Skip navigation



    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 20, 2010 at 8:51 am
    • Permalink

    Something seems very wrong with Allison’s and Alex’s legs.

    • Steve
    • Posted December 20, 2010 at 9:59 am
    • Permalink

    Actually, I recall seeing a (select) few women who can stand with one leg crossed over & rotated like that… I think it’s a left-over thing from the 50’s – perhaps an older fashion way of showing off good looking legs.

    If Mattel is forced to be totally ‘PC’, we may soon see a ‘Jihad’ Barbie, or a ‘suicide bomber Barbie’,… or when we eventually see the handy work of cosmetic surgeons recruited by Al Qaida (a real-world development, by the way…), we will have 42DD ‘booby-bomber’ Barbie.

    • Max
    • Posted December 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
    • Permalink

    Hey, man!–like, these kinds of toys can, like, help our kids to, like, t-o-t-t-a-l-l-y understand the problems of, like–you know–third-world kids. So, like, everyone chill-out.

    • Steve
    • Posted December 20, 2010 at 11:24 am
    • Permalink

    On second thought, …regarding that last version of the Barbie doll – it would give a totally new meaning to the term “shaped charges”.

    • Joshua Norman
    • Posted December 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    • Permalink

    I like your strip. Even though he’s not in this post I’ve been curious about Jayson. Is he supposed to be a normal kid like Diversity Lane, is he a mind-numbed Obamaton like his parental units or is he just a bystander caught up by the leftist onslaught of Alex, Allison, Sierra & Devon.

  1. Joshua: He represents the “which way will he go?” contingency. Only time will tell whether he cleaves to common sense, or goes over to the dark side.

  2. Max, I like your so-totally-laidback mode of expression. What part of California are you from?

  3. Steve: “Jihad Barbie”– I like it! Should be due from Mattel around the same time as Afghan Barbie’s Dream Cave.

  4. I can suggest the ‘Hamas Young Adult Male Rocket Launcher Patriot’ playset, which will be great fun until little fireworks start landing in their marijuana flavored tea.

  5. cobainsfan:

    Actually, to me one of the most intriguing differences between men and women is the way they stand. Women can get into these ridiculously contorted positions that, for them, are completely natural. Allison’s position is nothing. You’ll see some of them standing around waiting for a bus and their heads will be tilted at one angle, their shoulders at another, their hips at yet another and facing a slightly different direction than their upper torso, and their feet will be pointed in nearly opposite directions–all without them even trying or thinking about it. By contrast, the man standing next to them will be standing straight as a telephone pole.
    Which one is more interesting for an artist to draw? No contest.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 22, 2010 at 6:32 pm
    • Permalink


    Ok that’s nice and all but that still doesn’t fully explain the man’s flamingo legs.

  6. Some people’s legs really can be shaped like that from profile. I’ve seen it. It’s more common in women than men, I think, but it’s still pretty normal.

    • Steve
    • Posted December 23, 2010 at 8:19 am
    • Permalink

    WHO wants to see Diversity smiling ??

    ( FYI — some of you have repeatedly complained about her always frowning )

    See this:

  7. Marbles: Right you are. Actually this is a fairly standard stance (albeit exaggerated, being a cartoon). The human lower leg starting below the knee really does set back from the upper leg. Cobainfan needs to get out more. Not sure if it may be more common in women, but then earrings are more common in women yet Alex wears them as well: it all falls into place for me.

  8. She is smiling in this one, isn’t she Steve? She has no trouble cracking one if there’s something to be happy about, it’s just that in this household there so seldom is. BTW Devon is clearly melting into an oil slick; I thought it worthwhile to hint at what left-libs are made of.

    • Charles H. Leonard
    • Posted December 23, 2010 at 10:39 am
    • Permalink

    What happened to your music?

  9. Charles: The DL website was set up on– as I understand it, according to my current webmaster– a construct which does not as of now enable a volume control. A number of visitors requested said volume control (and I myself greatly desired it) but it is evidently not installable due to the changes in tech processes over the last two years and etc. etc.

    The music used was one of the symphonies of Roberto Gerhard, of which I highly recommend especially numbers 2, 3 and 4. All are top notch 20th century compositions which evoke a strange and exotic sound-world.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 23, 2010 at 11:58 am
    • Permalink

    Will net neutrality require you to draw pro-liberal, anti-conservative comics for equal time? Or will it just mean more trolls?

