00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

GingaSnappd just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Yay net neutrality wins!

1,343 Views | 22 Replies

Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-26 22:01:12


No more fucking with your love for the internet

Obama signed a thing stating that basically says they only networks will be funded if they don't use the users internet like one big giant internet

Sure there's advertising everywhere already, but they're usually for websites themselves to be free and opened to everyone, not for self-profit


"Without love there is no hate"

"But good sir isn't love what bring everyone together?"

"To only pretend to love each other when they despise they're very existance... fools"

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-26 22:03:23


That's one thing I've always liked about Obama, he has always had a strong standing on supporting net neutrality. Hopefully this isn't the end of his reforms to internet policy. I'd like to see companies like Comcast get a nice kick in the ass.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-27 01:45:56


Cuellar (TX) #51 (WITHDRAWN)
- Would increase funding levels for broadband by $3 billion, which would provide the National Telecommunications and Information Administration additional funding to provide broadband for rural communities.

%u2022 Extending Broadband Services
o Provides $7.2 billion for extending broadband services to underserved
communities across the country, so that rural and inner-city businesses can
compete with any company in the world.
o For every dollar invested in broadband, the economy sees a ten-fold return on that
investment.

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

For an additional amount for the cost of broadband loans and
loan guarantees, as authorized by the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) and for grants (including for technical
assistance), $2,500,000,000: Provided, That the cost of direct and
guaranteed loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That, notwithstanding
title VI of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, this amount is
available for grants, loans and loan guarantees for broadband infrastructure
in any area of the United States: Provided further, That
at least 75 percent of the area to be served by a project receiving
funds from such grants, loans or loan guarantees shall be in a
rural area without sufficient access to high speed broadband service
to facilitate rural economic development, as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture: Provided further, That priority for
awarding such funds shall be given to project applications for
broadband systems that will deliver end users a choice of more
than one service provider: Provided further, That priority for
awarding funds made available under this paragraph shall be given
to projects that provide service to the highest proportion of rural
residents that do not have access to broadband service: Provided
further, That priority shall be given for project applications from
borrowers or former borrowers under title II of the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936 and for project applications that include such
borrowers or former borrowers: Provided further, That priority for
awarding such funds shall be given to project applications that
demonstrate that, if the application is approved, all project elements
will be fully funded: Provided further, That priority for awarding such funds shall be given to project applications for activities that can be completed if the requested funds are provided: Provided
further, That priority for awarding such funds shall be given to
activities that can commence promptly following approval: Provided
further, That no area of a project funded with amounts made
available under this paragraph may receive funding to provide
broadband service under the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program: Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit a report
on planned spending and actual obligations describing the use
of these funds not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, and quarterly thereafter until all funds are obligated,
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate.

(j) Concurrent with the issuance of the Request for Proposal
for grant applications pursuant to this section, the Assistant Secretary
shall, in coordination with the Commission, publish the
non-discrimination and network interconnection obligations that
shall be contractual conditions of grants awarded under this section,
including, at a minimum, adherence to the principles contained
in the Commission's broadband policy statement
(FCC 05-15,
adopted August 5, 2005)Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-151

The availability of the Internet has had a profound impact on American life. This network of
networks has fundamentally changed the way we communicate.
1 It has increased the speed of communication, the range of communicating devices and the variety of platforms over which we can send and receive information.
2 As Congress has noted, "[t]he rapidly developing array of Internet . . . services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational
and informational resources to our citizens."
3 The Internet also represents "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
4 In addition, the Internet plays an important role in the economy, as an engine for productivity
growth and cost savings.

2. In section 230(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),
Congress describes its national Internet policy. Specifically, Congress states that it is the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet"6 and "to promote the continued development of the Internet."7 In section 706(a) of the Act, Congress charges the Commission with "encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability" - broadband - "to all Americans."8
3. In this Policy Statement, the Commission offers guidance and insight into its approach to the
Internet and broadband that is consistent with these Congressional directives.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice.
%u2022 To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
%u2022 To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
do not harm the network.13
%u2022 To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers.14

whew...

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-27 01:58:24


the internet was never under attack because thats too fucking unamerican

Yay net neutrality wins!

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-27 08:20:07


At 3/27/09 01:45 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: whew...

...

Yay net neutrality wins!


You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.

Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-27 20:19:20


Upside of this. Net neutrality keeps ISP providers from showing favoritism to certain websites. The downside is our current internet infrastructure needs some overhauling and this would give them more money to allow this.

