View Full Version : The End of Net Neutrality is the Beginnng of Fascism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi_FjFffZlQ
Seshmeister
11-22-2017, 01:06 AM
It was a difficult enough fight to get Black Jesus to stop corporations pushing this through so it I think we may be fucked this time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCPKJDNavIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDD2u7ufVqY
https://i.imgur.com/djtAOt5.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmR4cx-QAN4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzBMs96NN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZyBnIQ7EU
Will Bunch
November 24, 2017
Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48268.htm)
It’s so fitting that the Trump administration announced what may prove to be its most democracy-altering decision yet — a push by the pro-Trump Federal Communications Commission to end so-called net neutrality on the internet — on the Tuesday afternoon flowing into Peak Thanksgiving. It was as if the government wanted an overfed nation overdosing on tryptophan and TV blowouts of the Dallas Cowboys to nap through the news that the giant corporations of Big Telecom are about to gain massive control over the information that Americans consume, until it is just too late for regular folks to rally opposition to the latest episode of “Big Brother: America” from our reality-show president. Simply put, Team Trump didn’t want the average American to have good information about what is fast becoming the defining feature of our 45th presidency: It doesn’t want the public to have good information.
The cloud of chaos emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days makes it easy to lose the big picture. When the president of the United States is getting up before sunrise to Twitter-trash-talk a basketball dad (who, like most of Trump’s targets these days, just happens to be black) with an inane racist comparison to Don King, or arguing that it’s better in Alabama to vote “perv” than vote “Democrat,” while no actual legislation is getting passed, it’s easy to get lost in the hourly outrage cycle and view The Donald as an unhinged nut, his presidency in flames.
But behind the smoke and mirrors, Trump World is getting stuff done — bad stuff, like the gutting of many major regulations that once protected our environment, or the toxic police-state culture created by “taking the gloves off” ICE enforcement agents or your local cops, or installing regressive judges across the land. But the defining feature of Donald Trump’s presidency is its all-encompassing war on the truth. The tactic is the stream of lies that the president spews — sometimes dozens in a week. But the broader strategy is equally alarming: Trump hopes to extend and expand his reign of dishonesty by remaking the media landscape with fewer, diminished sources of valid facts, elevating the handful of outlets that worship our Dear Leader (Sinclair, Fox) while seeking to destroy the credibility and reputation of everyone else.
Trump’s big, bad idea is so universal it can embrace ideas that seem to be contradictions — until you look a little closer. How else to explain the fact that the FCC — controlled by a majority of pro-Trump commissioners — is, with its all-but-a-done-deal rollback of net neutrality, giving the gift of a lifetime to monster communication companies like Philadelphia-based Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. Yet at the same time Trump’s Justice Department seems to be taking an anti-big-business stance in opposing the planned merger of AT&T and Time-Warner without the spin-off of key assets like Time-Warner’s CNN, the bete noir of Trump’s rabid fan base.
But there’s been widespread (and seemingly informed) speculation that the government’s merger move has little to do with its usually pro-business ideology and everything to do with old-fashioned revenge against the news outlet that Trump has called “the Fake News Network” and accused of treating him so unfairly (despite considerable evidence of the exact opposite). There’s no smoking gun, but pro-Trump news outlets like the Daily Caller and the New York Post have quoted sources that Trump would love to oust CNN chief Jeff Zucker, and other journalists have labored to find a reason for trying to block the merger other than presidential spite. So basically Team Trump wants fewer outlets controlling the news — and it wants those that survive to, in the immortal words of Omarosa Manigault, “bow down to President Trump.”
Hatred for, and the stifling of, a free press and free flow of information is the glue that holds the Trump presidency — and the 36 percent who support him — together. Consider these droplets:
In addition to its net neutrality push, the FCC has also adopted a series of rules that will dramatically expand the reach of Sinclair Broadcasting into a coast-to-coast behemoth (including, at least for now, Philadelphia’s Channel 17) and allow it to reshape your local TV news away from community journalism and toward its relentlessly pro-Trump political agenda, with one-size-fits-all Trumpian commentary and inane “terrorism alert desk.”
Trump’s Justice Department seems to be sending a chilling message to rank-and-file journalists — and especially alternative journalists on the left more likely to be critical of the president — with its shocking decision to pursue felony “rioting” charges that could lead to a 10-year prison sentence for a Texas photojournalist named Alexei Wood. Wood covered a destructive melee on Trump’s inauguration day and his apparent “crime” was going “wooo” as he filmed an act of vandalism, not very smart but not anywhere near the ballpark of criminality.