  10. geeknerd: funny you should mention it, I’ve already been contacted by the Obama administration about adding more of a mix to my character base. They want a transgendered Latino, a weight-challenged Asian and a woman who has broken the glass ceiling to achieve career parity with men.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 23, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    • Permalink

    I really love watching news networks and looking at all the pundits that literally have no idea what net neutrality is. It’s both hilarious and horrifying.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 23, 2010 at 3:45 pm
    • Permalink

    Hahah, just kidding. I would never watch news networks. That’s just silly.

  11. geeknerd:
    That was a joke, right? You’re just joking about what net neutrality is, right?

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 25, 2010 at 11:00 am
    • Permalink


    Think “equal time” for the internet; that is, if you’re old enough to remember equal time requirements for radio and tv editorials. Think “Floyd R. Turbo, American” skits on Johnny Carson.

  12. Not equal time, equal access. Net neutrality is, and has been, the way the Internet has always worked since day one. It’s the reason little sites like this one are not shunted into the “slow lane” by any larger, more powerful entities.

    If there are actually people out there somehow trying to acrobatically twist this issue into something resembling the Fairness Doctrine controversy, they are either breathtakingly stupid or incredibly conniving.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 26, 2010 at 10:04 am
    • Permalink
    • Steve
    • Posted December 26, 2010 at 11:41 am
    • Permalink

    I hope your not calling o’l Marbles a troll ?

    He and I have had some nice long, protracted dialogs… even though we strongly disagree on some very fundamental issues.
    “Trolls” don’t have the patience for that… they like to drop absurd, offensive & outrageously provocative one-liners, and enjoy watching who gets angry. [or, is there a different definition?]

    I only mention this because I believe one (of several) strength among conservative folks is honesty… especially when tempted to be less than so.

    Or, am I missing something ?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 26, 2010 at 1:22 pm
    • Permalink

    Apparently for geeknerd, a “troll” is just someone who disagrees with him!

    The actual core of “net neutrality” is that the internet should not be limited to anyone by any power, be it corporate or federal.

    So, for those confused, here’s the binary summation of the issue:

    For liberals: “Big business wants to control my Internets!”

    For conservatives: “Big government wants to control my Internets!”

  13. geeknerd:

    I read the link. How does that support what you were saying? It has no resemblance to the Fairness Doctrine issue at all. It’s not about politics.

    For the record, I was not implying that you were stupid or conniving. I was directing that at any (if there are any) media figures who are out there trying to turn this issue into something it emphatically is not, just to get certain people to support their side of the argument.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 8:02 am
    • Permalink

    OK, what IS net neutrality?

    Which of the two descriptions espoused by its SUPPORTERS shown in the link I gave earlier is correct? Or is there a third description that is more correct?

    And stop calling me stupid or a liar. I refrained from suggesting Marbles lost his in a different post on another topic.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 8:27 am
    • Permalink

    Look at this,s01=1.html#axzz19KGCdEtO from the Financial Times.

    If Waxman and Obama like it, it can’t be good. Should it help Comcast take over NBC Universal (or is that corporate takeover old news)?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 8:44 am
    • Permalink

    geeknerd, neither of the views spouted in your link actually coincide with what you personally asserted net neutrality to be. Like Marbles said, “This isn’t about politics.”

    • Steve
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 1:20 pm
    • Permalink

    For those of you who think the title “Net Neutrality” is truly about ‘neutrality’ or fairness are incredibly naïve, gullible, mislead,…etc.
    First – you ought to know better – the titles to Democrat created rules and legislation are propaganda dreams-come-true for the spirits of the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels.

    The internet has been mostly a creature of the free & open market – and that is a character that ALWAYS is offensive to the Democrat-lib-progressive agenda. Reference the latest fascist efforts of Al Sharpton to censor Rush Limbaugh via the FCC.

    The race-baiting thug Sharpton just uses his shameless old, tired, race-baiting bilge. Sharpton and his cohorts cannot be successful in the open talk radio market – he and Jesse Jackson each do have a radio show however, their listening audiences are so small, their carrying stations lose money and dare not drop those shows, because they will be accused to “racism”, too.

    [ FYI – if you want to hear the pathetically boring Jesse Jackson, find the 640AM WGST (Atlanta) website, go to their live streaming on a Saturday morning – which is a near dead listener time slot – but race-baiters do get that much ]

    “Net Neutrality” and the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ are about government control over the free market, central control over the freedom of citizens – and sadly, those looming possibilities are no more alarming to our youthful liberal commenters that having Federally protected status given to behavioral-based minority groups.

    “A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved.
    It is the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
    – Benjamin Franklin

  14. geeknerd:

    Like I said, I wasn’t directing that at you. I apologize if it read that way.

    Net neutrality has nothing to do with anything you’re describing. (You either, Steve. Thank you for the defense, though.) Honestly, geeknerd, if your criteria doesn’t go any deeper than “if Waxman and Obama support it, it must be bad,” then I don’t know what can be said. You don’t know what it actually is, so how can you oppose it?

    Once again, to greatly simplify, net neutrality is what keeps all internet access equal. No one site, no matter how powerful or influential its owners, has any traffic/bandwidth/speed priority over any other site, no matter how small. Little blogs like this one load and function no slower than, say, or or anything else. That’s the way it’s been, that’s the way it should be. It is not a political issue, except for those who for some reason want to make it into one. Whatever one’s position on the Fairness Doctrine (Why is anyone even still talking about that? It’s been dead since 1988 and it’s never coming back) net neutrality has nothing to do with that kind of issue. Nothing.
    And Steve, your post doesn’t make any sense. If your position is that net neutrality is about the free market, and that liberals must hate it since they supposedly hate the free market, how is it that liberals are the ones who have been sounding the alarm on this issue for years? It only makes sense if you’re among those who have a completely backwards understanding of net neutrality as being liberals want to impose on the web, as opposed to something that already IS the way the internet works.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    • Permalink

    “‘Net Neutrality’…[is] about government control over the free market, central control over the freedom of citizens”

    Uh, no. No it’s not.

    How the hell do you even bring Al Sharpton into a discussion of this subject anyway?

    • Steve
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    • Permalink

    Al Sharpton is a parallel example of leftist efforts to use unelected, unaccountable to the citizens, bureaucrats to make law by fiat… try grasping the context of what I wrote.

    Here is the fallacy of your argument;
    “No one site, no matter how powerful or influential its owners, has any traffic/bandwidth/speed priority over any other site, no matter how small.”

    WRONG! – dead wrong as can be!… you just proclaimed that the open market demands of free people for legal speech and information are subordinate to some other entity or standard.

    Internet sites are not capable of having high bandwidth demands unless there is a free market demand for its product – or there is an imposed and artificial influence governing it.

    What if (this is about to introduce a hypothetical example here… ok?) 50 million internet users, –known as free citizens–, want to live stream Sarah Palins new 3 hour radio show, every week day?
    [ I like using liberal nightmares for discussion examples ]

    That would be a free market demand, and the band width would grow according to this particular demand… it would be huge, and could easily displace internet products of very small demands – that means, lesser products that are not as profitable.
    Your argument seems to rationalize that these (hypothetical) assignments would be ‘unfair’ ?

    Last time I was in a Walmart super-store, the long aisle for soft drinks was 70+% occupied by regular Coca Cola. That is because of ONE simple reason – free market demand.
    If the Coca Cola Company were to become a strong sponsor of conservative talk radio (another hypothetical example here), I have no doubt you and the Sharpton-Jackson culture would start screaming for soft drink market “neutrality”.

    This kind of thinking pattern is the pathetic, sissified product of the culture of the NEA – public schools – it is an example of how segments of our culture have never learned the ability for critical thinking.

    BTW — Where in the laws of our land – known as the Constitution, is permission given to a government entity to control, ration or judge the amount of information flow that private citizens can have ?
    Our Founding Fathers had a very strong understanding & concept of information control, free press and what control over speech is.

    Try reading the 1st ~and~ 10th Amendments… again, and again…!

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    • Permalink

    I don’t quite think Steve understands just how the Internet really works.

  15. Honestly, Steve, why is it that EVERYTHING always comes back to things being “sissified” with you? And what do the NEA and public schools have to do with anything?
    You’re not understanding this. If net neutrality were not the principle under which the internet operates, it would make life much more difficult for small sites like this one. Small businesses’ sites would suffer compared to larger businesses’ sites because they would run slower.
    You’re worried about “government rationing” of information access. For crying out loud, Steve, don’t you realize that if larger entities are allowed to reserve the “fast lane” for themselves, the smaller sites will be more difficult and inconvenient for people to access? Rationing by proxy.
    What’s rationed right now? Nothing, that’s what. And that’s exactly the way it should be.
    How you (or Zack, for that matter, since he would be directly affected by the worst possible outcome of this issue) can argue that getting rid of this rule is a good thing is beyond me.

