WaGuns.org

Try again. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh.html

Also, water rights and the laws around them are entirely different than the internet.

Which again, it is literally impossible to own.

kf7mjf wrote:Try again. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh.html

Also, water rights and the laws around them are entirely different than the internet.

Which again, it is literally impossible to own.

And you act like federal regulatory agencies never overstep their bounds and anyone who worries about scope creep is a tinfoil hat wearing Fox News worshipping yadda yadda yadda.

Which is literally sticking your head in the sand and burying it in ad hominem attacks.

I HOPE that this will be precisely what you say this is. I FEAR that this will have unintended consequences.

What if and fear are tertiary to the sheer amount of misunderstanding and misinformation running around on this thread.

Until people even grasp certain fundamental concepts of what the internet is, how it works, what utilities are, and what net neutrality is, there is no point discussing the what if's and AM radio fueled and Comcast funded fear mongering.

Well, I am glad that you know everything about the subject way better than the rest of the occupied universe.

RENCORP wrote:Well, I am glad that you know everything about the subject way better than the rest of the occupied universe.

Me and a few other people who are paying attention and pulling our hair in this thread, yes.

kf7mjf wrote:What if and fear are tertiary to the sheer amount of misunderstanding and misinformation running around on this thread.

Until people even grasp certain fundamental concepts of what the internet is, how it works, what utilities are, and what net neutrality is, there is no point discussing the what if's and AM radio fueled and Comcast funded fear mongering.

I'm going to channel my inner solyanik and make it known that I have a Master's degree in Information Systems. I have spent the past 6 years with a team of professionals developing custom, Web-based business systems in 4 different countries. I know how the Internet works - I don't need you to explain it to me. I also know the FCC's role - or at least I did prior to this power grab.

rayjax82 is right - you are employing the pathetic tactic of ad hominem attacks. Tossing around buzz words like "Faux News" and "tin foil" does not prove your point any more than it undermines ours. And it most certainly does not change the fact that you have not read the new regulations, and therefore have absolutely no authority with which to speak about their scope, content, or implications. Until you have read them and analyzed them, you are in no better position to say what they will or won't do than any one of us. So stop acting like a petulant child, be a man, and admit you don't have all the answers - no matter how much you want us all to think you do.

I never said "Faux News" thanks for putting words in my mouth though.

Once again I call your attention to the points I raised several pages back, which you insisted were conjecture. You might want to put that degree to good use and tell me for instance how anyone can own the internet.

But as a reminder, here they are again. All simple facts of how the internet works, or previously publicly stated policy.

The FCC does not own the internet

The FCC does not control what content goes over the internet.

The FCC is not saying what you can and cannot transmit over the internet (outside of illegal things like kiddie porn and the like)

The FCC is saying ISP's cannot dictate what you see and how fast you see it (beyond the limitations of your connection speed)

Breaking it down.

1. It's impossible to own the internet.
2. You can't control content on the internet. Sure, you can impose local regulations (China) or try to filter objectionable content (Britain) but we all know how well that works, and there is always some other place pouring out all the content they want, inside or outside of controlled areas.
3. Let's see I just typed "Fuck Obama and the FCC" and nope. Not being controlled. The 1st Amendment comes to mind, cue the "what if" and "do you really trust..." brigade.
4. See above, see laws on child porn, drug dealing,etc...
5. See any of the zillion public statements on net neutrality by government officials.

kf7mjf wrote:..
5. See any of the zillion public statements on net neutrality by government officials.

If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. -drops the mic-

Here are the highlights what is inside the 8 pages the Republican commissioners are keeping us from seeing so far...

Policy on these things is what was voted on. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release ... 1869A1.pdf

rayjax82 wrote:

kf7mjf wrote:..
5. See any of the zillion public statements on net neutrality by government officials.

If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. -drops the mic-

Well, I would point out I don't believe Obamacare compelled anyone to change their insurance providers. What the insurance providers did is between you and them. So nobody was compelled to change a plan by direct government order AFAIK...

Guns4Liberty wrote:I also know the FCC's role - or at least I did prior to this power grab.

Can you explain more about how you see this as a "power grab"? The FCC had the power to regulate the ISP's from behaving anti-competitively and with monopolistic intentions by declaring they were "information services". Verizon sued, and won, with the court stating pretty explicitly that the FCC didn't actually have the power they thought they did because they didn't classify the ISP's under Title 2, instead classified them under "Information Services." With the FCC now declaring ISP's under Title 2, it seems they have simply restated their previous authority. It seems that this isn't a "power grab" but a "back to previous power already held and enforced".

Question here. We're all talking about the Internet and the fcc. I can go on amazon get a ham radio but in order to operate it I need a license to do so legally. (Correct me if I am wrong here.) Which is something that was implemented by the federal government. They limit what words and terms you can use on open airways. How long until that gets applied to interest users?

Also They can figure out what radio channel you're broadcasting from. You have an IP address sure you can use ghost accounts or even if you know the dark stuff you can go there. The federal government that is not regulated of its power is one to be feared. And it's a good thing to question them.

never_to_much wrote:Question here. We're all talking about the Internet and the fcc. I can go on amazon get a ham radio but in order to operate it I need a license to do so legally. (Correct me if I am wrong here.) Which is something that was implemented by the federal government. They limit what words and terms you can use on open airways. How long until that gets applied to interest users. They can figure out what radio channel you're broadcasting from. You have an IP address sure you can use ghost accounts or even if you know the dark stuff you can go there. The federal government that is not regulated of its power is one to be feared. And it's a good thing to question them.

Ask yourself why broadcast signals are regulated as to content, and why telephone conversations and internet conversations are not.

Do you fear that you will not be able to say certain things over a telephone?

Then why worry about it on the internet?

And as for transmission limitations, some of the stuff applied to ham radio is meant to restrict it from being used for commercial means, some of it is rooted in decency laws, which are rooted in stupid Olde Timey moralism. That in fact is the root of most broadcast restrictions outside of breaking up different types of radio services, commercial bands, etc... in other words, nothing like the internet. Or telephone.

What you say is true regarding the FCC's abilities. I say it's a power grab not because the FCC couldn't previously stop ISPs from behaving anti-competitively, but because the push for net neutrality has rejected involvement of (and accountability to) the Legislative branch. I don't like unelected bureaucats thinking they are not beholden to our Representatives. I dislike even more when our Representatives are intentionally shut out of the process of rule-making despite that being their primary function and duty. So I see what the FCC did here as a sort of power grab - a middle finger to Congress, if you will.

Guns4Liberty wrote:What you say is true regarding the FCC's abilities. I say it's a power grab not because the FCC couldn't previously stop ISPs from behaving anti-competitively, but because the push for net neutrality has rejected involvement of (and accountability to) the Legislative branch. I don't like unelected bureaucats thinking they are not beholden to our Representatives. I dislike even more when our Representatives are intentionally shut out of the process of rule-making despite that being their primary function and duty. So I see what the FCC did here as a sort of power grab - a middle finger to Congress, if you will.

That is why we live in a "Republic". In a "Republic" not all things are directly handled through direct voting.