Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    915
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 355 Times in 269 Posts

    U.S. court rules against the FCC on NN "Net Neutrality"

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558...ence-security/

    This will be closely watched. We need to improve our standards of the web and it's foundations first, instead of trying to control it more and package it for more profit.


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to brokencow For This Useful Post:


  4. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,426
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 850 Posts
    Shit shit shit shit. God damn supreme court. Left and right. They've all been bought. I really don't think there's anything that can stop any politician or judge from having a price tag. All I can say is fuck Ayne Rhand!

  5. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central London
    Posts
    1,545
    Thanks
    2,033
    Thanked 797 Times in 624 Posts
    I hope this won't be swept under the rug
    VatselArt@Gmail.com

    Vatsel.com

    Facebook page . Twitter



  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Next to Black Pyramid
    Posts
    865
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 84 Times in 46 Posts
    Hmmm note to self..... dont use comcast. Well as the last bit of freedom people have is slowly being eroded away by lawyers I hope that people dont just ignore this and hope that it works out for the best, because it wont.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 674 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    Shit shit shit shit. God damn supreme court. Left and right. They've all been bought. I really don't think there's anything that can stop any politician or judge from having a price tag. All I can say is fuck Ayne Rhand!
    First: That was not the Supreme Court, it was the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I wish you wouldn't damn the Supreme Court, but at least have enough respect to damn them for things they actually did.

    Second: I serve (for free) on a regular basis as a judge pro tem. I did it today. I haven't been bought and nobody has even tried in over a year (which is how long I have been on that panel). I'm deeply offended by the price tag comment. Not exactly thrilled about the bagging on lawyers either (Blahm). Abundant lawyers argued in that case on each side. Therefore lawyers were arguing in favor of net neutrality and it is hyperbole to blame lawyers for the perceived evils of society.

    Third: You misspelled Ayn Rand. Not only is she not on either of the courts under discussion, she never was. She's dead. She was dead before there was an internet. What on Earth could she have possibly had to do with this court ruling?
    Last edited by arttorney; April 6th, 2010 at 06:22 PM.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,426
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 850 Posts
    Okay Attorney you got me. I don't know enough about this case to throw down a serious argument. The reason why I damned Ayn Rand is because her philosophy encourages these kinds of rulings. Many judges such as Antonin Scalia (excuse me for potential misspellings) have used her philosophy to justify selling democracy to the highest bidder.

    I didn't mean to impugn your profession. But you have admit you would get allot further if you wanted to play dirty. Not to say all lawyers and judges or even politicians do. The low road is usually the easy and financially lucrative road. I could be wrong.

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 428 Times in 168 Posts
    Well I'm no lawyer but doesn't this now set a precedent that all other court rulings will defer too?

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 674 Posts
    The Supreme Court is above this appellate court, and may now pick this matter up for review. We shall see. The trial level courts in D.C. may be bound by this precedent unless the appellate court said otherwise in the opinion. The trial level courts in other jurisdictions are not bound to follow this.

    There are abuses. Hard core lobbying of the legislature is of great concern to me even if it is not a direct payoff. Therefore I understand your feelings, Raoul, and was mainly stung by the delivery. I have a close friend who is a judge and I know how hard she works to try to do the right thing. It's not an easy job. I shouldn't be so touchy perhaps.
    Last edited by arttorney; April 6th, 2010 at 07:22 PM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  13. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,426
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 850 Posts
    that's okay attorney. Sometimes I forget about honest people like you. And some times throw wild references out with no regard as to weather they make sense or not.

  14. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,047
    Thanks
    644
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 408 Posts
    I think someone is completely misunderstanding Ayn Rand. Or, i'm completely misunderstanding your post..

  15. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Everett, Washington
    Posts
    1,211
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 652 Times in 410 Posts
    Why the heck would you want the FFC doing anything, everyone should know that the government messes everything up. And it would just be another step to government controlled internet. Plus the companies provide it they should have the ability to do as they please with the high speed internet etc.
    The Penvirates:: Xeon_OND :: PermaN00b:: Kamber Parrk :: Cygear ::Diarum

    "Life itself is your teacher, and you are in a state of constant learning." -Bruce Lee


  16. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,426
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 850 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Diarum View Post
    Why the heck would you want the FFC doing anything, everyone should know that the government messes everything up. And it would just be another step to government controlled internet. Plus the companies provide it they should have the ability to do as they please with the high speed internet etc.
    You'd probably like Ayn Rand and paying too much for dial up.

  17. #13
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,047
    Thanks
    644
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 408 Posts
    Haha, if Ayn Rand had her way you wouldn't be paying too much for dialup, since there would be someone offering a better service at a better cost, thus putting the overpriced dialup providers out of business.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Slash For This Useful Post:


  19. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    SPACE, MUTHAFLIPPER
    Posts
    1,497
    Thanks
    2,744
    Thanked 1,045 Times in 379 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    And some times throw wild references...
    Agreed. He does this often. Just sayin'. : P


    Anyway, since this is just one case, maybe something better will come up. Thanks for sharing the article. n_n

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,426
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 850 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Slash View Post
    Haha, if Ayn Rand had her way you wouldn't be paying too much for dialup, since there would be someone offering a better service at a better cost, thus putting the overpriced dialup providers out of business.
    Are you saying the market would regulate its self?
    U.S. court rules against the FCC on NN "Net Neutrality"

  21. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,066 Posts
    If Ayn Rand had her way one would provide his own internet service because only lazy parasites take internet hand-outs from other people.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  22. #17
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,047
    Thanks
    644
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 408 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    Are you saying the market would regulate its self?
    U.S. court rules against the FCC on NN "Net Neutrality"
    Yes.

