Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

My friend Rich @ ReviewTechUSA, [who is literally only a few months in age difference-both of us born in '81], puts well something of serious concern that I have been following.



I agree with Rich, and I'm going to personally get involved in fighting this corrupt decision and effecting change in the US laws. I've sat on my duff for too damn long in regard to this issue.

If you want to know more about where I'm coming from then watch "Patriacracy, [available on Netflix]. It'll open you're eyes, and, make you feel positive about what you can do to effect change in Washington DC. Corporations are not individuals, it's time to stop morganization & similar practices.

I mention my plan because you can also make a difference, don't just accept the upcoming nightmare. Become involved & don't let them...schtup you.

The FCC Fairness Policy? You mean the Fairness Doctrine? The one the FCC got rid of themselves in '87? What does that have to do with Net Neutrality? I haven't watched the video but from the looks of things, the title and video don't quite match up.

Ah, Kotaku explained it to me, as Kotaku is wont to do.

Good thing it wasn't SCOTUS who ruled on this, huh?

Shadowman wrote:Ah, Kotaku explained it to me, as Kotaku is wont to do.

Good thing it wasn't SCOTUS who ruled on this, huh?

Policy, Doctrine, Rules, Laws, the literal word should be understood without difficulty. Still, I do comprehend your confusion Shad', so no worries

The point is, any internet provider, say Verizon or Charter, within the USA, can now block ANYTHING, they wish-no matter how wrong or arbitrary. It does effect the whole world as 90-95% of websites originate within the USA.

Every individual in the world, including the service providers themselves, will be negatively effected by this. When you think about where this'll logical lead.

Streaming sites, or, just information in general can be blocked, at the whim of a greedy corporation. Why? To blackmail &/or censor anyone they don't like & view as a threat.

Web 3.0: What The Internet Could Look Like Without Net Neutrality

Why You Should Be Freaking Out About The End Of Net Neutrality

Here is a passionate friend AlphaOmegaSin, another from my generation. Warning: he cusses like a sailor, but, myself, I do not consider cussing to be cursing, that depends on the context-d***it-haha!

Tronus_Rex wrote:The point is, any internet provider, say Verizon or Charter, within the USA, can now block ANYTHING, they wish-no matter how wrong or arbitrary.

They can try. All it takes is one of them to refuse to take advantage of this, and the rest have to follow suit or else they'll get their asses kicked.

Tronus_Rex wrote:It does effect the whole world as 90-95% of websites originate within the USA.

More like 40%, tops. Probably far less.

From what I understand the FCC could still end up in charge of this. All they have to do is designate Internet access the same way they do roads Ect.

njb902 wrote:From what I understand the FCC could still end up in charge of this. All they have to do is designate Internet access the same way they do roads Ect.

Anyone else find it ironic that we're rooting for the FCC on this one?

Shadowman wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:It does effect the whole world as 90-95% of websites originate within the USA.

More like 40%, tops. Probably far less.

I just went to find a more up to date number of this percentage. Outside of China which is number 2, and secluded/an island in the web, & India as a 3rd, from what I'm reading, the US still dominates for internet.

Ex: Microsoft now has one million servers – less than Google, but more than Amazon, says Ballmer.

I'm not getting a complete image of what other servers based in Europe, or Russia, the Middle East, ETC. account for, but it appears they are almost inconsequential when compared to the US. At least at the moment. Don't forget that a websites are based in servers. Now if the relation isn't as I seem to be viewing from the web search, [9-1 or 8-1, outside China], please update my figures and knowledge I do like to stay informed. I know back in '07 the Web was 95%+, US based, but that was 7 years ago.

Tronus_Rex wrote:Here is a passionate friend AlphaOmegaSin, another from my generation. Warning: he cusses like a sailor, but, myself, I do not consider cussing to be cursing, that depends on the context-d***it-haha!

That guy is trippin' balls. I can stand in front of a camera and let loose a load of swear words whilst pontificating the worst case scenario from the doldrums of my imagination too. He looks the type to be walking around with a sandwich board claiming 'The End Is Nigh'.

