Clyde wrote:

Much verbiage, signifying nothing.

Now that is the best self assessment I've seen on the boards.

---

Clyde wrote:

Much verbiage, signifying nothing.

Now that is the best self assessment I've seen on the boards.

Not bad.

Finally, an interesting comeback. Keeps me on-board.

:) :) :)

Why? Did you fall over?

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.

Of course. Makes a lot of sense.

When unable, or unwilling, to answer a pertinent question.

Much verbiage, signifying nothing.

You have an interesting sense of "much", sir. Was that sentence too long for you, too? [See, I used "too" instead of "as well". Please inflict more Orwellian reduction of speech on us. ;)]

---

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

Clyde wrote:

Much verbiage, signifying nothing.

Now that is the best self assessment I've seen on the boards.

Not bad.

Finally, an interesting comeback. Keeps me on-board.

:) :) :)

Why? Did you fall over?

I was being pushed.

:) :) :)

Welcome back on the wagon?

---

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

Clyde wrote:

Much verbiage, signifying nothing.

Now that is the best self assessment I've seen on the boards.

Not bad.

Finally, an interesting comeback. Keeps me on-board.

:) :) :)

Why? Did you fall over?

I was being pushed.

:) :) :)

Welcome back on the wagon?

WOW!!!

THREE good come backs. I'm impressed.

Too bad it wasn't in TCF32.

---

Is this article good news??

The FCC approves strong net neutrality rules

The Federal Communications Commission approved strict new rules for Internet providers Thursday in a historic vote that represents the government's most aggressive attempt to make sure the Web remains a level playing field.

The rules would dramatically expand the agency's oversight of the country's high-speed broadband providers, regulating them like a public utility. They were adopted by a 3-to-2 margin with the commission's Republican members voting against them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/26/the-fcc-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/

---

Is this article good news??

It's only the beginning. Now for the impending lawsuits from ISPs and the GOP's attempt to write a law overriding the FCC in this. And even if the President veto's the bill, there will likely be a GOP President elected in 2016, and seeing as the GOP has been persistent in trying to repeal the ACA, I would bet on them trying to override the FCC at that time.

Is this article good news??

It's only the beginning. Now for the impending lawsuits from ISPs and the GOP's attempt to write a law overriding the FCC in this. And even if the President veto's the bill, there will likely be a GOP President elected in 2016, and seeing as the GOP has been persistent in trying to repeal the ACA, I would bet on them trying to override the FCC at that time.

Shall be interesting. Hollywood being split. Their heart for neutrality, their pocketbook for monopolization.

As per usual, the lawyers make piles no matter what.

---

Is this article good news??

It's only the beginning. Now for the impending lawsuits from ISPs and the GOP's attempt to write a law overriding the FCC in this. And even if the President veto's the bill, there will likely be a GOP President elected in 2016, and seeing as the GOP has been persistent in trying to repeal the ACA, I would bet on them trying to override the FCC at that time.

Thanks for explaining this. Lots of hurdles.

---

Is the man right?

He appears to have a single digit IQ. Since cable TV already has a set of regulations!
<ED>He may be correct that cable TV just died and all future delivery will be via the internet or OTA.

---

Is the man right?

No. He's engaging in fear mongering while letting his thoughts run away. He keeps saying "let's follow this through to it's logical conclusion," but he seems to be using logic that barely understands technology.

Yes, all bits are to be treated equal. Yes, all TV streaming will be treated as equal. There's where it ends. It is strictly about how bits are sent over the Internet, not what those bits are or where they come from. That's what Net Neutrality is all about.

Cuban is engaging in the same anti-government rhetoric so many other people are crying about. The American people have a natural distrust for the Federal Government, so most people are immediately going to have a confirmation bias when someone invokes the "government is taking over" scare tactic, and they will start repeating it to everyone they know.

