Why would I like R.L.?

No one said you would like him. It was said you were trying to take over for him.

I do understand those who believe in a Secular Religion (Ideology) must call The Infidel names and compare this Blasphemer to a chosen 'Devil'.

I place silly 'Believers', Religious and Non-religious, in the same category.

I do understand that you think you don't have an ideology, but anyone whom has an opinion on the way the world should be, or even not be, and presses, expresses, votes, or argues in favor of that opinion, has an ideology.

Back to my original question.

Those promoting these proposed Regulations, having read them of course: Do you agree with ALL?

If not. Which one(s) don't you, and why.

...and this is why I know you're getting your information from bad resources. You don't even know what was proposed, therefore you have no idea which ones are going to be enforce and which ones are not. When I asked you to cite specifics, you, like a child, try to turn it back around on me ("Its YOUR thread").

And like all threads you get into, you ruin them with your off topic rants about ideology (because you still don't think you have one), and about religion or religious-like beliefs, and all the other rhetoric you crap into any thread you can so as to bring the discussion down to your level.

If you cannot contribute intellectually, I will stop responding to your posts and cease giving you the attention you so desperately seek.

Simple question: Exactly what do you ... dislike about the proposal you are championing?

It does not permit ISP's to charge extra to internet trolls, a/k/a people with too much time on their hands who like to ask inane questions to stir the pot. Kind of like Rusty Lintball does on his talk show.

---

Start reading the Entire Proposal.

Just a Government Takeover, via Regulations.

More Consumer costs. Small Independents out-of-business. Lower Speeds possible. Government Control of Speech, More, and More and More.

Please point to specific statements in the proposal. It really sounds like you've read a GOP pre-interpreted version of the proposal. There's no way lower speeds, higher consumer costs, and small independents are going out of business with this proposal.

Net Neutrality? Another Obama-ism, AKA - A Lying Title. He loves that.

You do realize that Obama has only recently thrown his hat into the debate. He made no statements when the original Net Neutrality rules were put in place then shot down by Verizon via a court challenge. This issue has been going on for a few years, but I do note that anything that Obama tags his name to, his detractors immediately find the worse possible angle behind it then say it is all Obama's fault.

I wrote to one of my congressmen about Net Neutrality back in 1999 or so. Yes, I did get a response. So yeah, it's not just another "Obama-ism".

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Please point to specific statements in the proposal. It really sounds like you've read a GOP pre-interpreted version of the proposal. There's no way lower speeds, higher consumer costs, and small independents are going out of business with this proposal.

GOP??? Silly, Ideological, Rant.

Its no longer ironic that you accuse everyone else of ideology and ideological standpoints while refusing to see your own.

GOP Sucks.

Yet you enjoy drinking their swill. Refill on your stein, sir?

Read The Entire Proposed Regulations.

Not the title.

Again, please point to specific clauses or sections that indicate anything what you've claimed.

Wow, Ozz, he most certainly does NOT have your number, does he? Has he called you a lib yet?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Question:

Those FOR the Entire Act -

Anything gives your pause?

If so... What?

Ok, I tried getting you to admit this earlier, but you were just not getting the hint.

They haven't released the entire proposal. The FCC is not suggesting that all regulations under Title II be enforced. So asking people if they are "FOR the Entire Act" is very misleading on your part. No one in favor of Title II Regulation / Net Neutrality is "FOR the Entire Act".

What you should be asking is, from the proposal, is there anything you disagree with or would add? For me, I would add the local loop unbundling section as well. But otherwise, I agree with the entire summary that has been proposed so far.

Again, the FCC has tried to establish Net Neutrality without Title II previously. There's no way this can be described as a gov't power grab. The ISP Cartels have only themselves to blame for this. Verizon should have left well enough alone.

Question:

Those FOR the Entire Act -

Anything gives your pause?

If so... What?

Ok, I tried getting you to admit this earlier, but you were just not getting the hint.