    • Steve
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    • Permalink

    Cobainfan – by all means, please enlighten us ?!?
    …Without resorting to a convenient link or a ‘copy & paste’ exercise,… or, use your own words (?)

    Marbles – folks who work hard and earn their success (like the folks in conservative talk radio), deserve the fruits of their labor.

    Those sniveling libs / progressives / “no labels” types, who cannot produce a competitive product, chose to try and use the coercive force of big government to get what they want.

    These are creepy, SISSIFIED weasels – according to a value base that believes folks deserve the just product of their honest work and initiatives, and have a God-given right to keep it from being stolen by others.

    The same conflict of cultures exists where Obama and his ‘culture’ believes in taxing more productive people at a higher rate than less productive people… aka, wealth redistribution.

    When you cannot carry your own weight, and you feel entitled to a means to leach off others, you are a pathetic sissy, a low-life! ( the main voting base of the DNC )
    How complicated is that ?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 8:40 pm
    • Permalink

    Steve, I learned about five comic posts ago that you just seem to naturally not take anything I say seriously, so even if I decided to go along with Marbles in trying to explain to you what ‘net neutrality’ actually is, you’d still disagree with me. You are my own, personal Catch-22.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    • Permalink

    Also, I’d post a link to a youtube video of AL FRANKEN actually giving a pretty good explanation of what the principle of ‘net neutrality’ stands for, but I know that would never make it past moderation. It seems sort of sad when a former television comedy writer and performer can actually more accurately and earnestly relay information like this to people than most every other elected official or TV/radio news pundit in the country.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 27, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    • Permalink

    I’d like to tell you more about how you’ve just gone off on your own personal ramblings now that don’t anything to do with the initial topic of ‘net neutrality’, Steve, but then I realized there are new episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 on Netflix Instant Stream that I could watch. I’m taking the sane person’s path and choosing the latter option.

  16. Steve:

    “Marbles – folks who work hard and earn their success (like the folks in conservative talk radio), deserve the fruits of their labor.
    Those sniveling libs / progressives / “no labels” types, who cannot produce a competitive product, chose to try and use the coercive force of big government to get what they want.”

    I don’t know how many times I can say this. This issue has NOTHING. TO DO. WITH THAT.

    By the logic you’re using, Zack Rawsthorne is a “snivelling lib” who will have no one to blame but himself when his blog is shunted into the internet “slow lane” by much larger entities with higher traffic and a steady revenue stream. Hey, it was his own fault for not producing cartoons that climbed their way to the top of the field and earned millions of dollars. If he’d only done that instead of being lazy, he’d be on the same level as Verizon or Google. On top of the game. Hey, that’s the free market, after all.

    But I hate to spend energy even on that kind of sarcasm, because it just gives undeserved credence to the idea that net neutrality has anything whatsoever to do with the kind of fruits-of-their-labor capitalism-hooray rhetoric you’re using. I don’t even understand how you connected these two concepts in the first place.


    “It seems sort of sad when a former television comedy writer and performer can actually more accurately and earnestly relay information like this to people than most every other elected official or TV/radio news pundit in the country.”

    And it’s even sadder that I get more informed on certain issues by perusing the back and forth between conservatives and liberals on a certain other blog I visit than I ever get by watching the news.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 28, 2010 at 7:54 am
    • Permalink

    So, does net neutrality mean that if I had websites with a very large following, I could not give favorable treatment to content with which I agree, because that would not be fair to those websites who do not have as large a following?

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 28, 2010 at 10:26 am
    • Permalink