Heck, *I* don't trust our Federal Government. But we're at the point where the Federal Government is our only protection against Big Money trying to continue to squeeze every last cent out of the consuming public's hard earned dollars while leaving speeds far behind many other countries.

Is the man right?

He appears to have a single digit IQ. Since cable TV already has a set of regulations!
<ED>He may be correct that cable TV just died and all future delivery will be via the internet or OTA.

Excellent point!

Is the man right?

He appears to have a single digit IQ. Since cable TV already has a set of regulations!
<ED>He may be correct that cable TV just died and all future delivery will be via the internet or OTA.

Excellent point!

No consumer will willingly buy monopoly cable when they can have neutral internet deliver the same content, and not be forced to pay for stuff they don't want to see.

---

Three (3) People make this Enormous Change?

As little as 1 person has made major changes in recent US history. We give the President the power to declare war, and send off our young to be killed in the name of Country and the God that doesn't exist.

5 people were to make the decision here. Unfortunately, like everything these days, it is purely partisan lines that decides. The two GOP on the board were merely toeing the line, siding with ISPs (Big Money), instead of what the 4 million people of the American public have asked for: Net Neutrality.

These Proposals, Published in its Entirety (The Devil is in the Details), should have been debated. By Media, Blogs, Elected Officials, etc., over a long period.

Net Neutrality has been debated for the better part of the last 15 years. Despite the recent media attention, it is not new. I'm sorry that most people weren't paying attention, and this has allowed ISPs to continue to monopolize regions across the US while keeping speeds relatively stagnant and prices artificially high. Delaying this action is exactly what Big Money wants; as time goes on, disinformation can spread like a disease until there's nothing good left.

What were these Three (3) people afraid of? Why didn't they Publish ALL the Details, months prior?

The information was shared among the appropriate professionals with an understanding of the law. The final proposal was modified at the last minute thanks to input from other sources to close possible gaps or loopholes.

Releasing the details months prior, to be read by people who may not understand the nuances of the language of the law, could further the disinformation campaigns that threaten to keep things as they are.

Nothing was hidden from the American public. The American public lobbied the FCC to step in and do something - the largest turnout the FCC has ever had. You know it's bad when the American public wants Federal involvement to solve the problem. The process is that the professionals write up a proposal and vote on it to see if it will achieve the objectives set forth by the complaints received.

But don't let reality stop you from engaging in the same scare tactics by stating 3 people had something to hide because they didn't release the details so every person can misinterpret the details, either accidentally or however they see fit.

President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

---

Yes, all bits are to be treated equal. Yes, all TV streaming will be treated as equal.

Now, let US See ifn People and Our Dollars will be 'Treated Equal'.

'Equality' and US 'History' has such GOoD Examples of 'it'.

Yep.

---

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

Yes, all bits are to be treated equal. Yes, all TV streaming will be treated as equal.

Now, let US See ifn People and Our Dollars will be 'Treated Equal'.

'Equality' and US 'History' has such GOoD Examples of 'it'.

Yep.

Oh, I doubt that people and dollars will ever be treated equally.

Net Neutrality Part Deux - ALL Hail The King. He will save us. Except if he is a Republican.

If you think I hate Republicans, ask me how I feel about the KeystoneXL Pipeline, the ACA, or the excessive government spending by the Dems.

And if the Republicans win The White House...

A part of me hopes this might happen to rein in the spending problem, and because I'm highly disappointed in many of Obama's actions of late. Having said that, I hope whomever it is isn't dumb enough to override the FCC on this. He'd be an idiot to do so.

President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

"Declare War", a Constitutional Term and Specific meaning, does not mean Wage War.

The '90 Day Congressional Authority' is about Waging War, not Declaring War. Which is an entirely another level, concerning 'Treaty's and Obligations'.

The USA's last Declared War, Constitutionally Declared by Congress, was WWII.

Since YOU have READ the Act about NET NEUTRALITY, which points, specifically, are you against?

---

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