Firearms sales and affects of net neutrality?

[PiratePast40]

Websites such as ebay and craigslist, along with internet or cell phone payment methods such as square deal currently forbid firearms and ammunition listings or monetary transfers using their systems. If we go to net neutrality, would those vendors/services now be forced to allow these transactions and listings?

And what about other content? For example, would this website be required to have a separate section specifically for groups such as Ceasefire to offer alternative opinions?

Read More

 

[Just Jim]

Best to get what you want before you need it.

 

[Morpheus]

While the Net Neutrality was to stop ISPs from having a tiered payment system and to prevent them for charging content providers, you bring up interesting off shoots.

I believe most of the new regulations revolve around billing for ISPs, not for impacts on content providers or who they can choose to do business with.

This could be a very interesting offshoot (read unintended consequences) of this legislation.

 

[NoFlinch]

If we go to net neutrality, would those vendors/services now be forced to allow these transactions and listings?
...., would this website be required to have a separate section specifically for groups such as Ceasefire to offer alternative opinions?

Good questions

Would NWFA have to include a Gay Gun Shooters Only sticky?

I say that jokingly, non-judgmental, but I wonder????????????

 

[Just Jim]

Basically what it will do is get information organized into smaller groups so they can better track it. They are finding that all the information stored cost a great deal.

 

[U201491]

Explained in a nutshell..................
http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/giovanetti-obama-wants-to-socialize-the-internet

 

[Just Jim]

They just want to tax everything sold on the net, collect the information of what is bought and sold plus keep the net PC and control all speech.

 

[U201491]

Pretty much will ultimately end up with like what they have in
N. Korea, Beijing, Cuba..... You know .....places like that

 

[Just Jim]

Way to understand any government program is realize the lie is in the name of it. This will no more be a neutral program is than the affordable healthcare was affordable or instant check was instant. It's about control.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Wait a dog gone minuet, is they (GOV) trying to call this "Transparency" of the net? I are cornfused......

 

[albin25]

We can always trust the Gov't to put the Neuter in Neutrality...
That's why people need to call their Congressman...to put the F.U. in Fed Up.

 

[U201491]

As far as firearms sales and the net neutrality (sorry that name toasts my _b_l_a_n_k) all it will do is make it easier for the gov to track, monitor, restrict and eventually eliminate everything gun related on the net. And They will , I say..... WILL do just that. You all know that just by recent history of the administrations agendas regarding the 2nd.

 

[U201491]

http://www.americancommitment.org/

 

[Jamie6.5]

All over the net, on message boards I've been visiting for years, people have been complaining about how they hate their satellite and cable companies. How they are going to cut the cord and install an antenna, and stream the rest on the net. How cable/satellite TV has gotten expensive as h3ll and is full of worthless programming.

And now many of those same people are hollering about how great it's going to be to have the net ruled under the same set of guidelines that the FCC uses for cable and satellite.

SMFH.

 

[John H]

Good questions

Would NWFA have to include a Gay Gun Shooters Only sticky?

I thought all the people here were gay already when shooting.
( I am taking back the meaning )

So do we need a special sticky??

 

[NoFlinch]

( I am taking back the meaning )

I'll support you!

But what are you going to call those who love the same gender now?

How about SF's............Silly Folks............goes right along with San Francisco, AKA San Fransicko.

 

[clearconscience]

They will start being bullies of the net just like they are will the financial system going after gun shops "confiscating" theor bank accounts leaving them with no funds to pay lawyers to fight for theor constitutional rights. Your rights are only valid if you can fight the man.

 

[The Heretic]

Basically what it comes down to is that Comcast can't charge Netflix more for providing movies, but there are other examples:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

Conservatives are too easily swayed by their handlers (who were paid by Comcast and others) - even libertarians were against this. Not everything the Obama admin does is bad, and not everything the GOP rants about is good.

But keep going with your conspiracy theories - they are mildly entertaining.

And no, it won't force Amazon to carry guns. This is about the ISPs not being able to charge or control the content providers.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Basically what it comes down to is that Comcast can't charge Netflix more for providing movies, but there are other examples:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

Conservatives are too easily swayed by their handlers (who were paid by Comcast and others) - even libertarians were against this. Not everything the Obama admin does is bad, and not everything the GOP rants about is good.

But keep going with your conspiracy theories - they are mildly entertaining.

And no, it won't force Amazon to carry guns. This is about the ISPs not being able to charge or control the content providers.

I love it when people that only look at one side of the spectrum talk about money in politics.
Here's the view of the money from the people that are in favor of the shift to Title II regulations. Those people being Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Oracle and the Entertainment Software Association among others:

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12#clients



Roughly $650 Million spent on lobbying in the last five years.
And your blogspot wants to talk about the money Ted Cruz accepted.
Pah! That's just a drop in the bucket!
The big money bought and paid for this ruling, and the sheeple think they're going to get something for nothing out of it.

And it will prevent NOTHING in the way of charging more for greater/faster bandwidth.
(And if you think it will, just check your cable or satellite bill!)

 

[The Heretic]

My ISP (ultimately) is Comcast (they provide the local wireless ISP I contract with).

Of course the proponents of "net neutrality" lobbied for it. That is how things are done in WA DC and Google has been catching onto that fact. The NRA has been doing it for decades. Does that make them bad?

No. It makes the process bad.

The point wasn't that Comcast lobbied with money. It was that Cruz accepted it and therefore his opposition is probably biased.

It isn't about me paying more for more bandwidth, it is about me paying more, indirectly for bandwidth from Netflix, or Hulu, or whomever Comcast can blackmail, or who they (or any other ISP) doesn't like or does like.

You won't see that on your ISP bill - you will see it indirectly in your payment to Netflix, who has to pass on that cost to you. You will also see it in your slower download speeds. You will see it where your ISP injects ads into your browser.

Here is an analogy; say your mom and your sister both lived in the same town. How would you like it if it cost you more to call your mom than it did to call your sister because your cell phone carrier didn't like the fact that your sister doesn't use them as a carrier? Or because she is a democrat?

That is simply what net neutrality is about - not how much bandwidth you use, but where the content comes from.