WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > “Net Neutrality” Explain What Will Change

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
“Net Neutrality” Explain What Will Change  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 06:28 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
I am not understanding the consequences and changes that may come about with this net neutrality law?
Anybody give simple summary and examples how this will affect users?



____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 06:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 49231
Status: 
Offline
Absolutely nothing. Liberals are being ridiculous. This rolls back regularuons that had only been around for a couple of years. We all used the Internet just fine way back in 2014. I think we’ll survive now.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 04:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6737
Status: 
Online
srossi wrote: Absolutely nothing. Liberals are being ridiculous. This rolls back regularuons that had only been around for a couple of years. We all used the Internet just fine way back in 2014. I think we’ll survive now.
So we're not all going to die because of this? Cause twitter said we were all going to die if we lost net neutrality..



____________________
Well, Im of the opinion that one wouldnt actually have to eat the corn out of Chynas shit to know that nothing good could come of it. - Portalesman
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 05:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Kriss
Citizen of nowhere


Joined: Wed Dec 12th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 6723
Status: 
Offline
In theory, internet providers would be able to offer tiered packages based on content, rather than just bandwidth. For example, you might have to pay more to be able to access Netflix. They could, also in theory, have ISPs completely blocking access to certain sites.

Last edited on Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 05:38 pm by Kriss

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 07:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
MadFrogVachon

 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 201
Status: 
Offline
What will happen? Nobody knows (including these partisan hacks)

What could happen? Internet providers could charge extra for using streaming services or to access certain we3bsites, they could block certain sites altogether. They could also limit your monthly bandwidth allotment like cell phone carriers do. THey could charge companies like Netflix and WWE more for access to their servers, they could block porn sites. internet companies could dictate what you're allowed to see or do on the net

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jan 23rd, 2018 10:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1182
Status: 
Offline
What?! You mean the companies that are paying to provide you with a service might actually have a say in how they provide you with that service? For fuck's sake, if you don't like it then go read a book, start a backyard wrestling promotion, or jack off to Polaroids of dumpy bondage models. Life is full of choices, my friend.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jan 24th, 2018 10:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
MadFrogVachon

 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 201
Status: 
Offline
Indeed it is - aome people (like yourself) choose to be assholes and endorse big business having total control over your life.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jan 24th, 2018 10:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 49231
Status: 
Offline
MadFrogVachon wrote: Indeed it is - aome people (like yourself) choose to be assholes and endorse big business having total control over your life.
The hypocrisy of that type of statement never ceases to amaze me when the Bernie crowd wants the government to have total control of our lives.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jan 24th, 2018 10:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
MadFrogVachon

 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 201
Status: 
Offline
no, as a matter of fact they don't. It's the conservatives who are perfectly happy with laws dictating who people are allowed to date and marry, what women are allowed to do with their own bodies, what we can read, what we watch on TV see on the internet. WHat churches are allowed to be built and which ones aren't. But it you're happy with Nazi rule that's up to you

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jan 24th, 2018 11:09 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 49231
Status: 
Offline
MadFrogVachon wrote: no, as a matter of fact they don't. It's the conservatives who are perfectly happy with laws dictating who people are allowed to date and marry, what women are allowed to do with their own bodies, what we can read, what we watch on TV see on the internet. WHat churches are allowed to be built and which ones aren't. But it you're happy with Nazi rule that's up to you
You must not have read the news in a very long time if you think this is only happening on one side. 

And then you have the FISA vote, which is awful strange if Dems really hate Trump and value freedom as much as they claim.  It's almost like (once again) it's all a dog and pony show and the two sides are exactly the same.  But any Bernie Bro should already know that after what they did to your guy.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-fisa-democrats-20180117-story.html

After years of tangling with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), civil liberties activists seemed to have her onboard with their fight to curtail the vast warrantless surveillance program exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

They were optimistic Tuesday when she headed into a major vote over whether to impose new restrictions on the government monitoring.

But after a spirited nail-biter of a floor fight, Feinstein broke with privacy advocates from the right and left to cast a crucial vote in favor of leaving the program largely unchanged for the next six years.

Feinstein's retreat back to a hawkish posture on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) gave supporters of the status quo the vote they needed to quell a growing movement in the Senate for more privacy protections. She was one of 18 Democrats and one independent who caucuses with Democrats who voted to shut down consideration of major changes to the program.

Progressive activists are now accusing those lawmakers of betrayal. The friction among Democrats over the FISA program is sure to endure through the year as the party's factions battle over the approach they need to take to win back power.
Many of the Democrats who joined Feinstein in voting against consideration of substantial restrictions on the monitoring represent swing states, where voters are uneasy about warnings from law enforcement that new restrictions on the program will make Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

"With their votes today, these Democrats have ceded tremendous power to the executive branch to engage in mass and warrantless surveillance — a power that history has shown time and again is ripe for abuse," read a statement from Demand Progress, a progressive advocacy group with 2 million members, posted on Twitter. "This expanded surveillance power is particularly troubling in the hands of the Trump administration." The group posted a list of the senators' names, and highlighted in yellow those who are up for reelection this year.

