PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama Internet kill switch plan approved by US Senate


mikey23545
06-27-2010, 01:25 AM
President could get power to turn off Internet

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

Obama security review gets mixed reception

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.

"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."

Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.

One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.

"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."

Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."

On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.

Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.

"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added.

http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/?olo=rss

mikey23545
06-27-2010, 01:29 AM
A little Net Neutrality here, a little Fairness Doctrine there, one internet kill switch and you got yourself a nice little North Korea knockoff going...

Chocolate Hog
06-27-2010, 02:45 AM
We need it to stay safe from terrorist/ Neocons on the Patriot Act 2003.

notorious
06-27-2010, 07:20 AM
Does anyone on this board think that this is a good idea?

BucEyedPea
06-27-2010, 07:36 AM
Does anyone on this board think that this is a good idea?

No! Well, not I? It's BS. Information needs to get out so we can also monitor our own dictators.....'er govt.

Iowanian
06-27-2010, 10:45 AM
In Communist Russia, Internet Switch Kill YOU.

HonestChieffan
06-27-2010, 10:55 AM
Does anyone on this board think that this is a good idea?


I can imagine a number who would think so. Control is good. Regulation is the path to nirvana

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-28-2010, 01:40 PM
We need it to stay safe from terrorist/ Neocons on the Patriot Act 2003.

:clap:

RJ
06-28-2010, 04:15 PM
I'm going to be really pissed if this causes any of my fantasy teams to lose points.

vailpass
06-28-2010, 05:06 PM
Cyber security efforts are a very good thing.
obama/Pelosi/et al having their hands in cyber security? Not a good thing.

teedubya
06-28-2010, 05:15 PM
I'm going to be really pissed if this causes any of my fantasy teams to lose points.

hahha.... I'm sure that is about to be the least of our worries.

RJ
06-28-2010, 05:19 PM
hahha.... I'm sure that is about to be the least of our worries.


It's that kind of attitude that will keep you from winning any fantasy championships. Get your priorities straight mister!

vailpass
06-28-2010, 05:49 PM
It's that kind of attitude that will keep you from winning any fantasy championships. Get your priorities straight mister!

:D

patteeu
06-28-2010, 06:07 PM
Cyber security efforts are a very good thing.
obama/Pelosi/et al having their hands in cyber security? Not a good thing.

This about sums it up.

MahiMike
06-28-2010, 06:11 PM
Obama watched this movie:

Live Free or Die Hard/Die Hard 4.0
Main article: Live Free or Die Hard

The fourth film begins with McClane still divorced from his wife and estranged from his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). A group of cyber-terrorists begin hacking into the computers of the FBI, who sends McClane to bring in computer hacker Matthew "Matt" Farrell (Justin Long) to question him about the cyber-attack. In the process, a group of assassins, hired by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), the terrorist mastermind, attempts to kill McClane and Farrell. Farrell tells McClane that the terrorists are actually in the middle of performing a crippling cyber-warfare attack on the infrastructure of the country, disrupting all power, public utilities, traffic, and other computer-controlled systems. The terrorist later taken Lucy and Farrell hostage. In the end, McClane saves them and foils the terrorists' scheme.

ct
06-30-2010, 08:02 AM
Obama watched this movie:

Live Free or Die Hard/Die Hard 4.0
Main article: Live Free or Die Hard

The fourth film begins with McClane still divorced from his wife and estranged from his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). A group of cyber-terrorists begin hacking into the computers of the FBI, who sends McClane to bring in computer hacker Matthew "Matt" Farrell (Justin Long) to question him about the cyber-attack. In the process, a group of assassins, hired by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), the terrorist mastermind, attempts to kill McClane and Farrell. Farrell tells McClane that the terrorists are actually in the middle of performing a crippling cyber-warfare attack on the infrastructure of the country, disrupting all power, public utilities, traffic, and other computer-controlled systems. The terrorist later taken Lucy and Farrell hostage. In the end, McClane saves them and foils the terrorists' scheme.

Yippee Ki Yay MF*****

Seriously tho, this is a very fine line. Do the feds need the ability to shut down a pinpointed source of a cyber attack? Damn straight, but this is NOT the way to accomplish it. Frankly, I don't see any law on paper required for such a counter stroke, just do it and jack those bastards to hell and back. Setting on paper the authority to shut down a part or all of the internet is f-in crap, no way!

irishjayhawk
06-30-2010, 12:23 PM
A little Net Neutrality here, a little Fairness Doctrine there, one internet kill switch and you got yourself a nice little North Korea knockoff going...

I don't think you understand net neutrality.

This about sums it up.

No, it doesn't.

Point is: it doesn't matter who it is: they shouldn't have a hand in it. Hence, net neutrality.

The Mad Crapper
06-30-2010, 12:48 PM
Moonbat speak:

I don't think you understand net neutrality.


Translation into Normal person speak:

The Politburo is always right.

patteeu
06-30-2010, 02:43 PM
I don't think you understand net neutrality.



No, it doesn't.

Point is: it doesn't matter who it is: they shouldn't have a hand in it. Hence, net neutrality.

Net neutrality is a big government hand.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2010, 04:23 PM
Net neutrality is a big government hand.

No, it isn't. I don't consider legislating that the net stay how it is be "big government". How do you justify that?

But at least you, it looks like, understand what Net Neutrality is.

patteeu
06-30-2010, 05:13 PM
No, it isn't. I don't consider legislating that the net stay how it is be "big government". How do you justify that?

But at least you, it looks like, understand what Net Neutrality is.

When a private company decides they want to manage the communication lines that they own the way they see fit and a government regulator forces them to do it a different way, that's the government's hand even if you refuse to see it that way.

BigChiefFan
06-30-2010, 05:24 PM
Big Government Takeover.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2010, 07:58 PM
When a private company decides they want to manage the communication lines that they own the way they see fit and a government regulator forces them to do it a different way, that's the government's hand even if you refuse to see it that way.

By that logic, any regulations is automatically big government.

And, if so, we have many, many contradictions from your side of the aisle. For example, the oil spill and regulations therein. (ie. Obama didn't regulate hard enough). And then we have the financial crisis which people are still fighting regulations, which would be "big government". Which, of course, is hilarious because the alternative is the "free market" bullshit Taco spouts, which I thought you disagree with.

MadMax
06-30-2010, 08:12 PM
Cyber security efforts are a very good thing.
obama/Pelosi/et al having their hands in cyber security? Not a good thing.



Those 2 losers having their hand in ANYTHING but their own pants is not a good thing!

Hog Farmer
06-30-2010, 08:30 PM
Any way we can get Chiefs Planet exempt from this bill ?????

Chiefshrink
06-30-2010, 09:05 PM
Bottom line: Net Neutrality = No Free Speech in the guise of so-called security from cyber attacks to the nation. PLEEEEEEEEASE :rolleyes:


Progressive Marxists way of shutting down any opposition to them:thumb:

patteeu
06-30-2010, 10:28 PM
By that logic, any regulations is automatically big government.

And, if so, we have many, many contradictions from your side of the aisle. For example, the oil spill and regulations therein. (ie. Obama didn't regulate hard enough). And then we have the financial crisis which people are still fighting regulations, which would be "big government". Which, of course, is hilarious because the alternative is the "free market" bullshit Taco spouts, which I thought you disagree with.

I don't agree with Taco about foreign policy but I largely agree with him on other issues. Yes, all those things are examples of government intervention, some bigger than others. Some intervention is justified and authorized by the constitution and some is not. There's a bit more nuance involved than you're allowing for.

irishjayhawk
07-01-2010, 02:34 AM
I don't agree with Taco about foreign policy but I largely agree with him on other issues. Yes, all those things are examples of government intervention, some bigger than others. Some intervention is justified and authorized by the constitution and some is not. There's a bit more nuance involved than you're allowing for.

So, the free market will always fix itself?

The Mad Crapper
07-01-2010, 05:33 AM
Moonbat Speak:

No, it isn't. I don't consider legislating that the net stay how it is be "big government". How do you justify that?

But at least you, it looks like, understand what Net Neutrality is.

