Seems similar to one I got a few years ago:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^marbles:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.

bah. How about this from the EFF:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to close loopholes in its proposed regulations for network neutrality -- loopholes that could let the entertainment industry and law enforcement hinder free speech and innovation.

What your really saying is people don't have rights to restrict their property. I would like to use your house for my parties from now on then. Once again, you don't have a right to the internet just like you don't have a right to the New York Times. This entire argument is flawed. If people want to restrict access to their pipes, then that is their shallow grave. Consumer retaliation can be strong, devastatingly so. (Just ask Time Warner)

I mean, it isn't like everyone has internet. Go up to some rural mountain areas and you can't get it during the winter at times. And I am not just talking about broadband, I am talking about the internet. Are their first amendment rights being violated? Not being able to consume a product you desire has nothing to do with rights, at all. No one owes you speech, that is something you owe yourself.

I think your heart is in the right place on this, I think your demands are completely unreasonable, and in the end, lead down a path I don't think you desire. Does the FCC create free speech on TV? Or does it take an active role in making sure things aren't said? Same with the radio, are they handing out tickets for people not being expressive enough, or expression something they don't want heard? You really, really, really, don't want governments deciding how content is delivered on the internet...you really don't.

>> ^marbles:

https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.


bah. How about this from the EFF:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to close loopholes in its proposed regulations for network neutrality -- loopholes that could let the entertainment industry and law enforcement hinder free speech and innovation.

Fucking Comcast. I swear, my dream is to organize a group of people so large that when they all cancel their Comcast subscriptions on the same day, the complany is finally forced to admit they are assholes and start giving us what we want.

Oh, and fuck the FCC.

Polio
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What makes the CRTC any different from the FCC? Net Neutrality.

What's the FCC rules on Net Neutrality? In Canada throttling is legal, for now, as long as the provider documents that they throttle.

http://internet.bell.ca/index.cfm?method=content.view&content_id=12119%3E

I think I'm actually going to attend this rally on Saturday: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=174967459212532

What makes the CRTC any different from the FCC? Net Neutrality.

I've been waiting to post my thoughts on all this. I'll be candid, and that might reveal horrible views, but here goes...

When I heard someone in the government was shot, my first reaction was to feel bad. But that VERY quickly turned to, "it's about time, fuck them."

And then I read about who it was and what she was doing, and I realized are you fucking kidding me, one of the good people was shot? Wow... just wow.

The way I understand it, the right to bear arms is in the constitution explicitly in the event that the people need to overthrow the government. I learned this because when I was younger, I held firmly the belief that guns are bad and we should get rid of them, someone explained to me why the constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms, and my naivete washed away. Sadly, it made sense.

So whatever, shrug. I don't have the will to further articulate the fact that violence is the only thing that can always guarantee freedom.

The liars with no balls on t.v. and the radio and elsewhere condemning violence in politics while lining their pockets with the gold of the people while washing their hands of the blood of the people can suck a dick.

Two things in the past year that have made me realize the government is no longer representing the people: No limit on corporate donations, and FCC rulings on the internet.

This was probably simply a preemptive strike by the right. Because now the left can't enforce real change without "stooping to their level." Maybe a psyche out. Hehe, they use dirty tricks like that.

Last thing, look up a picture of Gabrielle Giffords, a nice face shot and tell me if you see the kindness in her face and eyes. Then look up a picture of palin, or watch the above video, and, though she's trying real hard, tel me if you see the fucking evil.

FCC has done a bang-up job with everything else they've rubbed their grubby paws on, how can we lose?

>> ^charliem:


These net-neutrality pundits seem to be making out that the big companies want to abuse the way that QOS is assigned....ie. identifying streams from providers that pay a premium and giving them a higher priority, irrespective of the traffic class.
Is this whats actually happening?

No, but that's because the internet has always had Net Neutrality regulation up to this point, through FCC fiat.

Net Neutrality advocates want new legislation that enshrines the de facto FCC policy in law, so that it's not subject to the whims of whoever is FCC chair (or put another way, so that Internet regulation isn't dependent on the honesty of the occupant of the White House).

As for whether the companies would do the things the Net Neutrality activists say they would, the telecom companies are openly saying they need to do things like bandwidth metering, and selling prioritized traffic rights because otherwise they simply won't be able to afford expanding their networks to meet demand.

>> ^charliem:


If thats the case, then the only regulation that needs to be passed is one that enforces the correct application of QOS categorization...ensuring that Voice gets Voice level QOS tagging, video gets video tagging, generic content gets no real priority, and network management protocols get highest (routing / switching protocols).
I dont see how they could make that political at all....present it to congress in that way, and enforce correct prioritization as law. No problem.


Thinking as a technical guy, I agree, that would be ideal. The problem is, who decides what "correct" application of QoS is? The FCC? A standards board dominated by representatives of the telecommunications committees? The network providers themselves?

There's also a problem with enforcement. That doesn't go away under pure neutrality, but at least then you're just testing to see if the service providers are doing any traffic shaping, rather than having to get into the nitty gritty of the specific shaping logic, and then trying to discern whether the intent of each rule was noble (traffic optimization) or criminal (anti-competitive business practice, or an attempt to limit free speech).

Smart companies could and would easily muddy the waters in the second system. (e.g. We're not limiting bandwidth to Netflix because we have a business agreement with Hulu, it's because Netflix is a huge resource hog that's causing slowdowns for our other customers...).

BTW, the air waves ARE open by default. It is the FCC that makes them closed, and we want them to handle the internet next, that's going to work well.

>> ^Yogi:

Very Sexy but I would've preferred a bit more dancing on a dance show and a little less everything that they did to try and look a racy as possible.


You know how I know you're gay....

Apparently, the show and channel got in a lot of trouble with Argentina's version of the FCC.

>> ^RadHazG:

Ah the FCC. Keeping everyone safe from those dirty dirty harmful words. Without them, surely we would all be robbing, looting, and killing everything in sight.
Also: we all know the "real" words. Everyone does, without exception (because if everyone didn't, bleeping them would be pointless). So every time anyone see's this stuff, they hear "monday to friday!" their brain translates "fucking!". So in reality the FCC is even more pointless than its already pointless (and in my opinion unconstitutional) existence.


There's definitely good reason to have the public have some control over the quality of content on the public airwaves. There's a very finite amount of bandwidth that we, ahem, rent to companies and if we just let it go completely free market, it'd all be pornography.

Of course what the FCC does in practice is ridiculous. I wish they'd pay more attention to content before the watershed and less attention to four letter words. When I lived in Los Angeles, you could see four women and one man in a hot tub making out and suggesting the things they'd do later on Elimidate right when kids got home from school. No 'F' words, but I'd really hate my kids watching that every day.

>> ^RadHazG:

Ah the FCC. Keeping everyone safe from those dirty dirty harmful words. Without them, surely we would all be robbing, looting, and killing everything in sight.
Also: we all know the "real" words. Everyone does, without exception (because if everyone didn't, bleeping them would be pointless). So every time anyone see's this stuff, they hear "monday to friday!" their brain translates "fucking!". So in reality the FCC is even more pointless than its already pointless (and in my opinion unconstitutional) existence.


Those Monkey Fighters!!! What a bunch of sloppy.