it's pointless to argue with people who can't argue without calling names. Even in his reply to me the guy had to call me a "fool".

Sorry, George, but the "facts" I need to support my position are in this thread. Nice try, though. For an older chick, you sure got spunk!

Pointless? What sort of pantywaist are you? This site is supposed to be the wayward home of the cast out redheaded stepchildren. The only thing I demand is that if you are going to call me names you at least be creative about it.

I would never call you names. I was once a big Sex Pistols fan.

If I WERE to call you names it would have to start with "you spunk-gurgling superfluous man cow..".

In all honesty, I do have a history of flaming the fire from time to time but I use to be quite the cyber debater, 'till I realized how pointless it was. This was before GO's time (at least as far as being around me).

Offline

 

#29 2008-08-13 22:37:40

ptah13 wrote:

In all honesty, I do have a history of flaming the fire from time to time but I use to be quite the cyber debater, 'till I realized how pointless it was. This was before GO's time (at least as far as being around me).

And now you're just a master baiter.  How sad.

Offline

 

#30 2008-08-14 06:35:25

tojo2000 wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

In all honesty, I do have a history of flaming the fire from time to time but I use to be quite the cyber debater, 'till I realized how pointless it was. This was before GO's time (at least as far as being around me).

And now you're just a master baiter.  How sad.

At least you recognize the skills...

Offline

 

#31 2008-08-14 09:30:38

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that what you douches are doing is about as close to a vision of the future under the fairness doctrine as you could possibly find? A couple of dunderheads blathering on about their pet causes (in this case, yourselves) while the rest of us wait for a break in the conversation, ultimately glazing over and moving on.

Offline

 

#32 2008-08-14 16:21:15

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that what you douches are doing is about as close to a vision of the future under the fairness doctrine as you could possibly find? A couple of dunderheads blathering on about their pet causes (in this case, yourselves) while the rest of us wait for a break in the conversation, ultimately glazing over and moving on.

Yes, you're the only one who finds that ironic.  For one thing, the rest of the Internets has realized that you don't need to wait for a break in the conversation, since the conversation isn't occurring in real-time.  Also, one of the nice things about the Internet is that it's not like the TV machine.  You can move to another thread whenever you want and still be on the High-Street.org channel.

Offline

 

#33 2008-08-14 22:19:21

phreddy wrote:

Phreddy is 6' 2", 240 lbs

That's a BMI of 30.8!

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com