Normal person translation:

I cried about the Patriot Act for 8 years because it allowed George Hitler Bush the right to tap the phone lines of known Al Qaeda members, but now that B.O. is in charge, he can shutdown completely my access to all and any information and I'll let him fist my sister while he's at it.

patteeu
07-01-2010, 06:01 AM
So, the free market will always fix itself?

What do you mean?

Chiefshrink
07-01-2010, 08:15 AM
So, the free market will always fix itself?

Yep!

Matter of fact, I forget the guy's name but this guy who was Stalin's Economic advisor was asked by Stalin to do an extensive study not only comparing Capitalism to Communism but why Capitalism seems to not only hang on but thrive. The guy comes back to Stalin and says because the Free Market allows businesses to fail with no govt intervention to fix them,thus the Free Market allows other businesses to come in and fill the void. The guy said to Stalin this is how the Free Market is allowed to purge and fix itself which enables the Free Market to thrive because there is no Govt intervention.

Within days if not the next day this guy was shot!:rolleyes:

irishjayhawk
07-01-2010, 02:32 PM
What do you mean?

I mean, if you're against all regulation, you're for a free-for-all. Therefore, you're stance must be that if a problem should arise, the system will correct itself.

kcfanXIII
07-02-2010, 12:39 AM
I mean, if you're against all regulation, you're for a free-for-all. Therefore, you're stance must be that if a problem should arise, the system will correct itself.

read his post again. he's telling you its not always black and white, and that you have to take every situation for what it is, and look at the circumstances involved to determine whether or not government intervention is needed, and to what extent the government should be involved. to paint the whole picture with a broad brush and say "If you're against all regulation, you're for a free-for-all" is not at all possible, since very little in this world is that absolute.

lostcause
07-02-2010, 02:17 AM
We need it to stay safe from terrorist/ Neocons on the Patriot Act 2003.

Thank you for this.

patteeu
07-02-2010, 06:10 AM
I mean, if you're against all regulation, you're for a free-for-all. Therefore, you're stance must be that if a problem should arise, the system will correct itself.

Where do you get the idea that I'm against all regulation just because I oppose net neutrality? Was it the part of my post where I said that some government intervention is both justified and constitutionally authorized? Because if it is, I didn't mean to give you that impression. In fact, I meant to suggest that there was a bit of nuance to my view of government intervention. That's what I was trying to say when I said that there was a bit of nuance involved.

Serious question: Are you retarded?

OK, that's not really a serious question, but sometimes your resistance to comprehension is impressive even for a jayhawk. :Poke:

patteeu
07-02-2010, 06:14 AM
read his post again. he's telling you its not always black and white, and that you have to take every situation for what it is, and look at the circumstances involved to determine whether or not government intervention is needed, and to what extent the government should be involved. to paint the whole picture with a broad brush and say "If you're against all regulation, you're for a free-for-all" is not at all possible, since very little in this world is that absolute.

Thank you for this.

irishjayhawk
07-02-2010, 10:14 AM
Where do you get the idea that I'm against all regulation just because I oppose net neutrality? Was it the part of my post where I said that some government intervention is both justified and constitutionally authorized? Because if it is, I didn't mean to give you that impression. In fact, I meant to suggest that there was a bit of nuance to my view of government intervention. That's what I was trying to say when I said that there was a bit of nuance involved.

Serious question: Are you retarded?

OK, that's not really a serious question, but sometimes your resistance to comprehension is impressive even for a jayhawk. :Poke:

I'm going by your logic.

You said net neutrality is a big government hand interfering with private companies.
Regulations interfere with private companies.

So you're saying that regulations aren't "big government"?

irishjayhawk
07-02-2010, 10:15 AM
read his post again. he's telling you its not always black and white, and that you have to take every situation for what it is, and look at the circumstances involved to determine whether or not government intervention is needed, and to what extent the government should be involved. to paint the whole picture with a broad brush and say "If you're against all regulation, you're for a free-for-all" is not at all possible, since very little in this world is that absolute.

Except that net neutrality is basically saying the government isn't going to get involved and neither are the companies. It's going to stay as it is.

To me, that's as far from regulations as you can get without being outright deregulated. Which, of course, is what prompted my line of thinking.

patteeu
07-02-2010, 01:27 PM
I'm going by your logic.

You said net neutrality is a big government hand interfering with private companies.
Regulations interfere with private companies.

