Thread: Court rejects restrictions on Internet

funk net nut ... the courts slamed the door on them asses

This is a tough call. Quite frankly, I wish Verizon could dominate the market, because they have showed others how to do shit. They have the best phone network, the best broadband system, and the best wireless broadband network.

Comcast needs to suck a dick, because the so called bandwidth hogs are the very reason we have all this nice shit. I don't mind paying more to get more and that attitude has lead to the massive expansion of the internetwork infrastructure. This one size fits all bullshit where comcast gets to decide what transmission protocols are acceptable and how bandwidth utilization is acceptable needs to be stomped out.

'Supporters of Net Neutrality counter that clear rules are needed to ensure that the Internet isn't divided into haves and have-nots. They worry operators will favor some customers or applications over others, with fast lanes for those willing to pay more and slower lanes for those who pay less.

"This cannot be an acceptable outcome for the American public and requires immediately FCC action to reestablish legal authority," said S. Derek Turner of Free Press, a liberal-leaning group that promotes media reform. '


Yeah, who would think that people willing to pay for nicer things should have nicer things. I think that everyone is entitled to the same things. In fact, I think that we need to make sure that car manufacturers start producing identical cars so that it doesn't turn into the haves and have nots. It would not be acceptable for the american people to have those who are willing to pay for wood grain interiors to have them, while those who cannot or will not pay do not.

Fucking GAH! I am so sick of this entitlement bullshit! IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SPEND MORE YOU GET MORE. PERIOD.

I just hope Google decides to pick Honolulu as their testing ground for Google Fiber...
Google Fiber for Communities: Project Overview

1gbps fiber network, man I'd jump on that ride in a flash, I've already written my community response letter on how Waikiki with all the hotels using it would be a great test of worldwide usage since we have people from all over checking their email and foreign websites, plus Hawaii being out in the middle of nowhere we have to access servers thousands of miles away no matter what. Not to mention we have the largest per capita usage of the internet, I can only think of 2 people I know who don't have internet access Asians love their tech stuff...even the old ones...

Originally Posted by maniclion

I just hope Google decides to pick Honolulu as their testing ground for Google Fiber...
Google Fiber for Communities: Project Overview

1gbps fiber network, man I'd jump on that ride in a flash, I've already written my community response letter on how Waikiki with all the hotels using it would be a great test of worldwide usage since we have people from all over checking their email and foreign websites, plus Hawaii being out in the middle of nowhere we have to access servers thousands of miles away no matter what. Not to mention we have the largest per capita usage of the internet, I can only think of 2 people I know who don't have internet access Asians love their tech stuff...even the old ones...

We support hospitals in Hawaii, and I have always wondered what the main transmission medium is that you guys use.

Originally Posted by jmorrison

'Supporters of Net Neutrality counter that clear rules are needed to ensure that the Internet isn't divided into haves and have-nots. They worry operators will favor some customers or applications over others, with fast lanes for those willing to pay more and slower lanes for those who pay less.

"This cannot be an acceptable outcome for the American public and requires immediately FCC action to reestablish legal authority," said S. Derek Turner of Free Press, a liberal-leaning group that promotes media reform. '


Yeah, who would think that people willing to pay for nicer things should have nicer things. I think that everyone is entitled to the same things. In fact, I think that we need to make sure that car manufacturers start producing identical cars so that it doesn't turn into the haves and have nots. It would not be acceptable for the american people to have those who are willing to pay for wood grain interiors to have them, while those who cannot or will not pay do not.

Fucking GAH! I am so sick of this entitlement bullshit! IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SPEND MORE YOU GET MORE. PERIOD.

I'm not quite sure you understand the point of net neutrality. Here's a hint: home broadband is only a very little portion of what concerns people.

Because of the Internet, Americans (and people of the world) have more access to information.

Yes, governments, want to restrict, regulate, and control the Internet.

Originally Posted by danzik17

I'm not quite sure you understand the point of net neutrality. Here's a hint: home broadband is only a very little portion of what concerns people.

They are specifically stating that this is due to peer to peer file sharing and bandwidth issues. If you pay more you should be able to receive more. Its not one size fits all.

I also understand that allowing the government to get their fingers into regulating the internet is just another step down the slippery slope of losing civil liberties "for the betterment of society".

Originally Posted by jmorrison

I also understand that allowing the government to get their fingers into regulating the internet is just another step down the slippery slope of losing civil liberties "for the betterment of society".

Damn straight.

Originally Posted by jmorrison

They are specifically stating that this is due to peer to peer file sharing and bandwidth issues. If you pay more you should be able to receive more. Its not one size fits all.

I also understand that allowing the government to get their fingers into regulating the internet is just another step down the slippery slope of losing civil liberties "for the betterment of society".

They're also specifically stating that it affects both customers and more importantly, applications. The internet is the great equalizer because any schmuck can open up shop, churn out an awesome product, become the next Google.