Once the streaming of High Def movies and stuff because more popular, it could really hurt the infrastructure, at least in the US. If I'm not mistaken some of the other countries already have a much better one in place that can handle it.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-29 01:25:39


Yall are so easily suckered in. The government starts its inexorable entrance into regulating the internet and you welcome it?

Net neutrality, what a farcical name. I guess the not so fair Fairness Doctrine is next.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-29 03:54:18


At 3/29/09 01:25 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Yall are so easily suckered in. The government starts its inexorable entrance into regulating the internet and you welcome it?

Net neutrality, what a farcical name. I guess the not so fair Fairness Doctrine is next.

It's not a tight regulation. It just keeps ISPs from giving preference to some websites over others. For example, what if comcast's ISP wanted to block or slow down traffic websites advertising DSL, or vice versa. This would be unfair to the customers and it would be very easy for companies to take advantage over things like this. It could potentially be similar to how China and North Korea filter what can be seen and what cannot be seen.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-29 18:37:51


Let me say that this is awesome and I now know that Barrack Obama continues to do good things for us!

I know it's been rocky so far, but he has lifted the ban on stem cell research and shut down Gitmo. The stimulus plan may not be going well, but he's competant in many areas at least.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-29 19:25:01


At 3/29/09 06:37 PM, Ericho wrote: shut down Gitmo.

Gitmo's still open, bro.

:The stimulus plan may not be going well, but he's competant in many areas at least.

Oh well, our grandparents' 401Ks may be tanking and our children may have to pay off a multi-trillion dollar debt to our Chinese overlords - but hey, at least you got your slice of the political pie, eh?

Getting back on topic, has anyone else noticed how little play this whole net neutrality thing is getting in the press these days? This was a big deal for them like a month ago, but now this forum is one of only a couple places I hear it being discussed.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-30 14:50:12


At 3/29/09 07:25 PM, dySWN wrote:
The stimulus plan may not be going well, but he's competant in many areas at least.
Oh well, our grandparents' 401Ks may be tanking and our children may have to pay off a multi-trillion dollar debt to our Chinese overlords - but hey, at least you got your slice of the political pie, eh?

At least he's not like Bush who was bad in all areas.

Anyway, yeah, I'm surprised I don't hear about it more in the news as well. I was never really able to understand a clear definition of net neutrality. Does this mean that we don't have to worry about having videos from YouTube taken down because of copyright problems?

I know that couldn't be true, but is that in any way related to net nuetrality?


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-30 15:08:18


Net Nuetrality IS BAD allowing ISPs to choose which websites you go on is censorship you idiots

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-30 15:09:23


At 3/30/09 02:50 PM, Ericho wrote: Does this mean that we don't have to worry about having videos from YouTube taken down because of copyright problems?

I know that couldn't be true, but is that in any way related to net nuetrality?

No, I don't think so. What you don't have to worry about though, is internet becoming like cable TV - you pay for a certain amount of websites and get no access to any others. What you don't have to worry about is your internet providers acting like the chinese government, blocking sites they don't like.

Yes, this is the government regulating internet. It's the government prohibiting companies from freely regulating it.
Anyone saying that this is bad because government shouldn't have this kind of power, is clearly in favor of companies controlling our lives instead of an at least semi-democratic government.


You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.

Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-30 16:07:17


At 3/30/09 03:09 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
At 3/30/09 02:50 PM, Ericho wrote: Does this mean that we don't have to worry about having videos from YouTube taken down because of copyright problems?

I know that couldn't be true, but is that in any way related to net nuetrality?
No, I don't think so. What you don't have to worry about though, is internet becoming like cable TV - you pay for a certain amount of websites and get no access to any others. What you don't have to worry about is your internet providers acting like the chinese government, blocking sites they don't like.

Yes, this is the government regulating internet. It's the government prohibiting companies from freely regulating it.
Anyone saying that this is bad because government shouldn't have this kind of power, is clearly in favor of companies controlling our lives instead of an at least semi-democratic government.

Now the people pushing to keep net neutrality do like to use the worst case scenario scene. And I do agree with net neutrality. But there is a reason that they wanted to get rid of it. Upgrading the infrastructure of our networks is going to be insanely costly, by getting rid of net neutrality, in theory, it would increase revenue for the ISPs so that the upgrades can be done. We may find our self in a position where the internet begins to bog down or even crash due to stress, and the poor infrastructure.

I didn't read the bill, but hopefully the government is willing to help with the upgrades if they aren't going to allow the removal of net neutrality (maybe higher taxes in the end, but we keep our internet uncensored and it doesn't crash).