The dismay of Demand Progress was shared by some senators.

"A travesty that Senate tonite by 1 vote ended debate on deeply flawed #FISA Sec 702 surveillance bill," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) posted on Twitter.
Opponents of the bill were seeking to curb "backdoor searches," through which law enforcement scrapes databases for messages of Americans who may have had incidental contact with — or merely mentioned — foreigners who are on watch lists.

The surveillance authority granted under the program, according to some legal experts, can be invoked by investigators to access and read an American's online communications, without a warrant, if they do something as benign as promote a climate change protest abroad or attend an academic conference on international affairs.

The backdoor searches can also be used to gather evidence without a warrant in pursuing criminal cases that are unrelated to terrorism.

The approach that passed the House last month and is now poised for final Senate approval this week includes a narrow new warrant requirement that applies only when records are being accessed well into a criminal investigation.

Senate Democrats were within reach of blocking the reauthorization after the many opponents of it in their caucus were joined by a handful of Republicans in the chamber in warning that the program is an example of government overreach.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he opposes "government listening to your phone calls, reading your emails or reading your text messages without a warrant." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) warned that the warrant requirements in the measure poised for passage "are filled with loopholes that any biased government agent can exploit."

Their arguments, though, ultimately lost out to those of the leadership on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which warned that strict new warrant requirements would dangerously hobble law enforcement. Those lawmakers heeded the guidance of the directors of the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the U.S. attorney general, who have steadfastly advised against restrictions they say would return law enforcement agencies to the pre-9/11 days when barriers to accessing information allowed terrorists to slip through the cracks.

"Section 702 stands among the most important of our intelligence programs," said Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia who voted for the reauthorization. "Congress must not further delay consideration of a long term authorization."

Feinstein is also a long-serving member of the committee, and she has said in the past that her support for the surveillance program is rooted in what she has learned in its confidential briefings about terrorist threats and how law enforcement uses such programs to confront them.

During debate on the measure Wednesday, Feinstein said, "I would like to see more reforms in this program, and perhaps that is something those of us on the Intelligence Committee can strive for. But I believe this is the best we are going to do at this time."

Back in California, voters are skeptical of law enforcement arguments that it would be dangerous to add new warrant requirements to the program. Feinstein's approval ratings have suffered during her time as one of the surveillance program's biggest defenders.

A rival she faces in the upcoming primary, state Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), went on Twitter to highlight how her nascent support for more warrants faded Tuesday night. "Disturbing that several DC Dems voted to give Trump the unconstitutional power to spy on us," he wrote.

Last edited on Wed Jan 24th, 2018 11:11 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jan 25th, 2018 03:14 am
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
MadFrogVachon

 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 201
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote:  jack off to Polaroids of dumpy bondage models.  style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"AH, come on, you wife doesn't look that dumpy despite the sagging boobs

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jan 25th, 2018 03:22 am
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Angelic Assassin



Joined: Mon Dec 27th, 2010
Location: Driving Through Philly, Home Of Losers., Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 5947
Status: 
Offline
I'm sensing there might be an added match to the Royal Rumble pre show.



____________________
This thread was great till Rossi posted that AA ruined it.

Rossi=The Mouth That Bored
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jan 25th, 2018 12:09 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4377
Status: 
Offline
The point is that the internet was invented, built, and paid for by taxpayers, and the US Government is going to hand over free, gratis and for nothing the benefit of charging for it to private companies.



____________________
superfunkymean
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jan 25th, 2018 06:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1182
Status: 
Offline
It bears repeating that this does nothing more than restore the status quo ante of a couple years ago.  The net neutrality act was nothing more than the Obama government trying to fix a problem that didn't exist by, get this, allowing the government to exercise control over private enterprise.   
 
No one's going to take away access to your soft core bondage pics.  And if anyone ever did, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be someone in the government, not the big, bad private companies who would be happier to make a buck any way they could.



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jan 25th, 2018 07:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 49231
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: It bears repeating that this does nothing more than restore the status quo ante of a couple years ago.  The net neutrality act was nothing more than the Obama government trying to fix a problem that didn't exist by, get this, allowing the government to exercise control over private enterprise.   
 
No one's going to take away access to your soft core bondage pics.  And if anyone ever did, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be someone in the government, not the big, bad private companies who would be happier to make a buck any way they could.

This.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 09:55 pm Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > “Net Neutrality” Explain What Will Change Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems