The 2nd Amendment Has never looked so good..
https://www.waguns.org/~waguns/
TechnoWeenie wrote:So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next?
Massivedesign wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next?
Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys...
TechnoWeenie wrote:Massivedesign wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next?
Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys...
Coming to a cell carrier near you....
$200 for unlimited data, or no data at all...
Courtesy of 'net neutrality'...
TechnoWeenie wrote:Massivedesign wrote:TechnoWeenie wrote:So, are tiered data plans from cellular carriers next?
Welcome to the question that's been in my head for a while now.. We have tiered now as far as data usage, not really tiered for priority content. Will be interesting to see how this plays out to the Cell Guys...
Coming to a cell carrier near you....
$200 for unlimited data, OR NO DATA AT ALL...
Courtesy of 'net neutrality'...
APA wrote:
CurtisLemansky wrote:Fuck ya'll...
FCC Net Neutrality is a Regulatory 'Trojan Horse,' EFF Says
Funny though, how they seem to think Title II is better, yet this "win" is already showing signs of their premonition...[N]ow we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.
For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done. We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/f ... ty-big-win
snozzberries wrote:I agree that we need to ensure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority. Hopefully the 8 pages say "Private business's can't fuck up the internet, and neither can the FCC or the government."
.
edogg wrote:snozzberries wrote:I agree that we need to ensure the FCC doesn't abuse its authority. Hopefully the 8 pages say "Private business's can't fuck up the internet, and neither can the FCC or the government."
.
If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you...
Wikipedia wrote:After enumerating specific rights retained by the people in the first eight Amendments, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment summarily spelled out the principle of limited government. Together, these two last Amendments clarify the differences between the un-enumerated (as well as enumerated) rights of the people versus the expressly codified delegated powers of the federal government. The Ninth Amendment codified of the people do not have powers are expressly delegated to the federal government specifically by the Constitution. Government can do some things and not others.
The Constitution limits the power of the government in several ways. It prohibits the government from directly interfering with certain key areas: conscience, expression and association. Other actions are forbidden to the federal government and are reserved to state or local governments.
snozzberries wrote:edogg wrote:If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you...
It's the basis of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.<snip>
rayjax82 wrote:The EFF says basically the same thing I've been saying and yet my tinfoil is too tight and I need to go lick comcast's boots.
For fucks sake.
kf7mjf wrote:rayjax82 wrote:The EFF says basically the same thing I've been saying and yet my tinfoil is too tight and I need to go lick comcast's boots.
For fucks sake.
But Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh and Fox didn't say it.
Guns4Liberty wrote:snozzberries wrote:edogg wrote:If you think the gov't would include a restriction on their own power, I have some oceanfront property in AZ to sell you...
It's the basis of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.<snip>
Serious question: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being perfect and 1 being terrible, how would you rate the government's track record of adhering to the limitations placed on its power by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution? How about for the Second Amendment, specifically? If the score you give for either question is less than 10, then I would strongly caution you to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to net neutrality regulations, or whatever the topic du jour is.
AR15L wrote:Duke EB wrote:It means that Comcast can't charge Netflix extra money to get a "fast lane". Nor can they slow the internet speeds for everyone else and charge you a premium to get into the "fast lane"
I just went to speedtest.net and came up with: 59.36 Mbps
I remember only paying for 20 Mbps through Comcrap.
Is this already in effect???