Loon.

Blast Cannon wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:Here is a passionate friend AlphaOmegaSin, another from my generation. Warning: he cusses like a sailor, but, myself, I do not consider cussing to be cursing, that depends on the context-d***it-haha!

That guy is trippin' balls. I can stand in front of a camera and let loose a load of swear words whilst pontificating the worst case scenario from the doldrums of my imagination too. He looks the type to be walking around with a sandwich board claiming 'The End Is Nigh'.

Loon.

The thing is he isn't, it's the US government's credibility that is damaged, not the angry citizens who're understandably pessimistic. I think you're just put-off by his frustration & vitriol. His anger however, given the blatant corruption is understandable. I've seen/read several other people, (of various backgrounds), who essentially echo A.O.S.'s sentiment/thinking. Given the history of laws related to things like; IP's, corporate entities, lobbying, giving favorable treaties to countries that don't keep their word/international law, (like China), ETC., it validates this feeling.

I've read/heard of the unashamed open plans, by Verizon alone, to use the change in ways which should make anyone-furious! Although A.O.S.'s fatalistic, loud and angry, there's reason to have this outlook. His feelings are no longer "tin foil hat", they're being reported by respectable and trustworthy people. ****!-it's even being talked about on US cable TV.

Don't dismiss his anger, HOWEVER, you do not have to share his fatalism. MANY others who're far less, "passionate", & seemingly level-headed, are just as pessimistic, but I'm hopeful. Google this issue-you'll find countless trustworthy news reports, analysts, and commentators, almost as negative, (many are more so). It's no surprise. Look at how many Americans just parrot, whatever "news"/entertainment channel they watch or listen too. Fear & division, are propaganda tools to control & paralyze. Imagine what'll happen if a provider like Charter can block anything they wish.

I'm no pessimist, but instead an optimist. I believe that this blatant/obvious corruption is clumsy and going to be fully revealed, as a result. (It's depths have yet to be fully illuminated/measured, I assure you). It MUST come to an end.

Even US politicians/lawmakers are tired/frustrated of having their hands tied. Lawmakers are forced to agree on policies and issues, before even negotiating them. They must, just to secure the obscene capital required for election/re-election. Honest people have to agree to support policies they hate.

I do not agree with AOS's pessimism/fatalism, which many feel justified. This is because I know other examples/precedent from history, demonstrating how this situation can change but for the positive. (Even recent history & events). I'm also past the fear which is being spread by EVERYONE, (especially pundits, doom-&-gloom "prophets", & the US "news"). I know why I can be positive, and above the fear that is paralyzing people right now. Anyway, take him seriously-he's no "march hair"-but a disillusioned and angry citizen.

Tronus_Rex wrote:His feelings are no longer "tin foil hat", they're being reported by respectable and trustworthy people. ****!

Everyone is reporting on the ruling, but all of the actual bad stuff hasn't happened yet. There's a big difference between "reporting" and "making up **** that might happen."

Tronus_Rex wrote:-it's even being talked about on US cable TV.

Because everything on TV is infallibly true. In the history of television, no broadcast has ever contained lies or exaggerations of any kind.

Shadowman wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:His feelings are no longer "tin foil hat", they're being reported by respectable and trustworthy people. ****!

Everyone is reporting on the ruling, but all of the actual bad stuff hasn't happened yet. There's a big difference between "reporting" and "making up **** that might happen."

Tronus_Rex wrote:-it's even being talked about on US cable TV.

Because everything on TV is infallibly true. In the history of television, no broadcast has ever contained lies or exaggerations of any kind.

I'm still saying the government will nationalize Internet access. It will be treated like telephones, roads, and OTA TV.

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:His feelings are no longer "tin foil hat", they're being reported by respectable and trustworthy people. ****!

Everyone is reporting on the ruling, but all of the actual bad stuff hasn't happened yet. There's a big difference between "reporting" and "making up **** that might happen."

Tronus_Rex wrote:-it's even being talked about on US cable TV.