So you're saying that regulations aren't "big government"?

Just to be clear, you're going by your perverted interpretation of my logic. not my actual logic.

Net neutrality is bad. Preventing the fraudulent sale of arsenic as a food additive is good. Both are examples of government intervention but one is bigger and badder.

patteeu
07-02-2010, 01:39 PM
Except that net neutrality is basically saying the government isn't going to get involved and neither are the companies. It's going to stay as it is.

To me, that's as far from regulations as you can get without being outright deregulated. Which, of course, is what prompted my line of thinking.

If the government passed a law that said that computer manufacturers had to stop making changes to their product line would you see that as no government intervention (or at least as little as you can have short of complete deregulation)?

The Mad Crapper
07-02-2010, 01:45 PM
Just to be clear, you're going by your perverted interpretation of my logic. not my actual logic.

Net neutrality is bad. Preventing the fraudulent sale of arsenic as a food additive is good. Both are examples of government intervention but one is bigger and badder.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

ROFL

vailpass
07-02-2010, 01:47 PM
I'm going by your logic.

You said net neutrality is a big government hand interfering with private companies.
Regulations interfere with private companies.

So you're saying that regulations aren't "big government"?

Says the kid who has never held a real job in his life. Funny.

The Mad Crapper
07-02-2010, 01:49 PM
Except that net neutrality is basically saying the government isn't going to get involved and neither are the companies. It's going to stay as it is.

To me, that's as far from regulations as you can get without being outright deregulated. Which, of course, is what prompted my line of thinking.

Hey Swish? Just a little bit of advice, m'kay---

Stick to bashing religion. You're not any good at it, but you're better at it than anything else.

irishjayhawk
07-02-2010, 10:36 PM
Just to be clear, you're going by your perverted interpretation of my logic. not my actual logic.

Net neutrality is bad. Preventing the fraudulent sale of arsenic as a food additive is good. Both are examples of government intervention but one is bigger and badder.

First, you simply assert net neutrality is bad which isn't the same as the next half of your analogy. Second, you go to a extreme - in this case, public safety. A better analogy would be closing the holes the financial system used to create the recent fiasco. But, of course, people are against those even though they protect against another fiasco. (I'm not sure if you are, but suspect you are against that kind of meddling.)

If the government passed a law that said that computer manufacturers had to stop making changes to their product line would you see that as no government intervention (or at least as little as you can have short of complete deregulation)?

See, the difference here is the way you and I think about the Internet. I don't think anyone owns the internet; you do, the companies. You think of the internet as plans provided by companies. I think of it as a platform to network the world and a platform for innovation.

Says the kid who has never held a real job in his life. Funny.

Vailpass never ceases to disappoint.

patteeu
07-03-2010, 07:59 AM
First, you simply assert net neutrality is bad which isn't the same as the next half of your analogy. Second, you go to a extreme - in this case, public safety. A better analogy would be closing the holes the financial system used to create the recent fiasco. But, of course, people are against those even though they protect against another fiasco. (I'm not sure if you are, but suspect you are against that kind of meddling.)



See, the difference here is the way you and I think about the Internet. I don't think anyone owns the internet; you do, the companies. You think of the internet as plans provided by companies. I think of it as a platform to network the world and a platform for innovation.


Yes, we think about this differently. I think like someone who believes in property rights and you think like a communist. I think like someone who believes that when you buy land and materials and build something on it that you own it. You think like someone who believes that if you buy land and build something on it, the collective can commandeer it if it is valuable to the collective. Sorry comrade, under the current administration we're headed in that direction but we're not there yet.

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 08:50 AM
I can't imagine anybody that uses Chiefsplanet and the internet daily would oppose Net Neutrality. You are either for keeping the Internet the way it is now or practically destroying it by allowing the telecoms\cable companies to act as the gatekeeper and decide what websites you can or can not access. It really is that simple.

patteeu
07-03-2010, 08:57 AM
I can't imagine anybody that uses Chiefsplanet and the internet daily would oppose Net Neutrality. You are either for keeping the Internet the way it is now or practically destroying it by allowing the telecoms\cable companies to act as the gatekeeper and decide what websites you can or can not access. It really is that simple.