    People's bad habits of spending more money than they have doesn't really have anything to do with the issue.

    If someone offered you dialup for 1000 dollars a month, and someone else offered you dsl for 50 dollars a month, which one would you choose? And if there was a way to offer dsl cheaper than your competitors and still make a profit, you could be damn sure someone would.


    //edit: Buck: lol!

  23. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 759 Times in 157 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Diarum View Post
    Why the heck would you want the FFC doing anything, everyone should know that the government messes everything up. And it would just be another step to government controlled internet. Plus the companies provide it they should have the ability to do as they please with the high speed internet etc.
    Even if it means charging people extra to be able to access websites like concept art, or even blocking it if they don't like pictures of tits/guns/vikings?

  24. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 674 Posts
    As bland as this may be, net neutrality is not about content. It is about bandwidth. Shall the superior competitors for attention (:cough:google:cough) be able to use the needed bandwidth to serve their myriad customers, or shall we subject them to FCC regulation forcing them to make do with a regulated amount of bandwidth? Lest somebody talk smack about Google: Slash is right. Make something better, take their business away, get a lot of money, get a supermodel. No competition=no upward mobility=why bother then?
    Last edited by arttorney; April 6th, 2010 at 10:48 PM.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  26. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 428 Times in 168 Posts
    I have to disagree, bandwidth equates to content. If you let ISPs choose what packets your allowed to transmit over their network then you are by definition filtering/blocking content.

  27. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 674 Posts
    Are you saying ordinary mortals are not allowed to become ISPs in their own right? (careful friend, loaded question)

  28. #22
    Ilaekae's Avatar
    Ilaekae is offline P.O.W.! Leader, Complete Idiot, Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,129
    Thanks
    8,241
    Thanked 5,581 Times in 1,789 Posts
    ISP stands for Insanely Stupid Pissants where I come from...what does that have to do with ordina...oh...



    ...nevermind...
    No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary

    Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary

  29. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ilaekae For This Useful Post:


  30. #23
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,047
    Thanks
    644
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 408 Posts
    Anyone who's been on the phone with their ISP knows that thats quite fitting Ilækæ!

  31. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 674 Posts
    LOL, but it'sa living. Google Theybannedme.com + godaddy for a laugh. I was just checking up on those guys yesterday. Raoul is right about taking the low road. The question is, who got the lowest road?

  32. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 89 Times in 31 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    Are you saying the market would regulate its self?
    U.S. court rules against the FCC on NN "Net Neutrality"
    Yes it would. - The problem is that all these big telecoms have received special treatment from the government through laws and tax breaks thus creating an unfair playing field.

    Rand was all for laissez faire capitalism, but in order for it to work governments can't let a few big companies run everything (ie telecoms, state insurance companies etc). That's a big part of how these crappy monopolies develop. As the company gains in power and size their influence in governments grows which gives them more special perks so the whole thing is a vicious cycle.

    Once you give giant company X an unfair financial/legal advantage you wind up with situations like not being able to choose from a variety of cable companies who give you the service you prefer.

    I think Google is going to implement a super-high speed ISP service in select areas in the next year or two - hopefully it will catch on because they will never cap you - they WANT you to be using the net 24/7. Assuredly the other telecoms will be lobbying states to outlaw/limit it - which is where we get back to government interference again.

    The best thing customers can do is vote with their wallets when possible and write to their congressman.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to DamnDirtyApe For This Useful Post:


  34. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,426
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 850 Posts
    I wouldn't have a problem if lets say Comcast were providing a new service, like a commercial free Hulu exclusively for their customers, but going out of the way to withhold service is just so crazy it might just work. It's the kind of problem that creeps up until it's too late. Just like so many hopeless issues I could list.

  35. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 428 Times in 168 Posts
    ISPs are more then just company's floating in the ether, they own/build/maintain real infrastructure. I know google wants to dip its toe in to the fiber optic game but that's like 10-20 years down the road to become anything tangible.

  36. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 89 Times in 31 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadlyFreeze View Post
    ISPs are more then just company's floating in the ether, they own/build/maintain real infrastructure. I know google wants to dip its toe in to the fiber optic game but that's like 10-20 years down the road to become anything tangible.
    No I think they are going to employ unused existing fiber in current networks. The pipelines can accommodate much more traffic than in current use.

    At least that's how Leo Laporte and the guys at TWIT described it. Not sure how fast it will be, but I'm sure plenty fast compared to current providers with no bandwidth caps.

  37. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 674 Posts
    Good answer, Deadly Freeze. It is hard work making money the old fashioned way and often requires investment in some serious infrastructure and know how. If service is down all the time because the server can't handle the traffic or the system Administrator is incompetent then that business is an IDP (Internet Disservice Provider). They won't need regulation because they will go out of business.

  38. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    194
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 309 Times in 57 Posts
    Could someone explain what this all means? I'm kinda confused :?
    21 years old, good with drawing, but new to painting

    Artstation


    Older Work
    2013 2011 2007

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FAQ n "rules" for DSG
    By davi in forum DAILY SKETCH GROUP
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: July 25th, 2015, 06:50 PM
  2. "Black Swan" Court Ruling on Unpaid Internships
    By Pixie Trick in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 15th, 2013, 10:42 PM
  3. SketchBook: Art_Addict :: """"""""""""" PRAHA DROP """"""""""""
    By Art_Addict in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 03:43 PM
  4. 3 Shorts : "Open" "Grow" "Robot Ali"
    By kingsley in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 12th, 2007, 05:18 PM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 03:23 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.