Is Internet Regulation Coming?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, May 10, 2009.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    CNET News has an interesting piece about Congressional efforts to regulate Peer to Peer applications. Those here among the "geek squad" types can probably better explain how this all works but in reading the CNET article it appears to the (this) "non-geek type" that interent regulation could well be in the forecast.

    When the Fariness Doctrine got it's spin during the 2008' National Beauty Contest, hint of also internet regulation along the same "fairness doctrine" lines were leaked out thanks to actions from folks like Henry Waxman. There is also this but a Google search will produce more. At the time, the response was denial of course and it appeared gov't had pulled in it's claws but the leading allegation was that the effort was not going to be called by the name, fairness doctrine. It appeared to be an end run.

    One has to ask are the claws back out and the forces that be have broken the huddle and lining up for a gadget play?

    It would be easy to see this as purely a democrat party deal but IMO it's only that case because the way the stars align. Were conditions in reverse, I've no doubt that the Statist Red Staters would also be doing the same. I'm also not convinced that deep inside, many red staters are hoping the door of truth stays shut so they can vote yes themselves to regulate. The last thing they want is for bloggers and other to report to the masses as to what they really do in Babylon by the Potomac!

  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  3. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Rumor has it the government is going to charge us by the word. :happy-very:
  4. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    wkmac will bear the brunt of the 'per word' internet tax. I may have a lot of posts, but my posts don't average 9,000 words per. :wink2::surprised:
  5. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    You got something against Socialists?
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    depends on how attractive she is.:happy-very:
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I'll take you up on that More and I'll bet you my worthless US Dollars to your homemade donuts that on your various cooking threads, you got me beat. Your "What's Baking" thread, 40 pages almost all your posts. "What's Cookin" thread, 69 pages and again almost all are your posts. "Good Quotes Part Duex", a mind numbing 111 pages of almost all Moreluck. And that was just on the first page of the "Life After Brown" and I got scared to look any deeper.


    Did you never learn about rocks and glass houses?

    But I guess when you got nothing in ya bucket (no emails either) to take issue with the points made, you can always make light of the sheer number of them!

  8. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member


    You're welcome! :happy2:
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Back at ya Love!
  10. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  11. BrownArmy

    BrownArmy Well-Known Member

    Do you understand that Obama doesn't want 'Internet Regulation' ?

    Do you want 'Internet Regulation' ?

    If Obama wanted 'Internet Regulation', would you oppose it?

    If I told you Obama wanted to 'regulate' the 'internet', and I told you that the 'government' didn't want to 'regulate' the 'internet', what would you think?

    If I told you that was backwards, what would you think?

    If I told you 'internet regulation' meant that browncafe would load significantly slower than, for no other purpose than the fact that pays more to the new cable-company consortium that 'regulates' the internet, would you be OK with that?

    What if I told you that Obama thinks the internet should be like electricity...i.e. it comes into our houses, and no one can tell us what we choose to do with it?

    You tell me what you think 'net neutrality' means, and do it without a cartoon, if you can.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Well Obama not unlike most all politicians have a nasty habit of saying one thing only for the opposite in action to occur.
  13. BrownArmy

    BrownArmy Well-Known Member

    It is interesting that Obama has chosen to weigh in on Net Neutrality at this point in his career, no doubt.

    As far as politicians go, I'm most interested in this phase of Obama's career:

    At this point, our current President has nothing to lose, and now that the midterm elections are over, he has no one to lose it for.

    Since our current President has basically lost everything, now is his chance to tell us what he really thinks, hence his 'guns-blazing' approach on Net Neutrality.

    Whether or not it makes any sort of difference, that's a different story...
  14. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Of course it makes a difference. It makes a huge difference. Keeping something like net neutrality front and center is all he has now and Republicans are now in the awkward position of opposing this and creating a huge.firestorm against themselves or siding with the president and creating a united front against this corporate greed and throttling of speech.
  15. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Net neutrality means that when you hit the ball it can't touch the net or else penalties occur.
    My last school test was 50 years ago. I don't do tests. 'Strutting you smarts" is caveman-like. Do I hear 'the toolman' grunts ?
    Do your own homework, Skippy.

    If you think someone doesn't know something then maybe you should share your intelligence instead of trying to flaunt it and belittle others.
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I guess I just find it hard to accept that Obama will protect us from the devils who want to usurp the internet when his own administration record with surveillance is so horrible. No doubt the Obama apologists will swarm on that point.

    And one claim of net neutrality is to protect us from greedy business interests which is true they themselves have shown a fascistic side as opposed to their free market claims. However, if Obama were protector of the masses from such devils, why has Wall Street and finance capitalism been allowed to run amuck, even getting the too big too fail treatment (a very unfree market approach) and in the rubble of the ruin, where are the prosecutions of the guilty? No doubt on that point I expect the apologists to swarm but more likely taking a crossing of the isle nature.

    Who said opposites don't agree? ;)