These official acts come against a constant drumbeat from Trump seeking to delegitimatize journalism and the First Amendment at least in the eyes of his own supporters, calling hard-working reporters “the enemy of the American people,” threatening to relax libel laws amid the dream of forcing more outlets to go out of business like Gawker, and disrupting the news cycle with increasingly off-his-meds 6 a.m. tweets.
But the end of net neutrality would mean Trump and his allies are going nuclear in their war on information. Without the controls adopted by past incarnations of the FCC, your internet carrier would be free to charge you more for certain content; imagine if Comcast or Verizon started charging you for packages of accelerated and accessible websites — a “news” package with CNN.com and Philly.com or a “sports” package with league websites or Deadspin. (That’s how they do it now in countries like Portugal that don’t have net neutrality.)
Without net neutrality in Portugal, mobile internet is bundled like a cable package https://t.co/IwAnwW8f1s
— Pamela Curry (@pcurry57) November 22, 2017
There’s more. An internet provider would have the power to slow down the delivery of sites (presumably ones that don’t pay or offer other perks in return for high speed) and it could block some altogether — like, for example, that sites that are dedicated to complaints from customers of Comcast or other telecoms. To civil liberties groups like the ALCU, ending net neutrality isn’t just a way for billion-dollar companies to squeeze a few extra bucks from consumers, but “also one of the foremost free speech issues of our time.” In explaining its opposition, the ACLU writes: “After all, freedom of expression isn’t worth much if the forums where people actually make use of it are not themselves free.”
Vice Motherboard’s Sam Gustin recently reported on why net neutrality is shaping up as the free speech issue of the Trump era, quoting Steven Renderos, an organizer for the Center for Media Justice: “Net neutrality is not simply about technology. It’s about the everyday people who use it and whether they will have the right to be heard online.”
The stifling of good information creates a world in which citizens decide which version of “the truth” they want to believe, often with disastrous consequences — the fantasy world that Trump and his true believers covet. If you want to go to Ground Zero for the war on information, go to Alabama, where as much as half or more of the electorate won’t believe Senate candidate Roy Moore is a sexual predator because the allegations were reported in the Washington Post, one of the news outlets that our Oval Office authoritarian has decreed as “fake.”
But a thousand Alabamas and a thousand Roy Moores will blossom across America’s political landscape in an era when the flow of information is even more tightly controlled by a handful of powerful corporations who can and will be bullied and intimidated by the White House. It’s critical for the future of American free speech and democracy that the net neutrality rollback be stopped, but with the rubber-stamp FCC preparing to vote on Dec. 14, there are few good options and virtually no time to stop this dictator move. The war on factual information and the truth is repulsive, but it’s not the most outrageous thing about the Trump presidency. The most outrageous thing is that Trump is winning. :puke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfpNI4TjmdQ
Kristy
11-27-2017, 03:33 PM
Awesome.
The internet has become total shit. Facecrook, porn, Facecrook.
About time it fucking died.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TtlJzQm0vo
Nickdfresh
11-30-2017, 10:45 AM
Awesome.
The internet has become total shit. Facecrook, porn, Facecrook.
About time it fucking died.
It always had porn, FFS! Are you a MySpace holdout?
GoDaddy pulled her golden shower site and she never got over it :monekyr:
Take 'Em
12-01-2017, 10:38 AM
Just wait until the Taxes start to really hit us all via our Access providers (AT&T,Verizon, and the rest of the backbone guys) that will be the beneficiaries of being able to control the FastLanes.
Anybody that thinks that the Federal Govt. does not have that baked into the plan in the not so distant future has their head in the friggin sand!!!!
Feds will say "Ok you guys can do what you want you want, but you have to continue to build more Fiber Routes in the name of Rural Broadband Expansion/5 G Deployments to better the country, oh and by the way here is a new tax you are gonna get hit with (which ultimately ends up in our monthly bill .)
Kristy
12-01-2017, 11:17 PM
It always had porn, FFS! Are you a MySpace holdout?
No.
Kristy
12-01-2017, 11:18 PM
GoDaddy pulled her golden shower site and she never got over it :monekyr:
And you bigoted Bernie brats wonder why you lost and will continue to lose. You whiny fucks are who is truly responsible for this.
jacksmar
12-03-2017, 04:35 PM
Google loses.
It's so funny how the leftists want the MA Bell model.
When we were starting a comm company back in 1995 we welcomed the Telecomm Act of 1996. Only the MA Bell repubs and dems screamed fascism. 20 years later the same assholes are screaming fascism.
All you need to know about this whole issue: Ubama.
Net neutrality makes the internet neutral in the same way that Ubamacare made health care affordable....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx1AZ-9RLQ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNk75UGzTB4
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/317/164/289.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFkzJc7kJKc
Poll: Almost Nobody Likes Plan To Kill Net Neutrality. GOP FCC Chair Ajit Pai: We're Doing It Anyway
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/crop-gettyimages-887892238.jpg?itok=2Egs3zVV
Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/12/13/poll-almost-nobody-likes-plan-kill-net-neutrality-gop-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-were-doing)
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Despite new polling that shows more than 80 percent of Americans oppose Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's plan to repeal net neutrality protections for the internet—which has provoked months of national protests—the FCC is disregarding that concern and will carry out its scheduled vote on the proposal Thursday.
"Nationwide voters are rising up against the unjust, immoral, and unseemly role of corporate money in our political system. They are sick and tired of the naked pay-to-play corporatism on display in tomorrow's vote."
—Michael Copps, Common Cause and former FCC commissioner
The University of Maryland survey (pdf), published Monday, prepared respondents to weigh in by first providing them with policy briefs from both sides—Pai and major internet service providers (ISPs) such as Verizon, who claim the protections are a burdern, versus consumer groups and tech companies that argue net neutrality is the foundation on which the internet is built.
Although about 48 percent said Pai's argument that "rules restricting ISPs are unnecessarily heavy‐handed and stifle innovation" was convincing, more than 75 percent were convinced the rollback would "basically giv[e] ISPs a license to steal from consumers."
Ultimately, 83 percent of registered voters—75 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Democrats, and 86 percent of Independents—said they oppose Pai's plan to allow service providers to control download speeds, limit or block access to certain websites, and charge consumers extra fees for broader access.
"A decision to repeal net neutrality would be tacking against strong headwinds of public opinion blowing in the opposite direction," said Steven Kull, who directs the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation, which conducted the poll.
Responding to concerns over the proposed rollback, members of Congress on Wednesday condemned the plan and numerous lawmakers, from both major parties, have joined calls on Pai to delay the vote or abandon the effort completely.
"Repealing net neutrality rules will benefit just a few powerful corporations—and it will do so at the expense of small businesses, consumers, and hardworking Americans, whose persistent and passionate voices on this issue have been completely ignored by the FCC's Republican majority," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said on the floor of the Senate this week. "This is not about partisanship. Republicans and Democrats alike benefit from the power of an open Internet, and equally stand to be harmed if the rules of the road ensuring its openness go away."
The widespread opposition is visible online and in the streets, as a massive mobilization against the upcoming vote continues across the web and with hundreds expected to turn out on Thursday morning for a demonstration at FCC headquarters.
The Net Neutrality Wake-Up Call Rally—as Thursday's protest is being called—is hosted by Voices for Internet Freedom, a coalition that focuses on the digital rights of communities of color and includes Color Of Change, Free Press Action Fund, 18 Million Rising, the Center for Media Justice, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition.
The rally will feature speakers from some of those organizations as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
"Nationwide voters are rising up against the unjust, immoral, and unseemly role of corporate money in our political system. They are sick and tired of the naked pay-to-play corporatism on display in tomorrow's vote," said Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner who now serves as a special adviser to Common Cause.
Copps warned that with the vote, the internet could become "a shadowy world of monopoly, commercialism, and conspiracy in restraint of democracy that totally subverts the promise of what might have been."
"There is still time to pull back from the precipice but unfortunately it is hard to imagine Ajit Pai reversing course and voting in the public's interest on net neutrality. The will of the American people has been ignored to date for the benefit of deep-pocketed special interests," Copps concluded, alluding to Pai's ties to companies that stand to benefit from his proposals—from his "massive handout" to Sinclair Broadcast Group by rolling back media ownership rules to appeasing Verizon by dismantling net neutrality.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWphqA1Slrw
:meinsmiley: :puke::fighting0043:
AG Ferguson announces lawsuit to come on net neutrality (http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-lawsuit-come-net-neutrality)
Printer-friendly version
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Dec 14 2017
SEATTLE — Attorney General Bob Ferguson released the following statement on today's Federal Communications Commission vote to repeal net neutrality.
"Yesterday I sent a letter to the FCC asking them to delay their vote gutting net neutrality. Unfortunately, they did not.
"Today, I am announcing my intention to file a legal challenge to the FCC’s decision to roll back net neutrality, along with attorneys general across the country.
"We are 5-0 against the Trump Administration because they often fail to follow the law when taking executive action. There is a strong legal argument that with this action, the federal government violated the Administrative Procedure Act — again.
"We will be filing a petition for review in the coming days.
"Allowing internet service providers to discriminate based on content undermines a free and open internet. Today’s action will seriously harm consumers, innovation and small businesses.
"I was proud to stand with Gov. Inslee yesterday when he announced that Washington state will step up to protect consumers in light of this disappointing federal action. I commend him for his leadership and look forward to continuing to work with him to that end."
-30-
The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal office for the state of Washington with attorneys and staff in 27 divisions across the state providing legal services to roughly 200 state agencies, boards and commissions. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.
Contacts:
Brionna Aho, Communications Director, (360) 753-2727; brionna.aho@atg.wa.gov
New York state AG to sue over net neutrality reversal
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on Thursday he would lead a multi-state legal challenge to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse landmark the 2015 net neutrality rules.
Schneiderman, a Democrat, said in a statement that states “will sue to stop the FCC’s illegal rollback of net neutrality.”
The American Civil Liberties Union also pledged a court fight after the 3-2 vote and a trade group representing companies like Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc said it opposed the reversal and was weighing legal options. (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli)
Senator Markey Leads Resolution to Restore FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules
Thursday, December 14, 2017
CRA resolution would reinstate robust net neutrality protections and the Open Internet Order
Washington (December 14, 2017) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and 15 other Senators today announced their plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would undo today’s action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. Today, the FCC approved an item that guts the 2015 Open Internet Order, which the D.C. Circuit Court upheld in 2016. The Open Internet Order prohibited internet service providers from setting up internet fast and slow lanes and ensured they could not block or slow down internet traffic.
“Donald Trump’s FCC made an historic mistake today by overturning its net neutrality rules, and we cannot let it stand,” said Senator Markey. “Without strong net neutrality rules, entrepreneurs, inventors, small businesses, activists and all those who rely on a free and open internet will be at the mercy of big broadband companies that can block websites, slow down traffic and charge websites fees in order to increase their profits.
“We will fight the FCC’s decisions in the courts, and we will fight it in the halls of Congress,” continued Senator Markey. “With this CRA, Congress can correct the Commission’s misguided and partisan decision and keep the internet in the hands of the people, not big corporations. Our Republicans colleagues have a choice - be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support net neutrality, or hold hands with the big cable and broadband companies who only want to supercharge their profits at the expense of consumers and our economy.”
A copy of the CRA can be found HERE (https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRA%20Net%20Neutrality%20.pdf).
Senator Markey’s resolution of disapproval would rescind FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s item and fully restore the Open Internet Order. CRA resolutions allow Congress to overturn regulatory actions at federal agencies with a simple majority vote in both chambers. In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, the Senators will formally introduce the resolution once the rule is submitted to both houses of Congress and published in the federal register. Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) plans to introduce a CRA resolution in the House of Representatives.
Other Senators co-sponsoring the CRA resolution include Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii.), Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Kristy
12-14-2017, 04:18 PM
Oh dear, will your welfare check no longer cover your internet bill?
Seshmeister
12-14-2017, 07:14 PM
Oh dear, will your welfare check no longer cover your internet bill?
Shush dummy child the adults are talking,
Seshmeister
12-14-2017, 07:17 PM
Google loses.
It's so funny how the leftists want the MA Bell model.
When we were starting a comm company back in 1995 we welcomed the Telecomm Act of 1996. Only the MA Bell repubs and dems screamed fascism. 20 years later the same assholes are screaming fascism.
All you need to know about this whole issue: Ubama.
Net neutrality makes the internet neutral in the same way that Ubamacare made health care affordable....
Fucking turkeys voting for Xmas, try and read and learn and think FFS.
This is NOT a left/right democrat/republican issue. This is owners of multinationals v everyone else.
Unless you own a multinational corporation which I suspect you don't then you are being totally fucking stitched up.