At 3/30/09 02:50 PM, Ericho wrote:
At 3/29/09 07:25 PM, dySWN wrote:
The stimulus plan may not be going well, but he's competant in many areas at least.
Oh well, our grandparents' 401Ks may be tanking and our children may have to pay off a multi-trillion dollar debt to our Chinese overlords - but hey, at least you got your slice of the political pie, eh?
At least he's not like Bush who was bad in all areas.

He wasn't bad in all areas. Just many of the ones that counted (economy, foreign relations, education, science) he was poor in. I didn't like the guy but trying to say that he was a complete failure is a stretch. At least he pushed for the do not call list (unrepublican of him I think, but oh well).

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-03-31 18:20:15


At 3/30/09 04:07 PM, ReiperX wrote:
At 3/30/09 02:50 PM, Ericho wrote: At least he's not like Bush who was bad in all areas.
He wasn't bad in all areas. Just many of the ones that counted (economy, foreign relations, education, science) he was poor in. I didn't like the guy but trying to say that he was a complete failure is a stretch.

Well he was certianly bad in more areas than Barrack Obama is, if nothing else.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 09:49:24


No, Net Neutrality doesn't win....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601109&sid=aXx.QVEa9vpM

Those cocksuckers are rejecting the stimulus money. Which sounds like a good thing, less taxpayer money. THEY REJECTED $7.2 BILLION DOLLARS, and they sure as hell didn't do it because they felt like being nice.

I'm really worried what these companies are planning if they reject that amount of money.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 11:13:51


I love it when people support government censorship of the internet telling ISPs they can't block sites they don't like, which effectively gives the government something to look back on in case they themselves decide to block certain websites.

There's no greater monopoly than the Government.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 12:50:22


At 4/2/09 11:13 AM, Memorize wrote: I love it when people support government censorship of the internet telling ISPs they can't block sites they don't like, which effectively gives the government something to look back on in case they themselves decide to block certain websites.

There's no greater monopoly than the Government.

So you are saying that ISPs should be able to censor what they want?

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 13:37:46


At 4/2/09 12:50 PM, ReiperX wrote:
At 4/2/09 11:13 AM, Memorize wrote: I love it when people support government censorship of the internet telling ISPs they can't block sites they don't like, which effectively gives the government something to look back on in case they themselves decide to block certain websites.

There's no greater monopoly than the Government.
So you are saying that ISPs should be able to censor what they want?

Would you rather have 1 ISP censoring the internet or the government censoring the internet?

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 16:00:53


At 4/2/09 01:37 PM, Memorize wrote:
At 4/2/09 12:50 PM, ReiperX wrote:
At 4/2/09 11:13 AM, Memorize wrote: I love it when people support government censorship of the internet telling ISPs they can't block sites they don't like, which effectively gives the government something to look back on in case they themselves decide to block certain websites.

There's no greater monopoly than the Government.
So you are saying that ISPs should be able to censor what they want?
Would you rather have 1 ISP censoring the internet or the government censoring the internet?

I don't see the government censoring anything. And I don't think that there will be many politicians willing to back something doing censorship, so it's not something I'm worried about at all.

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 16:05:35


At 4/2/09 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote: I don't see the government censoring anything. And I don't think that there will be many politicians willing to back something doing censorship, so it's not something I'm worried about at all.

The trouble with censoring the Internet is that it's so massive and has many private functions, it would simply be too difficult to put a great overlying term of censorship to the entire Internet, which is why we live in a free company.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-04-02 18:23:56


At 4/2/09 12:50 PM, ReiperX wrote: So you are saying that ISPs should be able to censor what they want?

I think its a rather stupid opinion if you honestly believe any big ISP was ever about to censor any website. Of course, thats what was complained about in the media so people bought it.

Why would any sensible cable provider EVER want to censor a website? They just want to piss off customers because it gives them the jollies? They just want to push customers away?

Another reason this argument is bunk: when has any ISP censored anyting yet? When has any ISP ever made any hints they wanted to censor a website? Is it to much to ask to deal with any possible censorship when it comes around?

Why isnt evaluation on a case by case basis easier to deal with than some overarching law that will likely do more harm than good?

Response to Yay net neutrality wins! 2009-05-05 04:04:23


At 3/27/09 08:20 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:
At 3/27/09 01:45 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: whew...
... (stuped weird ass photo of yourself)(uncanny)

you really need to click on those links. deciphering legislation is not that easy boyo.