They haven't released the entire proposal. The FCC is not suggesting that all regulations under Title II be enforced. So asking people if they are "FOR the Entire Act" is very misleading on your part. No one in favor of Title II Regulation / Net Neutrality is "FOR the Entire Act".

What you should be asking is, from the proposal, is there anything you disagree with or would add? For me, I would add the local loop unbundling section as well. But otherwise, I agree with the entire summary that has been proposed so far.

Again, the FCC has tried to establish Net Neutrality without Title II previously. There's no way this can be described as a gov't power grab. The ISP Cartels have only themselves to blame for this. Verizon should have left well enough alone.

Therefore...

You were FOR this Act, before knowing The Details?

Please explain.

Clyde, here's an honest answer for you: I have not read it. (Do we have a link to it in this thread or could someone provide it? Yes, I know I can search engine it, but, hey, I'm multi-tasking as it is.)

On principle, Clyde, I believe ... yes, believe for the time being, that it is not a government power grab but rather the result of not doing this would be instead that the big ISPs will be the ones making the grab ... the grab for power and money. So, while I must educate myself on the exact details of the Act, let me ask YOU: do you *not* believe *companies* are sometimes the ones grabbing for power??

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

(Do we have a link to it in this thread or could someone provide it?

We do not have a link and can not provide it because it has not been released and will not be until adopted.

---

Ok, I tried getting you to admit this earlier, but you were just not getting the hint.

They haven't released the entire proposal. The FCC is not suggesting that all regulations under Title II be enforced. So asking people if they are "FOR the Entire Act" is very misleading on your part. No one in favor of Title II Regulation / Net Neutrality is "FOR the Entire Act".

What you should be asking is, from the proposal, is there anything you disagree with or would add? For me, I would add the local loop unbundling section as well. But otherwise, I agree with the entire summary that has been proposed so far.

Again, the FCC has tried to establish Net Neutrality without Title II previously. There's no way this can be described as a gov't power grab. The ISP Cartels have only themselves to blame for this. Verizon should have left well enough alone.

Therefore...

You were FOR this Act, before knowing The Details?

Please explain.

Your reading comprehension fails you. An "Act" is not being proposed. I said I agreed with the entire summary that has been released. I am FOR what is trying to be accomplished, that which was attempted without Title II before.

Clyde, here's an honest answer for you: I have not read it. (Do we have a link to it in this thread or could someone provide it? Yes, I know I can search engine it, but, hey, I'm multi-tasking as it is.)

On principle, Clyde, I believe ... yes, believe for the time being, that it is not a government power grab but rather the result of not doing this would be instead that the big ISPs will be the ones making the grab ... the grab for power and money. So, while I must educate myself on the exact details of the Act, let me ask YOU: do you *not* believe *companies* are sometimes the ones grabbing for power??

Why will you not accept that BOTH are SOB'S?

What does it matter if both are? What does hating both sides accomplish? Will that end ISPs charging both content providers and customers for the same access twice?

Question:

Those FOR the Entire Act -

Anything gives your pause?

If so... What?

Ok, I tried getting you to admit this earlier, but you were just not getting the hint.

They haven't released the entire proposal. The FCC is not suggesting that all regulations under Title II be enforced. So asking people if they are "FOR the Entire Act" is very misleading on your part. No one in favor of Title II Regulation / Net Neutrality is "FOR the Entire Act".

What you should be asking is, from the proposal, is there anything you disagree with or would add? For me, I would add the local loop unbundling section as well. But otherwise, I agree with the entire summary that has been proposed so far.

Again, the FCC has tried to establish Net Neutrality without Title II previously. There's no way this can be described as a gov't power grab. The ISP Cartels have only themselves to blame for this. Verizon should have left well enough alone.

Therefore...

You were FOR this Act, before knowing The Details?

Please explain.

Clyde, here's an honest answer for you: I have not read it. (Do we have a link to it in this thread or could someone provide it? Yes, I know I can search engine it, but, hey, I'm multi-tasking as it is.)