I'll probably now be moving this site away from the US but for Americans, whether you can find it or not will depend on whether your government and internet providers let you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48b2_u3w6hk
Terry
12-14-2017, 08:12 PM
Fucking turkeys voting for Xmas, try and read and learn and think FFS.
This is NOT a left/right democrat/republican issue. This is owners of multinationals v everyone else.
Unless you own a multinational corporation which I suspect you don't then you are being totally fucking stitched up.
I'll probably now be moving this site away from the US but for Americans, whether you can find it or not will depend on whether your government and internet providers let you.
So, the membership will then be reduced to you and...Cato?
jacksmar
12-14-2017, 09:09 PM
Fucking turkeys voting for Xmas, try and read and learn and think FFS.
This is NOT a left/right democrat/republican issue. This is owners of multinationals v everyone else.
Unless you own a multinational corporation which I suspect you don't then you are being totally fucking stitched up.
I'll probably now be moving this site away from the US but for Americans, whether you can find it or not will depend on whether your government and internet providers let you.
sesh, if glaad and atsandraFlUCKe and BSanders are predicting the end of times, it's a left right issue. Not to mention the previous idiot wheeler had a gag order on the FCC rules. and google was in wheelers pocket.
customers don't like metered connections. so the ISP's are looking to extort cash from the content providers.
the way to view this whole issue is that neutrality is just like every other democratic and repub regulation: it's a solution in search of a problem.
getting rid of the leftist idea that the internet is some sort of public utility subject to government regulation is a good idea.
Seshmeister
12-14-2017, 09:13 PM
So, the membership will then be reduced to you and...Cato?
Mainly me, Cato hasn't posted much recently.
I'm kind of ranting here, this site is a basket case because the artist not active and social media has replaced forums.
The issue with this horrible decision is more about new people finding the site,
In a couple of years someone like Kristy may not even know we exist because a corporation has changed their setup. Maybe they will block the site because of rich evangelicals objecting to a pic of a naked woman?
Seshmeister
12-14-2017, 09:17 PM
sesh, if glaad and atsandraFlUCKe and BSanders are predicting the end of times, it's a left right issue. Not to mention the previous idiot wheeler had a gag order on the FCC rules. and google was in wheelers pocket.
customers don't like metered connections. so the ISP's are looking to extort cash from the content providers.
the way to view this whole issue is that neutrality is just like every other democratic and repub regulation: it's a solution in search of a problem.
getting rid of the leftist idea that the internet is some sort of public utility subject to government regulation is a good idea.
If Obama told you not to kill yourself would you shoot your fucking head off?
This is ridiculous.
Think for yourself, politics is NOT sports. Don't support a team, think for yourself about what is good for you. Fuck politicians.
Maybe this will make it easier for Jerksmear to understand.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdMeIw6o8Xo
Of course the part that the lady forgot to mention is that a "bar" owned by Comcast or Verizon is likely to only have swill like Bud Lite or Coors on tap, as soon as they can get away with it.... and that's after they make sure you can't even buy the good stuff in bottles.
Shitty internet is as intolerable as shitty beer. I have no intention of settling for either one :gulp:
Nickdfresh
12-14-2017, 09:39 PM
...
getting rid of the leftist idea that the internet is some sort of public utility subject to government regulation is a good idea.
You mean like your shitty local cable company? What to you have? COXsuckers?
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/782/384/722.jpg
My provider was Cox Cable around 10 years ago, and these douchewagons used to actually prevent connections to consumer sites that posted bad reviews of them, but hey! They could! Well, technically it was illegal, but Republican'ts were in control so no one gave a shit until they got sued...
Seshmeister
12-14-2017, 09:59 PM
Jack this is kind of what we do.
You have 3000 posts here.
I know fuck all about plumbing.
If my plumber said to me the government wants to give big water companies the ability to really really fuck you over I would listen to them.
I wouldn't ask 'What does Trump think?' because I don't like him I need to think the opposite.
Fucking irrelevant. Think for yourself FFS.
Terry
12-14-2017, 10:48 PM
Mainly me, Cato hasn't posted much recently.
I'm kind of ranting here, this site is a basket case because the artist not active and social media has replaced forums.
The issue with this horrible decision is more about new people finding the site,
In a couple of years someone like Kristy may not even know we exist because a corporation has changed their setup. Maybe they will block the site because of rich evangelicals objecting to a pic of a naked woman?
I was just being flippant with the Cato remark.