Because everything on TV is infallibly true. In the history of television, no broadcast has ever contained lies or exaggerations of any kind.

I'm still saying the government will nationalize Internet access. It will be treated like telephones, roads, and OTA TV.

This entire thread is based on the news of the government trying and failing to do this.

Shadowman wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:His feelings are no longer "tin foil hat", they're being reported by respectable and trustworthy people. ****!

Everyone is reporting on the ruling, but all of the actual bad stuff hasn't happened yet. There's a big difference between "reporting" and "making up **** that might happen."

Tronus_Rex wrote:-it's even being talked about on US cable TV.

Because everything on TV is infallibly true. In the history of television, no broadcast has ever contained lies or exaggerations of any kind.

I'm still saying the government will nationalize Internet access. It will be treated like telephones, roads, and OTA TV.

This entire thread is based on the news of the government trying and failing to do this.

The FCC failed from the way they did it, not that they can't do it. You should read up on the ICC's and FCC's actual powers.

Shadowman wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:His feelings are no longer "tin foil hat", they're being reported by respectable and trustworthy people. ****!

Everyone is reporting on the ruling, but all of the actual bad stuff hasn't happened yet. There's a big difference between "reporting" and "making up **** that might happen."

"Making up ****?" Really Shad'? I'm sorry but the blatant attempt to control the internet and give it to companies like Viacon, Verizon, Movie Studios, Record Labels, ETC., HAS been an issue. IP laws ARE an issue too in the digital age. It's all tied together. The digital age is threatening the giants. Telecom, Charter, Warner, various game publishers, they want to fight dirty and screw anyone else, or at least not consider/regard the consumer. Look at what they tried with SOPA/PIPA, (as well as the other 2 attempts)?

REGULATION is good/necessary-the State must do it's job or we end up as we, in the West, did by the end of the 19th century. That was the a moment when the "2%" literally controlled 99.98% of the wealth. People earned only enough to almost purchase bread, and even farmers were always indebted/enslaved too.

The problem is the internet & also the IP laws ARE flawed, BUT, if they are updated/corrected then the giants would lose a stranglehold. Right now current copyright laws, favor the big companies. Neutrality online, however, favors common people and small companies. Here is another report.

After an appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's rules intended to provide equal access for online content, policy experts said they fear the Internet will begin to look more like the business of cable television, with more fees and poor service.
...Though innovation of late heavily involves the Internet and Web-enabled devices, Weinberg said he fears that the court ruling will lead to fewer new innovative services in the long term.

When you pay attention to these reports, the analysis/warning is that any provider can charge, example: 100 Million Dollar fees to Netflix, (add Google, Hulu, and anyone), and who will have to pay for that in the end? WE will pay for it. When multiple providers do this, the cost multiplies.

This threatens small companies like mine. (I'm not poor but I'm no giant). This threatens small businesses that need their own precious IP's, (that isn't just video and music), to be protected. The biggest IP thieves/pirates ARE the corporate giants. They always have been. The court is their favorite weapon to crush and steal from smaller companies. I can name countless cases, from just the 20th century, where big companies essentially stole/killed smaller companies through US courts.

This all has to do with US laws in regard to the digital age. Net Neutrality IS the best for everyone. It effects the world too considering how much of the Web is still based in the US. IP laws are related to this issue, it's why I'm bringing it up.



The sugar in this poison they're trying to feed us is that, "they can pay to improve service", yeah, like a mobster charging for insurance & protection, or else.

"Major change unlikely despite open-Internet ruling" by twincities.com

In some cases, Internet providers such as Verizon, AT&T and cable companies can demand that Google, for example, pay them to ensure that YouTube videos are accessible to all their consumers, or Google could pay extra to ensure that YouTube videos are delivered faster.
...Advocacy groups such as Public Knowledge called the ruling a disappointing loss for Internet users because the court found that the open Internet rules were built on a flawed legal foundation.