On principle, Clyde, I believe ... yes, believe for the time being, that it is not a government power grab but rather the result of not doing this would be instead that the big ISPs will be the ones making the grab ... the grab for power and money. So, while I must educate myself on the exact details of the Act, let me ask YOU: do you *not* believe *companies* are sometimes the ones grabbing for power??

Why will you not accept that BOTH are SOB'S?

Why do you not, and when will you, accept that I am independent and, despite any leanings I have, I do not subscribe to the idea that our goverment is or has been perfect? Why is it, for so many (and that includes some posting here), that if one does not agree with a person on one point, it is belleved the disagreer must therefore hold an opinion diametrically opposed from the other on all issues? Why is it, besides work and life (such as it is) that some people disappear from here for months? To answer the last question: because there's only so many ways we can explain ourselves and get tired of running over the same old ground.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Why do you not, and when will you, accept that I am independent and, despite any leanings I have, I do not subscribe to the idea that our goverment is or has been perfect? Why is it, for so many (and that includes some posting here), that if one does not agree with a person on one point, it is belleved the disagreer must therefore hold an opinion diametrically opposed from the other on all issues? Why is it, besides work and life (such as it is) that some people disappear from here for months? To answer the last question: because there's only so many ways we can explain ourselves and get tired of running over the same old ground.

I believe in the instant case it is not because they actually believe it, but that by saying it they can evoke bad feelings, and loud shouting posts which somehow they assume validates themselves in some sick twisted manner. Perhaps someone with a medical practice related to the study of personalities can offer a better description. Perhaps, feeling totally isolated and in need of any kind of human interaction, even the most vile kind. An internet addiction?

---

Therefore...

You were FOR this Act, before knowing The Details?

Please explain.

Your reading comprehension fails you. An "Act" is not being proposed. I said I agreed with the entire summary that has been released. I am FOR what is trying to be accomplished, that which was attempted without Title II before.

You are for an Act, because you Like the Title?

You're kidding me. Correct?

Ohferchrissakes. I just told you it isn't an act yet you continue to refer to it as one. Then you completely misrepresent my position by telling me I like it because of the title. Are you doing this on purpose? Are you even trying to have a conversation? Or are you just being contrarian?

I am for the idea of Net Neutrality. If light touch Title II regulation will get it done, then I am for it.

GARY...

Do agree with you, about Long Poster's who WILL NOT answer a Simple Question.

You do realize he was talking about you, right?

GARY...

Do agree with you, about Long Poster's who WILL NOT answer a Simple Question.

You do realize he was talking about you, right?

No he doesn't.

---

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414380/fcc-chair-refuses-testify-congress-ahead-net-neutrality-vote-andrew-johnson

One Liberal - One Conservative.

As the old curse says: 'May you get what you wish for'.

Wheeler rightly turned down testifying. He's not on trial. And the two people asking were both Republicans, and so far it seems to be a party thing for Republicans to be anti-Title II, which means all they were going to do is grill him and try to get him to trip up. There's no need for Wheeler to put himself through that.

There's also no reason to delay tomorrow's vote. There's been plenty of time for public comment, and the public has responding with a resounding "Yes! Do something about it!". The two Republican Commissioners want to delay the vote to give Congress more time to write up a bill preventing the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a communication service.

Net neutrality order could get last-minute change on peering disputes

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission reportedly objects to a portion of the FCC's net neutrality order, potentially paving the way for a last-minute change to preserve the Democratic majority expected to vote in favor of the plan.

According to The Hill's sources, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn objects to part of the order covering the relationship between Internet service providers like Comcast and "edge providers," companies that build websites or deliver content and applications over the Internet. Clyburn apparently shares the legal concerns of Google, advocacy groups such as Free Press and the Open Technology Institute, and even AT&T.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan would classify the relationship between ISPs and edge providers as a common carrier service in order to assert jurisdiction over interconnection or "peering" disputes. But some net neutrality advocates and opponents alike say there isn't a "service" offered to edge providers, that the only service ISPs offer is to Internet users.