I will say that I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any ideas that would draw new people to the site. The obstacle isn't so much that Roth isn't active - because the biggest period of site activity was I'd guess in 2004, and Dave wasn't exactly doing much of anything then, either - but exactly as you say in terms of social media overtaking traditional web forum-oriented sites.
The added barrier is that unless Roth is actually doing something with Van Halen, the masses don't give a shit. You'll get your (based on Roth's last two solo album sales) 50,000 Dave Or The Grave diehards. Everybody else is content with just youtubing the California Girls video.
So I don't envy your task: it's a steep uphill climb.
Seshmeister
12-14-2017, 11:10 PM
If things don't improve soon I'm going to have to put up a sex tape of me being fucked by Kristy.
jacksmar
12-15-2017, 03:21 AM
Jack this is kind of what we do.
You have 3000 posts here.
I know fuck all about plumbing.
If my plumber said to me the government wants to give big water companies the ability to really really fuck you over I would listen to them.
I wouldn't ask 'What does Trump think?' because I don't like him I need to think the opposite.
Fucking irrelevant. Think for yourself FFS.
sesh, I know exactly what you do here. So why hasn't the Roth Army moved to a Quantum FFT's provider and just placed a MAC address on the consumer item QAM, ( ie TV, modem, PC)? Is Europe still dealing with ODFM transmission issues requiring a good old fashion linear power amp on the carrier or is the FCC just missing another opportunity to look over somebody's shoulder and make sure providers charge everyone the same for no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization?
BTW, I used to know one of the engineers at Richweb who worked on the bridging. So close to DC to turn down better money.
good luck with your sink...
Hardrock69
12-15-2017, 10:50 AM
Nothing has changed yet. So the FCC voted.
It does not change anything.
Net Neutrality cancellation has to be voted on by Congress to become law.
Goddam chickens. Cackling and going apeshit when nothing has happened yet.
twonabomber
12-15-2017, 11:11 AM
Nothing has changed yet. So the FCC voted.
It does not change anything.
Net Neutrality cancellation has to be voted on by Congress to become law.
Goddam chickens. Cackling and going apeshit when nothing has happened yet.
And how many state AG's suing to stop it?
Nickdfresh
12-15-2017, 11:49 AM
And how many state AG's suing to stop it?
Not sure but NY is leading the charge...
twonabomber
12-15-2017, 11:52 AM
I saw a list of maybe 12 states.
Nitro Express
12-15-2017, 01:28 PM
Nothing has changed yet. So the FCC voted.
It does not change anything.
Net Neutrality cancellation has to be voted on by Congress to become law.
Goddam chickens. Cackling and going apeshit when nothing has happened yet.
FCC regulations are not law. They are regulations and if you look harder into the so called net neutrality regulations all they do is give internet providers like Comcast equal access to the internet. They do nothing to stop Google, Facebook, and Twitter from giving their customers neutral access to their services. In short net neutrality protects Google's ability to censor content. Not very neutral in my book. Clever to call it net neutrality though. It's anything but neutral.
Terry
12-15-2017, 04:53 PM
If things don't improve soon I'm going to have to put up a sex tape of me being fucked by Kristy.
(slightly ashamed tone of voice)...I'd kinda like to see that...
https://i.imgur.com/wDeQrKN.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzsr9UDf25s
Kristy
01-25-2018, 07:39 PM
Competition, people!
https://youtu.be/ltzy5vRmN8Q
I'm not sure why Burger King is suddenly interested in Net Neutrality. Maybe they're afraid Mickey D's will get preferential treatment online because Cheeto eats their shitty cheeseburgers & fish sandwiches.
I applaud them in their efforts to take the message to the people, for whatever reason though. God knows they ain't going to hear it from the corporate media (especially networks owned by Scumcast & Time Whorener)
Seshmeister
01-25-2018, 08:19 PM
So, the membership will then be reduced to you and...Cato?
Cato is busy...
https://kek.gg/i/3ZgNmc.gif
Kristy
01-25-2018, 08:25 PM
I'm not sure why Burger King is suddenly interested in Net Neutrality.
Most likely to keep the Bernie bigots out of their restaurants.
Bernie supporters prefer healthy food. I haven't eaten at Burger King in probably 10 years. Or Mickey D's for that matter. Subway's about as "fast food" as I get anymore, and that's only a few times a year.