    Ok, let’s really get to the bottom line here. Although I would whole heartedly agree with the stupidity and violation of free speech that a so-called “fairness doctrine” would impose. However it has nothing to do with net neutrality. It also has nothing to do with the free market. Your statement Steve my friend:
    “Internet sites are not capable of having high bandwidth demands unless there is a free market demand for its product – or there is an imposed and artificial influence governing it.”
    You’re absolutely right; inherently they do NOT have the ability from the bowels of their own server room to throttle network connection speed. The Telco’s DO. AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable on the other hand has an absolute strangle hold on the type of and speed of bandwidth (Transportation Connection Protocol). The Telco really wants this sort of legislation since it would allow them to set priorities of certain data streams to your PC at home. The bottom line is this data stream should be no more controlled weather its netflix, youtube or yes even porn. ANY kind of porn…… The free flow of information at the fastest speeds possible (as long as your pay your monthly bill for the service) should be without hindrance. The free market at this stage of the argument does not enter in to it. Right now there should only be regulation only when problems crop up. I understand the issue of market demands. Whereas if the majority of the citizenry want netflix streaming at FIOS speeds. Yet the “other” data should not be throttled back just because it offends someone. Look at it this way. Say for example a political website say…… Dailykos, with a lot of money (from George Soros), one day got sick and tired of Rush Limbaughs smack talk about Che Guevara . Well Dailykos likes the loveable Che! Hell, Rush is hurtin the sales of his iconic T-shirts! Soooooo Dailykos makes a phone call to George, who makes a call to the telco that connects Rush’s website and online podcast to the internets…. George then tells them: “Hey, how’s about you folks throttle back on the limbaugh site to the speed of a fax machine (9600 baud rate). That is what the Telco’s would want. Companies should not have that power and nor should individual political a-holes either. In other words. No one government nor company nor individual should have control over the internet or its content period! I give you the Connectivity Principles of CISCO (the folks that make internet routers….)
    1. Broadband Internet access consumers should have access to their choice of legal Internet content within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan.
    2. Broadband Internet access consumers should be able to run applications of their choice, within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plans, as long as they do not harm the provider’s network.
    3. Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to their broadband Internet access connection at the consumer’s premises, so long as they operate within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plans and do not harm the provider’s network or enable theft of services.
    4. Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their broadband Internet access service plans.
    This does mean to me, that the FCC is only the “gate keeper” (or so they say), after that it’s a free for all (for the time being). Free information zooming about WITHOUT regulation, Without rules, Without payola and without restrictions based on content. The market wants information flowing freely.
    This is a complicated issue. The vagueness of the legislation is only going to make matters worse. Moreover, as time goes on telco’s are going to start working around the issue and simply impose their own restrictions of content. Comcast already does this with large file transfers. Net Neutrality prohibits the telco’s from connection speed throttling for any reason. It’s when problems arise, or when activist claim Che is not getting his message out because Rush is talking too loud and “fairness” or restrictions are applied. This is where political influence could have impact on the FCC. As far as I’m concerned the FCC should really just stay out of this fight. When they combine within the net neutrality document open source operating systems and unfiltered internet access, it appears to me they don’t have a grasp on the issue in the first place. The OS is the end point of the connection. They need to focus on the connection, or stay out of it all together.

  17. Lots of other discussion here already, so I’ll just say that I love the cartoon (and the idea of Afghan Barbie’s Dream Cave)!

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    • Permalink

    You seem to be confusing people who own websites with internet providers, geeknerd.

    This is more of an issue of providing access, rather than modifying content; Net neutrality does not dictate the content of your website.

    What it does do is prevent organizations from lobbying internet providers to give THEM higher priority in connection speed/bandwitch over other websites. What this does is allow more powerful sites to block out or hinder any possible competition, and has websites making their business plans solely on having that connection advantage, rather than providing a service or product that consumers want to compete with other sites.

    They could also use their ‘fast lane’ advantage to block out sites that might have content they don’t agree with. So, could pay Comcast to give them higher priority access and force more right-leaning websites and blogs to the ‘slow lane’.

    In summation, net neutrality is a principle that revolves around having a level playing field for all people connecting to the internet. They should not have access to certain sites and content prohibited to them just because they weren’t fortunate enough to live in an area that has an ISP that does not have companies paying them to give them preferred treatment.

