WaGuns.org

BadKarma wrote:Um no. But thank you for playing.

Gee, I draw from the entire history of telecommunications in this country to demonstrate an example, and that's the best you can do? Seriously? Sad. Do you have ANYTHING at all to support your absurd analogy regarding highway speeds? Because I'd love to see actual cites.

Otherwise, I can build a factual argument starting with the expiration of the last primary Bell patent in 1894, and move forward from there to establish a solid case for Net Neutrality and what it does.

Meanwhile, the next time you call somebody outside of your telephone company's subscriber base, be thankful for the exact same principal applied to telephone interchanges.

Wait for the ISP tax added to your bill in the next few months. Someone has to pay for the people that enforce the 300+ pages of new regulations.

Gosh, it sounds great! Except the whole government control part that will no doubt make it all more expensive. Statism, fuck yea!


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

CurtisLemansky wrote:Gosh, it sounds great! Except the whole government control part that will no doubt make it all more expensive. Statism, fuck yea!


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

The government does not control ISP's or Telcos. They regulate them. Big difference.

Shoot. The FCC regulates CB radio. Gosh that is sure expensive.

kf7mjf wrote:

Note two different phone numbers in this 1911 Seattle taxi cab ad. This was because until the 1960's, Bell did not allow interconnection with other telephone exchanges. If you were a Bell subscriber, you could only call other Bell phones. Net Neutrality is designed to keep this from happening with the internet.

Ermm...that may be the case, but every single phone number I've ever seen in an advertisement (or shop window--some older shops in downtown Seattle still have the original number painted on the glass or on a sign) printed prior to 1930 was/is listed like this-- 6XXX YYY. The first four digits identified the exchange, and the last three the telephone number of the shop.

kf7mjf wrote:

Note two different phone numbers in this 1911 Seattle taxi cab ad. This was because until the 1960's, Bell did not allow interconnection with other telephone exchanges. If you were a Bell subscriber, you could only call other Bell phones. Net Neutrality is designed to keep this from happening with the internet.

Again you are wrong. Break out the tin foil hat. This is about data not voice.

Fewer exchanges in 1911, different numbering format.

As has been pointed out before on this forum, the objection to what the FCC just did is not an objection to net neutrality itself. It is an objection to the process by which it is supposedly being pursued. Without being able to see the details (remind you of Obamacare?), how do we know for sure that the regulations simply stop at preserving net neutrality, and nothing more? The correct answer is we don't know. We can't know without the full plan. But they didn't give us the details before passing the regulations. Why not? Perhaps a better question is, are we citizens, or are we subjects?

BadKarma wrote:Again you are wrong. Break out the tin foil hat. This is about data not voice.

And yes, it is about data. I'm making a point about regulation though, one which apparently needs a *whoosh* to go with it. Also, the tinfoil hat analogy literally makes no sense at all, as I'm not the one discussing conspiracy and plots.

Regulation is why you can freely make calls across the country to any exchange and why Telephone Company X can't change the quality of the connection to Telephone Company Y.

Net Neutrality is ISP X not being able to say "pay extra to see content from Provider Y" or "Pay extra to receive content from Source Z or we will slow it down".

It treats ALL TRAFFIC THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF POINT OF ORIGIN.

Just like all phone calls are now treated the same, regardless of point of origin. See. Simple.

kf7mjf wrote:

CurtisLemansky wrote:Gosh, it sounds great! Except the whole government control part that will no doubt make it all more expensive. Statism, fuck yea!


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

The government does not control ISP's or Telcos. They regulate them. Big difference.

Shoot. The FCC regulates CB radio. Gosh that is sure expensive.

Regulation isn't control? Weird.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Guns4Liberty wrote:As has been pointed out before on this forum, the objection to what the FCC just did is not an objection to net neutrality itself. It is an objection to the process by which it is supposedly being pursued. Without being able to see the details (remind you of Obamacare?), how do we know for sure that the regulations simply stop at preserving net neutrality, and nothing more? The correct answer is we don't know. We can't know without the full plan. But they didn't give us the details before passing the regulations. Why not? Perhaps a better question is, are we citizens, or are we subjects?

I am going with number 2. Did I win anything?

Depends on context.

The USCG regulates vessel operation. Do they control your boat when you go out on it?

It is obvious this is amature hour. I will leave since I have nothing positive to say.

skey wrote:

Guns4Liberty wrote:As has been pointed out before on this forum, the objection to what the FCC just did is not an objection to net neutrality itself. It is an objection to the process by which it is supposedly being pursued. Without being able to see the details (remind you of Obamacare?), how do we know for sure that the regulations simply stop at preserving net neutrality, and nothing more? The correct answer is we don't know. We can't know without the full plan. But they didn't give us the details before passing the regulations. Why not? Perhaps a better question is, are we citizens, or are we subjects?

I am going with number 2. Did I win anything?

Nobody wins when we're subjects.

Internet still works!