Cato is busy...
https://kek.gg/i/3ZgNmc.gif
That looks like it could be very painful with even the slightest miscalculation.
Seshmeister
01-25-2018, 08:49 PM
Subway aren't that bad for you relatively speaking if you avoid the meatball marinara.
The calories at Burger King are nuts, I think worse than McDs. If you are going to have 1000 calories of fast food there are always better options than a Burger King burger with no fries or soda. I think one of their burgers on it's own is 1200+ and if you had it for lunch you would still be a bit hungry, I don't know how they do it. :)
Seshmeister
01-25-2018, 08:50 PM
That looks like it could be very painful with even the slightest miscalculation.
That's the funny thing, wondering about all the rehearsal attempts... :)
Seshmeister
01-25-2018, 08:56 PM
The calories at Burger King are nuts, I think worse than McDs. If you are going to have 1000 calories of fast food there are always better options than a Burger King burger with no fries or soda. I think one of their burgers on it's own is 1200+ and if you had it for lunch you would still be a bit hungry, I don't know how they do it. :)
Ok I had to go look it up and I was exagerating slightly. Here it is, the BACON KING Sandwich - 1150 calories. Ignoring all the stuff about nutritian/fat and so on, if for your dinner all you had was that and a glass of water, I think the average person would still be a little bit hungry or not satiated which is my point.
https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/adPQtg9WonHJ8rW5GRLVPw/o.jpg
Incidently in the same way as the 'Royale with cheese' thing from Pulp Fiction, in the UK that is called a bacon double which is not as cool a name as a BACON KING! :D
Anyhoo sorry a bit off topic... :)
Subway aren't that bad for you relatively speaking if you avoid the meatball marinara.
The calories at Burger King are nuts, I think worse than McDs. If you are going to have 1000 calories of fast food there are always better options than a Burger King burger with no fries or soda. I think one of their burgers on it's own is 1200+ and if you had it for lunch you would still be a bit hungry, I don't know how they do it. :)
The Jack in the Box "Ultimate Cheeseburger" was about 1250 calories, if I remember correctly. Used to be one of my favorite meals back in the bar hopping days, since their drive thru was open late. Now I know how it was able to absorb all that alcohol. It was double meat, double cheese, double bacon. Tasted great, but one bite will probably harden an artery or two.
On the other hand, Wendy's seems to have taken a whole new approach to their menu.....
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/26/2f/7e/262f7e0365a178db700b7f7d9bf5c66e--fast-food-restaurant-night-vale.jpg
twonabomber
01-26-2018, 01:22 AM
Wendy's Baconator is 940 calories. Much better to make something similar at home.
Nitro Express
01-26-2018, 03:52 AM
How come people count calories when they eat fast food and don't give a damn when they drink beer? Hell even hard liquor is loaded with calories. You can eat your way fat or drink your way fat. I guess this is where the cocaine comes in to save us.
Seshmeister
01-26-2018, 10:42 AM
This is the whole approach - eat low fat mayo all week and you have saved up enough calories to drink a bottle of vodka come Friday.
I may write a book... :D
Nickdfresh
01-26-2018, 11:23 AM
Wendy's Baconator is 940 calories. Much better to make something similar at home.
Or just go to a well reviewed pub or bar restaurant and pay the same for something much better...
Kristy
01-26-2018, 11:34 AM
Subway aren't that bad for you relatively speaking if you avoid the meatball marinara.
The calories at Burger King are nuts, I think worse than McDs. If you are going to have 1000 calories of fast food there are always better options than a Burger King burger with no fries or soda. I think one of their burgers on it's own is 1200+ and if you had it for lunch you would still be a bit hungry, I don't know how they do it. :)
Once again we see how SESH's slavery knows no bounds. Chubghey food is gross. The meat(s) are all processed, heavily full of sodium (which is why that shit taste so dry) and the same for their "nutritious veggies." And it's not the god damn calories in a Booger Fling Schlopper that will kill you, it's the god damn sodium which is way, way, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY above the RDA limit.
http://images.allsingaporestuff.com/styles/big_within_article/s3/field/image/overweight_macs.jpg
And don't get me started on the slaughterhouse barfed-up shit cum (Heart) Blocko Smell uses.
Kristy
01-26-2018, 11:37 AM
How come people count calories when they eat fast food and don't give a damn when they drink beer? Hell even hard liquor is loaded with calories. You can eat your way fat or drink your way fat. I guess this is where the cocaine comes in to save us.