Their ruling means that companies like Verizon can now block or slow down any website, application or service they like. And they’ll be able to create tiered pricing structures with fast lanes for those who can afford the tolls — and slow lanes for everyone else.

This IS a protection racket.

Analysts are not wrong to warn us on what might happen as it will VERY likely happen. This is based on historical precedent, knowing how the law works, and seeing the plans/reasoning of the greedy giants.

Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords

I may be positive, but it's not because I'm stupid. My awareness, education, and wisdom allow me to rise above both fear and apathy.

[I can provide 10 easy sources, (I could provide hundreds) of CREDIBLE info on such topics as government credibility, corporate greed, history/precedence, and troubles/issues/flaws with US law, and what you'll learn is how to distinguish between "tin foil hat", (and yes there are still delusional people out there) and what is legit/real/valid.]

If you read the actual ruling the judge specifically left open for the FCC to claim the Internet as a "common carrier", which would grant equal access for all.

Even Fox News, [owned by a Saudi Prince in case you didn't know ], is reporting it.

Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn

I think with facts and history, as well as understanding of human motivation. So go fact yourself

njb902 wrote:If you read the actual ruling the judge specifically left open for the FCC to claim the Internet as a "common carrier", which would grant equal access for all.

I'm more aware than you realize njb'. I did read it, & I think you missed another implication/reality I've not addressed yet. Here:The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet

I also addressed the "Common Carrier" thing. Now, explain to me how a company cannot slow down, or block anyone they wish? Competition alone does not guarantee. Especially when some areas have only one carrier? How does competition help when there are monopolies-IE no choices to go to? Anyway, don't miss this other point I just provided either.

Tronus_Rex wrote:Even Fox News, [owned by a Saudi Prince in case you didn't know ], is reporting it.

Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn

I think with facts and history, as well as understanding of human motivation. So go fact yourself

Rupert Murdoch is a Saudi prince?

I'm confused are you telling me I should go **** myself or to look up the "facts"?

Because I've actually read the ruling myself, looked up its precedence, and what powers the FCC 's actually has.

Rupert Murdoch is a Saudi prince?

Did I say Rupert Murdoch? No, I'm not talking about Murdoch. He founded Fox News but he's no longer in charge. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, however is. Talal owns a media conglomerate that controls Fox News.

The "go fact yourself" is meant to be a little mean but not a full F you. It's a wordplay meant to grab your attention. Don't take it as a full...er, rude, comment.

Just so you know, "fact yourself" is used by many people in a positive way, but is also used like I just did-haha! Don't take it the wrong way.

Remember also, I'm trying to be positive, but hearing dismissals of "crazy", or "made-up/BS" incenses me. It smacks of apathy, and a few other things. My ability to care, doesn't come from fear nor delusion, but because I'm aware. An educated consumer is what I am, at the very least.

Tronus_Rex wrote:Even Fox News, [owned by a Saudi Prince in case you didn't know ], is reporting it.

Oh, right, because Fox News has never lied or exaggerated anything in the past.

njb902 wrote:Rupert Murdoch is a Saudi prince?

Yeah, I wasn't aware Australia was a part of Saudi Arabia.

njb902 wrote:I'm confused are you telling me I should go **** myself or to look up the "facts"?

Because I've actually read the ruling myself, looked up its precedence, and what powers the FCC 's actually has.

Once you realize Tronus only thinks he's so well informed, everything just becomes a lot clearer.

Fox News is owned by 21st century fox. The Prince you are referring too is the 3rd largest voting stockholder, Rupert Murdoch being the largest.

Edit: Btw Shadowman Murdoch is a US citizen now(I know he was born in Australia) , and news Corp moved it's headquarters to NYC a few years ago. I didn't know that myself till I dug a little today.

Also did you guys know that a company can't own a TV station in the US if more than 25% of the company is foreign owned.

Tronus_Rex wrote:

Rupert Murdoch is a Saudi prince?

Did I say Rupert Murdoch? No, I'm not talking about Murdoch. He founded Fox News but he's no longer in charge. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, however is. Talal owns a media conglomerate that controls Fox News.