I think the chicken little theories about where the net is headed, absent net neutrality, will end up being exposed as largely exaggerated. In any event, I don't think personal benefit of the type that net neutrality advocates advertise is a great reason to oppose freedom. But then, I guess if I were overly selfish, I'd be a democrat.

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 09:06 AM
I think the chicken little theories about where the net is headed, absent net neutrality, will end up being exposed as largely exaggerated. In any event, I don't think personal benefit of the type that net neutrality advocates advertise is a great reason to oppose freedom. But then, I guess if I were overly selfish, I'd be a democrat.

Are you willing to test those theories out? I am certainly not. I like the way the Internet is now. It is not about being selfish it is about freedom. If want to go to porn sites I have the ability to do so and if I want to come to post on Chiefsplanet I don't want to be redirected to Orangemane because they paid more money to the ISP's.

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 09:16 AM
This sums it up pretty good at least from Google's prespecitive. I know they are anti-American and anti-freedom company I guess.



There's a lot of awesome stuff on the Internet: Cats talking LOLspeak (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2010/01/14/funny-pictures-i-lost-him/). Iranian dissidents tweeting (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/14/iran.protests.twitter/index.html). Live traffic updates (http://www.traffic.md.gov/video/videolow.asp?feed=9). Science experiments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAc12mqxM88).

All of these things, and so much more, are possible because of the openness of the Internet (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html). Any entrepreneur with an idea has always been able to create a website and share their ideas globally without paying extra tolls to have their content seen by other users. An open Internet made Google possible eleven years ago, and it's going to make the next Google possible.

In our comments (http://www.scribd.com/doc/25246261) filed today in the FCC's proposed rulemaking docket, we explained that our goal is straightforward: "to keep the Internet awesome for everybody."

The Internet was designed to empower users. Its open, "end-to-end (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle)" architecture means that users not network providers or anyone else decide what succeeds or fails online. It's a formula that has worked incredibly well, resulting in mind blowing innovation, incredible investment, and more consumer choice than ever.

For the online world's first three decades, a set of FCC regulations protected the openness of the communications on-ramps. Unfortunately, those safeguards were stripped away back in 2005, which since then has led to confusion, uncertainty, and, in some cases, bad acts.

That's why we've argued that the FCC should re-adopt rules to prevent network providers from discriminating against certain services, applications, or viewpoints on the Web, and requiring them to be transparent about how they manage their networks.

More specifically, in our FCC filing, we support:


Adding a nondiscrimination principle that bans prioritizing Internet traffic based on the ownership (the who), the source (the what) of the content or application;
Adding a transparency principle that ensures all users have clear information about broadband providers' offerings;
Providing a carefully-defined "reasonable network management" exception so that broadband providers are empowered to address genuine congestion issues and protect against hazards like malware and spamming;
Applying general openness protections to both wireline and wireless broadband infrastructure; and
Creating better enforcement mechanisms at the FCC, and introducing the concept of technical advisory groups (TAGs) to potentially provide expert advice and resolve disputes.

patteeu
07-03-2010, 09:20 AM
Are you willing to test those theories out? I am certainly not. I like the way the Internet is now. It is not about being selfish it is about freedom. If want to go to porn sites I have the ability to do so and if I want to come to post on Chiefsplanet I don't want to be redirected to Orangemane because they paid more money to the ISP's.

Freedom isn't being able to walk into anyone's home and get whatever snack you want out of their refrigerator. That's the selfishness and anti-freedom attitude that I'm talking about.

I am absolutely willing to test my theories on this out.

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 09:35 AM
Freedom isn't being able to walk into anyone's home and get whatever snack you want out of their refrigerator. That's the selfishness and anti-freedom attitude that I'm talking about.

I am absolutely willing to test my theories on this out.

Isn't that what you are doing now? You even admitted you have pirated software on your PC.

patteeu
07-03-2010, 09:41 AM
Isn't that what you are doing now? You even admitted you have pirated software on your PC.

I haven't admitted that, but even if I did, that's a completely different issue. Pirated software is copied (usually from a willing supplier), not stolen, and it doesn't require trespassing on someone else's property against their will.