Right, so why is snot water like Coors Lite the #1 selling lite beer for what other reason, you Trump-blowing sycophant?
twonabomber
01-26-2018, 12:40 PM
Bud Light is #1 overall, followed by Coors Light and Miller Lite
Budweiser no longer is among the top three best-selling beers in the U.S., according to Beer Marketer's Insights, as people drink less beer or switch to craft brews, wine or spirits.
Miller Lite has supplanted Budweiser as the No. 3 favorite beer, behind No. 1 Bud Light and No. 2 Coors Light, according to 2017 estimates from the trade publication, which has tracked the industry for more than 40 years.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2018/01/23/budweiser-falls-top-three-u-s-beer-favorites/1057374001/
vandeleur
01-26-2018, 12:58 PM
Proffesional drinkers are never fat , usually skinny Gollum with a goatee ( great band name ) like mother fukkers.
It’s us amateurs when need a kabab to get us to the pizza shop after double figures put the beef on.
Kristy
01-26-2018, 02:58 PM
I really don't fucking care. Have to take my god damn dog to the vet before it goes all Cujo on me.
Surprised you don't have the proper medicine for your dog....
https://canna-pet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/canna-pet-new-canna-biscuits-maple-bacon-600x600.jpg
Kristy
01-26-2018, 04:11 PM
It's for her distemper shot, rabies, and the other one.
Seshmeister
01-26-2018, 08:34 PM
Bud Light is #1 overall, followed by Coors Light and Miller Lite
What's the old line, like sex in a canoe?
Fucking close to water.
I've never had any of them.
https://youtu.be/8l4C1m_19zE
time.com (http://time.com/5187117/washington-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_campaign=time&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=time_socialflow_twitter)
Net Neutrality: Washington Becomes 1st State to Set Up Rules
Rachel La Corte / AP
4-5 minutes
(OLYMPIA, Wash.) — Washington became the first state Monday to set up its own net-neutrality requirements after U.S. regulators repealed Obama-era rules that banned internet providers from blocking content or interfering with online traffic.
“We know that when D.C. fails to act, Washington state has to do so,” Gov. Jay Inslee said before signing the measure that lawmakers passed with bipartisan support. “We know how important this is.”
The Federal Communications Commission voted in December to gut U.S. rules that meant to prevent broadband companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet. The regulations also prohibited providers from favoring some sites and apps over others.
Because the FCC prohibited state laws from contradicting its decision, opponents of the Washington law have said it would lead to lawsuits.
Inslee said he was confident of its legality, saying “the states have a full right to protect their citizens.”
The new law also requires internet providers to disclose information about their management practices, performance and commercial terms. Violations would be enforceable under the state’s Consumer Protection Act.
While several states introduced similar measures this year seeking to protect net neutrality, so far only Oregon and Washington have passed legislation. But Oregon’s measure wouldn’t put any new requirements on internet providers.
It would stop state agencies from buying internet service from any company that blocks or prioritizes specific content or apps, starting in 2019. It’s unclear when Oregon’s measure would be signed into law.
Washington state was among more than 20 states and the District of Columbia that sued in January to try and block the FCC’s action. There are also efforts by Democrats to undo the move in Congress.
Governors in five states — Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Montana and Vermont — have signed executive orders related to net-neutrality issues, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Montana’s order, for instance, bars telecommunications companies from receiving state contracts if they interfere with internet traffic or favor higher-paying sites or apps.
Big telecom companies have said net neutrality rules could undermine investment in broadband and introduce uncertainty about what are acceptable business practices. Net-neutrality advocates say the FCC decision harms innovation and make it harder for the government to crack down on internet providers who act against consumer interests.
The FCC’s new rules are not expected to go into effect until later this spring. Washington’s law will take effect in June.
Messages left Monday with the Broadband Communications Association of Washington, which opposed the bill, were not immediately returned.
But executive director Ron Main said last month that its member companies “have made legally enforceable public pledges that we do not take any action to block legal content; that we do not engage in throttling; that we do not discriminate; and that we will insure that our practices are transparent to all of our customers.”
Ron Main is a fucking liar. Scumcast is constantly throttling streams. It's apparently some automated bot process, since it seems to happen right around the same time, every hour.
Cascadia - Home of legal weed, great beer, decent coffee, non-electrofraud voting, and now net neutrality. Now if the fucking rain would go away.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.