What happens when all of the sudden you are required to pay X amount of dollars per month for "Tier 1" service? Meaning that your service is prioritized versus a company that can't afford it? You wouldn't have a facebook, you wouldn't have a YouTube, you wouldn't have a twitter. Who is going to access YouTube that runs on Tier 3 when you have News Corp with Tier 1 and much faster/smoother access even if YouTube is the more innovative product? Obviously that's a bogus example since Google owns YouTube, but it gets my point across I think.

I'm all for heavy usage customers to pay a bit more, I'm concerned about what happens if we don't regulate them at all.

fuck comcast.. bastards..

Originally Posted by danzik17

I'm not quite sure you understand the point of net neutrality. Here's a hint: home broadband is only a very little portion of what concerns people.

the point is they want to control it..then u will be pating for people that are in areas that don't have access to it ..funding it controling it they want everone to have the same speed access if you pay more for it you can pay for others who have dial up..

It works like this. The physical transmission mediums are like pipes. Those mediums consist of massive fiber optic cables, telephone lines, cable TV co-ax cables, satellite systems, ect. Comcast owns some of the pipes. The content that you download and upload is analogous to what kinds of stuff you push down the pipe. Comcast wants to decide what is allowed to travel down their pipes and what isn't. Comcast was trying to block the ports for services such as Vonage, which is home telephone service via internet. They would usually do this to any area that they rolled out their new digital voice package to piss off Vonage customers and try to make them switch to Comcast digital voice. That is only one example. Had they been allowed to continue, they would have blocked or throttled any competitor who sold a product that competed with any of their products.

Think of like roads. It would be like Alabama running a opening a new theme park, but then Mississippi opens a theme park, too. Alabama decides that no one going to the the Mississippi theme park is allowed to drive through Alabama to get there. That sounds ridiculous right?


This is very very bad. The FCC did a good job of making sure Comcast didn't selectively kill off specific protocols while at the same time issuing as minimal restriction on freedom of use. Now this court decision could open the door to all sorts of stupid fucking regulation that would destroy what is good about the internet.

Now the government will take this chance to jump in and try to regulate the internet. It is a double edge sword. Either you let companies try to monopolize by packet shaping what travels through their pipes, or you let the government regulate it. Either way, we get fucked.

I liked the arrangement the FCC imposed. It was minimal and effective. Now, who knows what the fuck is going to happen.

Originally Posted by KelJu

We support hospitals in Hawaii, and I have always wondered what the main transmission medium is that you guys use.

Hawai‘i has high data rate links with more than 30 state-of-the-art telecommunications satellites. 29,000 miles of undersea fiber optic cables provide 140,000 voice equivalent circuits facilitating simultaneous voice, data and image transmissions to the continental United States, Canada and Asia along with a new "supercarrier" cable providing an additional 130,000 circuits. Thirty dedicated T-1s link to every major business center in Asia and Europe. In 1998, 100% of local telephone lines were converted from analog to digital switching. In 2001, a new transpacific cable linking Australia to the U.S. mainland via Hawai‘i has provided increased bandwidth to the islands.

We are ranked 47 in slowest network speeds....I really hope Google chooses us...

Originally Posted by KelJu

It works like this. The physical transmission mediums are like pipes. Those mediums consist of massive fiber optic cables, telephone lines, cable TV co-ax cables, satellite systems, ect. Comcast owns some of the pipes. The content that you download and upload is analogous to what kinds of stuff you push down the pipe. Comcast wants to decide what is allowed to travel down their pipes and what isn't. Comcast was trying to block the ports for services such as Vonage, which is home telephone service via internet. They would usually do this to any area that they rolled out their new digital voice package to piss off Vonage customers and try to make them switch to Comcast digital voice. That is only one example. Had they been allowed to continue, they would have blocked or throttled any competitor who sold a product that competed with any of their products.

Think of like roads. It would be like Alabama running a opening a new theme park, but then Mississippi opens a theme park, too. Alabama decides that no one going to the the Mississippi theme park is allowed to drive through Alabama to get there. That sounds ridiculous right?


This is very very bad. The FCC did a good job of making sure Comcast didn't selectively kill off specific protocols while at the same time issuing as minimal restriction on freedom of use. Now this court decision could open the door to all sorts of stupid fucking regulation that would destroy what is good about the internet.

Now the government will take this chance to jump in and try to regulate the internet. It is a double edge sword. Either you let companies try to monopolize by packet shaping what travels through their pipes, or you let the government regulate it. Either way, we get fucked.

I liked the arrangement the FCC imposed. It was minimal and effective. Now, who knows what the fuck is going to happen.

Good way of illustrating it. +1

It's good they "rejected" this IMO.

Certainly not an expert, but this is a slippery slope.

Yes, GOVERNMENTS WILL WANT TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVE.

Originally Posted by jmorrison

They are specifically stating that this is due to peer to peer file sharing and bandwidth issues. If you pay more you should be able to receive more. Its not one size fits all.

I also understand that allowing the government to get their fingers into regulating the internet is just another step down the slippery slope of losing civil liberties "for the betterment of society".

For your safety and convenience, sir.