Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

What do you do if you want to control the Internet, but don't have the constitution authority to do so?. No problem, just have your loyal lapdogs at the FCC bypass Congress and grant themselves the necessary authority.
Think it can't happen?. Come back here on December 1 and see if we're still here.

http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/1 ... -internet/

More Breitbart...in his case, I'll need to see other corroborating evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

That is all.

Al Gore won't let it happen to his internet.

All right, after looking into this further, this has to do with the stunt Comcast pulled on their customers with respect to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) protocols like Bittorrent. Comcast denied throttling P2P communications, repeatedly...right up until they got caught red-handed. Then they continued their self-righteous--even indignant--attitude about "managing their network". Such crap, and any competent network engineer knows it's crap. Even Verizon doesn't do this, and they're pretty draconian in some ways. Cox certainly doesn't.

"But what about the pirates?" some might shout. "Isn't this a good thing anyway 'cuz it'll stop the pirates?" WRONG. If they actually mean "copyright infringers", then no, it won't, because history has repeatedly shown they'll always find a way. Besides, a whole lot of P2P, especially Bittorrent, is not copyright infringement at all. It's used for downloading/uploading GNU/Linux ISO images (e. g. Ubuntu, Slackware, CentOS), especially the DVD images given their size. It's used as part of the online game World of Warcraft. So, just shoot the innocents along with the "guilty", eh? Sorry, that's not America.

"But they can get Internet from other places! Let the free market sort this out!" WRONG again. Providers like Comcast very often are awarded monopolies by the local municipality to get said providers to dig their cable into the ground. I see this too often. The only other option is the "baby Bell" that services that area. So, it's usually a duopoly, which experience has shown me to be nearly as bad. If, say, Cox were also available in neighborhoods served by Comcast, there's no way Comcast would've dared tried this, much less repeatedly lie through their teeth about it.

Basically, the FCC is moving in an effort to try to stop providers like Comcast from pulling that stunt that they pulled. Had Comcast not pulled that stunt, the Feds wouldn't be looking at this option. Sorry if there's anyone employed there on this forum; unless you're a CxO, it's not directed at you.

So, once again, Mr. Breitbart is distorting the truth with his "Sky Is Falling!!" tantrums.

- T

Well, regardless of what we think about this the FCC does hold special privileges along with the EPA. Two big agencies that literally have power to make laws as abdicated by congress. So, if the FCC decides to pull a fast one, congress done weighed in long ago and we get to deal with the fallout...

In case anyone missed it, Comcast sent paid representation to speak at the VA legislature recently. I believe it was to prevent restaurant carry, but I could be wrong. It was definitely a pro-gun bill they wanted killed. I don't care what it was, but I have plenty of reasons already to hate comcast.

I don't even have cable or phone anymore. I just read more and spend more time with my daughter and constructing my 3 favorite consumables: homebrewed beer, jerky, and ammunition.

Where did you hear that, Tweaker? I get notice of pretty much every PAC action Comcast takes.

CowboyT - traffic shaping does work. My issue with the policy was that it was not conveyed to the customer, and the decision was made despite heavy objections by many within the company. It also crushed those of us blocked by Sandvine as we tried to download our World of Warcraft patches!

Mindflayer wrote:Where did you hear that, Tweaker? I get notice of pretty much every PAC action Comcast takes.

I also recall reading something to that effect. Might have been in a VA-Alert.

All right, after looking into this further, this has to do with the stunt Comcast pulled on their customers with respect to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) protocols like Bittorrent. Comcast denied throttling P2P communications, repeatedly...right up until they got caught red-handed. Then they continued their self-righteous--even indignant--attitude about "managing their network". Such crap, and any competent network engineer knows it's crap. Even Verizon doesn't do this, and they're pretty draconian in some ways. Cox certainly doesn't.

I recall this, at the time the IT News Community seemed pretty ticked off to me. They were/are concerned of where it may lead such as ISPs trying to slow certain websites they disagreed with. Pretty much what you ended up with is a call for "Net Neutrality". I think, but have yet to confirm personally, this is what we have here. Obviously, if this is the case it needs to be handled with great care and be very specif as to what powers the FCC has and doesn't have.