Besides potentially weakening the rules by making them more vulnerable to legal challenge, Google further argued that a new classification for the ISP-edge provider relationship could give support to a "sender pays" model in which ISPs could charge content providers to send traffic over the Internet.

Although The Hill report says Clyburn's objection could make it harder for the FCC to regulate interconnection disputes, that isn't necessarily the case. If interconnection disputes harm service to Internet users, as happened when Netflix fought ISPs over interconnection payments, the FCC could take action by virtue of having classified retail Internet service as common carriage, both Google and Free Press argued.

Guess it's a good thing they didn't release the full document with the potential for last minute changes.

Republicans seems to want to ensure that ISPs can continue to double-dip:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/despite-fcc-vote-republicans-in-congress-not-conceding-on-net-neutrality/

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

Republicans are going forward with another hearing this morning with the Communications and Technology subcommittee, titled "The Uncertain Future of the Internet."

"The closer we get to the FCC rubber stamping President Obama's Internet grab, the more disturbing it becomes," subcommittee Chairman Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said in announcing the hearing. "Consumers, innovators, and job creators all stand to lose from this misguided approach. What’s more, this plan sends the wrong signal around the globe that freedom and openness on the Internet are best determined by governments—a far cry from decades of bipartisan commitment to light-touch regulation."

The New York Times reported yesterday that Republicans have "concede[d] to Obama" on net neutrality, but that notion was swiftly put to rest. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) still intends to pass legislation undercutting FCC authority.

...

Thune proposed legislation that imposes net neutrality restrictions to prevent broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic. But the bill would also prevent the FCC from imposing the stricter "Title II" regime that Wheeler proposes, limiting the FCC's ability to regulate Internet providers if it turns out the Republicans' legislation isn't sufficient to protect consumers.

If Wheeler has the votes tomorrow, the FCC will reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, but Thune's bill would undo that, defining broadband as a lightly regulated information service. The bill would also remove FCC powers in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, which Wheeler plans to use to preempt state laws that hinder municipal broadband networks.

"Tomorrow's commission vote does not signal the end of this debate. Rather, it is just the beginning," Upton said in this morning's hearing.

Gotta love the promoted user comment too:

"chronomitch" wrote:

I wish President Obama would just publicly say he was against net neutrality. Then the Republicans wouldn't offer any opposition to the FCC's plans. ;)

As Long As My Bill Continues to go UP UP UP and Service Continues to go Down Down Down, I'll Be A Happy, Smiling Consumer.

Got Throttled?

Got Pinched Pipe?

Got Lame Streamed?

Got Higher Bill?

Got Shat Service?

Got 'it'?

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

As Long As My Bill Continues to go UP UP UP and Service Continues to go Down Down Down, I'll Be A Happy, Smiling Consumer.

Got Throttled?

Got Pinched Pipe?

Got Lame Streamed?

Got Higher Bill?

Got Shat Service?

Got 'it'?

Yep.

ROFL! Now that's humor done right.

As Long As My Bill Continues to go UP UP UP and Service Continues to go Down Down Down, I'll Be A Happy, Smiling Consumer.

Got Throttled?

Got Pinched Pipe?

Got Lame Streamed?

Got Higher Bill?

Got Shat Service?

Got 'it'?

Yep.

ROFL! Now that's humor done right.

Is humor defined by whether a good number of people find it funny?
Because, yeah, I actually found this funny as well.
But, the other post, by someone else, talking about humor? Where is it? Because a whole bunch of people from different walks of life just ain't seeing it, bro'!
Maybe the supposed humor was in what the "last" question was. I didn't answer his question. I answered my own "last" question, as he so often does with questions he asks.
I have simply stated I need to go look up more info and that, in the meantime, I am not for ISPs charging more for the same or more for less service.
What's so difficult to understand about that response, ha ha, hee hee, ho ho? And to take it for, that's the closest I have to an answer right now?
When I'm certain on a response I provide, you'll know it. Meantime, enjoy the warm fuzzy feelings.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.