The "go fact yourself" is meant to be a little mean but not a full F you. It's a wordplay meant to grab your attention. Don't take it as a full...er, rude, comment.

Just so you know, "fact yourself" is used by many people in a positive way, but is also used like I just did-haha! Don't take it the wrong way.

Remember also, I'm trying to be positive, but hearing dismissals of "crazy", or "made-up/BS" incenses me. It smacks of apathy, and a few other things. My ability to care, doesn't come from fear nor delusion, but because I'm aware. An educated consumer is what I am, at the very least.

Sorry but you're a complete loon.

The best part is that you post from a deluded 'enlightened' perspective that is entirely presumptious. You think that everybody else must be ignorant or stupid for not giving a flying yellow monkey **** about what you're jabbering on about, when in reality I just don't care because not one part of what you and your conspiracy theorist buddies are claiming will take place.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Take to the streets.

Blast Cannon wrote:

Tronus_Rex wrote:

Rupert Murdoch is a Saudi prince?

Did I say Rupert Murdoch? No, I'm not talking about Murdoch. He founded Fox News but he's no longer in charge. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, however is. Talal owns a media conglomerate that controls Fox News.

The "go fact yourself" is meant to be a little mean but not a full F you. It's a wordplay meant to grab your attention. Don't take it as a full...er, rude, comment.

Just so you know, "fact yourself" is used by many people in a positive way, but is also used like I just did-haha! Don't take it the wrong way.

Remember also, I'm trying to be positive, but hearing dismissals of "crazy", or "made-up/BS" incenses me. It smacks of apathy, and a few other things. My ability to care, doesn't come from fear nor delusion, but because I'm aware. An educated consumer is what I am, at the very least.

Sorry but you're a complete loon.

The best part is that you post from a deluded 'enlightened' perspective that is entirely presumptious. You think that everybody else must be ignorant or stupid for not giving a flying yellow monkey **** about what you're jabbering on about, when in reality I just don't care because not one part of what you and your conspiracy theorist buddies are claiming will take place.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Take to the streets.

Yeah, that's my take on the subject.

njb902 wrote:Fox News is owned by 21st century fox. The Prince you are referring too is the 3rd largest voting stockholder, Rupert Murdoch being the largest.

Edit: Btw Shadowman Murdoch is a US citizen now(I know he was born in Australia) , and news Corp moved it's headquarters to NYC a few years ago. I didn't know that myself till I dug a little today.

Also did you guys know that a company can't own a TV station in the US if more than 25% of the company is foreign owned.

Did you see the dual influence Talal had? It's not just simple stockholder control. As of now he owns 7%-8% of the company, but that's not his only influence.

The others, please, let us reason, stop crying "crazy" or "enlightened"/"full of himeslf", calm down, and read this.

A Contrast: A Saudi Prince’s influence on Fox News vs. Murdoch family’s lack of influence on Rotana

To summarize, (as it appears that more than one of you are not bothering to read my citations), Murdoch will not act due to Rotana. They also are under pressure from this Prince. Now, please read this too.

Is Saudi prince steering News Corp. coverage?

There is more to this than just the Saudi Prince. I've said for people interested in this to just take an hour and a half of there time to watch "Patriacracy", and I stand by this.

As for the "fair and balanced" joke, I agree and feel the same. Have I not said such companies are using fear in order to both entertain and influence? Besides Fox News, to also ignore ABC, CNN, CNBC, CBS, BBC, Forbes, Huntington, and the MANY others, (some I've cited here)? What are you basing your "making **** up" comments on? How am I a "loon" when I am citing so many other credible sources who're warning of this danger, in regard to net neutrality being pushed aside? Explain to me how I'm disillusion, and please use citation and not your own emotional BS and clouded judgement.

Seriously, explain how these internet providers will be nice, and not use it as a kind of protection racket? Give me citation for the motivation to be responsible?

If your thinking that pure unregulated competition is good, which is part of the "reasoning"/spin for the ruling, look up "Morganization".