At 3/29/09 01:25 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Yall are so easily suckered in. The government starts its inexorable entrance into regulating the internet and you welcome it?

how are they regulating the internet in the context of this stimulus money i ask you?


Net neutrality, what a farcical name. I guess the not so fair Fairness Doctrine is next.

2. In section 230(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),
Congress describes its national Internet policy. Specifically, Congress states that it is the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet"6 and "to promote the continued development of the Internet."7 In section 706(a) of the Act, Congress charges the Commission with "encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability" - broadband - "to all Americans."

At 3/30/09 03:09 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
At 3/30/09 02:50 PM, Ericho wrote: Does this mean that we don't have to worry about having videos from YouTube taken down because of copyright problems?

Youtube is an american company that must abide by american copyright "laws"


I know that couldn't be true, but is that in any way related to net nuetrality?
No, I don't think so. What you don't have to worry about though, is internet becoming like cable TV - you pay for a certain amount of websites and get no access to any others. What you don't have to worry about is your internet providers acting like the chinese government, blocking sites they don't like.

so no worries...?

Yes, this is the government regulating internet. It's the government prohibiting companies from freely regulating it.

section 230(b) of the Communications Act of 1934
o encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers.

Anyone saying that this is bad because government shouldn't have this kind of power, is clearly in favor of companies controlling our lives instead of an at least semi-democratic government.
At 4/2/09 09:49 AM, kelmaster1 wrote: No, Net Neutrality doesn't win....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601109&sid=aXx.QVEa9vpM

Those cocksuckers are rejecting the stimulus money. Which sounds like a good thing, less taxpayer money. THEY REJECTED $7.2 BILLION DOLLARS, and they sure as hell didn't do it because they felt like being nice.

I'm really worried what these companies are planning if they reject that amount of money.

They didn't need to reject that money, it was withdrawn from the stimulus bill! And the money was never just a gift to those bigass companies, they would eventually have to pay it back. The companies simply ran the numbers and given that the population density of these little backwater towns would likely be a greater cost then possibuility for turning a profit they opted to posture against the money

Cuellar (TX) #51(WITHDRAWN)
- Would increase funding levels for broadband by $3 billion, which would provide the National Telecommunications and Information Administration additional funding to provide broadband for rural communities.

u2022 Extending Broadband Services
o Provides $7.2 billion for extending broadband services to underserved
communities across the country, so that rural and inner-city businesses can
compete with any company in the world.
o For every dollar invested in broadband, the economy sees a ten-fold return on that
investment.

At 4/2/09 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote:
At 4/2/09 01:37 PM, Memorize wrote:
At 4/2/09 12:50 PM, ReiperX wrote:
At 4/2/09 11:13 AM, Memorize wrote: I love it when people support government censorship of the internet telling ISPs they can't block sites they don't like, which effectively gives the government something to look back on in case they themselves decide to block certain websites.

Its a function of societal control. within any given organization of people there in lies a fringe minority that is incapable of existing within the parameters of mainstream culture.

should snuff films be allowed on the internet?


There's no greater monopoly than the Government.

good quote.

So you are saying that ISPs should be able to censor what they want?
Would you rather have 1 ISP censoring the internet or the government censoring the internet?

.gov

I don't see the government censoring anything. And I don't think that there will be many politicians willing to back something doing censorship, so it's not something I'm worried about at all.

look harder. It is definitely not an open range field, there are, in fact, fences.

At 4/2/09 06:23 PM, Demosthenez wrote:
At 4/2/09 12:50 PM, ReiperX wrote: So you are saying that ISPs should be able to censor what they want?

They cant its illegal...
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice.
%u2022 To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
%u2022 To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
do not harm the network.13
%u2022 To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers.14

I think its a rather stupid opinion if you honestly believe any big ISP was ever about to censor any website. Of course, thats what was complained about in the media so people bought it.

Law enforcement, representing the commonwealth of the state, can

Why would any sensible cable provider EVER want to censor a website? They just want to piss off customers because it gives them the jollies? They just want to push customers away?

illegal...

Another reason this argument is bunk: when has any ISP censored anyting yet? When has any ISP ever made any hints they wanted to censor a website? Is it to much to ask to deal with any possible censorship when it comes around?

Why isnt evaluation on a case by case basis easier to deal with than some overarching law that will likely do more harm than good?

the law is in the jurisdiction of the state law enforcement under the obligation of duties set in the bill of rights.

whew....

Yay net neutrality wins!