And once again, my position on this issue doesn't have anything to do with what is best for me personally.

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 09:57 AM
I haven't admitted that, but even if I did, that's a completely different issue. Pirated software is copied (usually from a willing supplier), not stolen, and it doesn't require trespassing on someone else's property against their will.

And once again, my position on this issue doesn't have anything to do with what is best for me personally.

LMAO I don't care pat I am just messing with you but pirated software is theft at least from the company\musician\movie company perspective.

But anyone back to the topic no one is trepassing on ISP's networks especially when you pay for their service.

patteeu
07-03-2010, 10:05 AM
But anyone back to the topic no one is trepassing on ISP's networks especially when you pay for their service.

You mean paying the price they set or paying whatever you feel like (or whatever the government feels like) you should pay?

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 11:37 AM
You mean paying the price they set or paying whatever you feel like (or whatever the government feels like) you should pay?

Obviously paying the price of the ISP as long as it is reasonable. Right now we already have speed caps which already restrict how much you can download. This is basic networking 101. You can only download so much on a 1.5 mb connection.

As far as price goes IIRC TWC was going to charge over $200 for unlimited internet downloads. That is not reasonable considering I pay $32\month for it already capped at 8mb download speed.

But my biggest issue is access which is what Google's position is. If you want to charge reasonable tiered prices fine just don't start restricting or throttle certain sites.

patteeu
07-03-2010, 12:57 PM
Obviously paying the price of the ISP as long as it is reasonable. Right now we already have speed caps which already restrict how much you can download. This is basic networking 101. You can only download so much on a 1.5 mb connection.

As far as price goes IIRC TWC was going to charge over $200 for unlimited internet downloads. That is not reasonable considering I pay $32\month for it already capped at 8mb download speed.

But my biggest issue is access which is what Google's position is. If you want to charge reasonable tiered prices fine just don't start restricting or throttle certain sites.

I pay $80 for 1.5 Mb/s speed and a max of 425 Mb per day (after which my speed is throttled back to dialup speed for a day).

Instead of net neutrality, maybe we need a more progressive Internet access system where the haves (you) pay more to subsidize the have nots (me). Based on our current quality of access, I think it would be fair if you were charged $100 of our combined $112 access charges and I should pay the other $12.

Sweet Daddy Hate
07-03-2010, 01:06 PM
I pay $80 for 1.5 Mb/s speed and a max of 425 Mb per day (after which my speed is throttled back to dialup speed for a day).

Instead of net neutrality, maybe we need a more progressive Internet access system where the haves (you) pay more to subsidize the have nots (me). Based on our current quality of access, I think it would be fair if you were charged $100 of our combined $112 access charges and I should pay the other $12.

Fuckin' sweet! :D

dirk digler
07-03-2010, 01:23 PM
I pay $80 for 1.5 Mb/s speed and a max of 425 Mb per day (after which my speed is throttled back to dialup speed for a day).

Instead of net neutrality, maybe we need a more progressive Internet access system where the haves (you) pay more to subsidize the have nots (me). Based on our current quality of access, I think it would be fair if you were charged $100 of our combined $112 access charges and I should pay the other $12.

LMAO Maybe you should move out of the sticks and get off satellite. :p

irishjayhawk
07-03-2010, 04:12 PM
Yes, we think about this differently. I think like someone who believes in property rights and you think like a communist. I think like someone who believes that when you buy land and materials and build something on it that you own it. You think like someone who believes that if you buy land and build something on it, the collective can commandeer it if it is valuable to the collective. Sorry comrade, under the current administration we're headed in that direction but we're not there yet.

I'm debating if I should even address this ridiculous post.


Anything that isn't republican/conservative is communist. I think that's the one tenet of this board.

The Mad Crapper
07-03-2010, 04:17 PM
Anything that isn't republican/conservative is communist. I think that's the one tenet of this board.

Why so socialist?

patteeu
07-03-2010, 04:40 PM
I'm debating if I should even address this ridiculous post.


Anything that isn't republican/conservative is communist. I think that's the one tenet of this board.

Just in case there's confusion on the point, I'm not calling net neutrality communist, I'm calling your idea that no one owns the internet (and your apparent approach to property rights in general) communist.