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    • Permalink

    Oh and just when I thought this could not get any more complicated, come to find out, this is indeed political. I was only kidding with the George Soros/Dailykos internet control cabal conspiracy theory…. Apparently I was not to far from the truth as to who is actually supporting net neutrality. The man behind this load of crap or rather a motive to find a problem with the internet then regulate. Robert McChesney the Marxist behind net neutrality makes this steaming pile. Perhaps now Rush Limbaugh does have a little to fear. Not that net neutrality has anything to do with controlling the content he would send down the wire……
    “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
    Robert McChesney
    Ah, theres the rub. Who would have that control? I don’t want the telco’s nor the government to have control over the net at all. See here’s my fear. The FCC passes net neutrality, various lobbying groups and activist organizations such as the open society,, the Ford Institute start making problems with the internet appear, and government then has no other choice but to start limiting data streams! Steve, my have not been too far from the real problem with this. On the surface this may not look like the fairness doctrine.
    Oh but Bobby isnt quite through:
    “Nevertheless, we have had much success around the net neutrality struggle. I expect within the next twelve months, we will have a formal law passed by U.S. Congress, signed by President Obama, and backed up by orders from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Network neutrality is well on its way to becoming the new law of the land.”
    Robert McChesney
    Well there ya go! Its all about control plain and simple. The FCC would be the one to be the watchdog of all this data swirling around! Net Neutrality is not about taking control from the telco’s who are greedy data masters preventing you from watching clear and crisp porno. Its about taking that so-called power and giving it to the government. Wherea’s you can watch the clear and crisp access to, dailykos with superfast page loads. Limbaugh’s page may take a little more time.
    I was against net neutrality for the limitations it imposes on all data streams. Now that I know who is behind it. I’m really against it, and a little angry as average users out there are going to think this is a non-biased approach to keeping the internet free and unfiltered. Its not, and its dangerous. A good example of net neutrality I guess would be China. Yeah this whole legislation from the ground up stinks to,2817,2374665,00.asp
    Don’t forget RFC2638 and RFC2475.

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 28, 2010 at 1:37 pm
    • Permalink

    “net neutrality is a principle that revolves around having a level playing field for all people connecting to the internet.” I wish it did obainfan69. I at first was against the control over telco’s who are considering throttling of content. Yet with this legislation we are taking the so-called control and putting it into the hands of the government. The backers of this pile is reason enough to stop it. Yes, if this had been a GOP or conservative effort to limit internet content and speeds I would be against it just as much. Do I like paying a premium for high speed access? No. Yet for the time being its a small price to pay for free and unfiltered content. YOu cannot level the playing field of data without restricting data. AT some point that leveling will have to take place. It may not be the so-called Fairness doctrine yet……

  18. cobains & ikabod:

    Thank you for saying what I was trying to say, much more articulately and with more precision.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 9:04 am
    • Permalink

    Thank you ikabod for clearing up my confusion about what net neutrality really is. Now that I understand it, I oppose it even more strongly.

    I appologize to everyone else about my confusion, and my anger.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 10:35 am
    • Permalink

    Take a look at the R&O the FCC posted about network neutrality, ikabod:

    Ҥ8.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Part is to preserve the Internet as an open platform enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission.

    §8.3 Transparency. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. (Note: The rule does not require public disclosure of competitively sensitive information or information that would compromise network security or undermine the efficacy of subject to reasonable network management practices.)

    §8.5 No Blocking. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.

    §8.7 No Unreasonable Discrimination. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.”

    So essentially, I don’t see anything about the FCC controlling content based on them not liking something. For the most part it just forbids internet providers from blocking or hindering access to lawful or otherwise perfectly accessible websites.

    Of course since Obama wants to control us all I’m sure this document can’t be trusted and a few months from now the moment you log on to the internet you will be assaulted by pages from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and the Socialist Party and the Fox News website will be taken down and a public execution of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will be the only viewable video on YouTube.

    There are people who ACTUALLY think that the events in that above paragraph will happen. REALLY!

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    • Permalink

    After coming across the list of folks and organizations that support net neutrality is reason enough to be suspicious and concerned. Now you can say all you want regarding the FCC having only a small role in the grand scheme of things. Again, the so-called “leveling” of the playing field usually means some sort of manipulation of the bandwidth at somepoint in the future. May not happen tomorrow, or even 2 years from now. Net Neutrality has become a political issue rather than technology one. As regulations increase, innovation and creativity will only decrease.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 30, 2010 at 8:06 am
    • Permalink

    “Again, the so-called “leveling” of the playing field usually means some sort of manipulation of the bandwidth at somepoint in the future”

    No it doesn’t. The issue of the internet being ‘level’ is not allowing websites to take priority in user traffic at the expense of slowing down other, less prominent websites. The issue can’t result in restricting bandwidth to ALL sites, but rather not allowing internet providers to discriminate against lawful websites or content (with a few exceptions; for example, Comcast only allows you to access its e-mail page from a computer connected to internet from Comcast).

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    • Permalink

    I just dont trust the FCC, nor the people behind and supporting the so-called net neutrality. Too many red flags for my comfort level. If comcast or time warner cable is throttling bandwidth to give priority to certain data or video streams then they should be charged with unlawfully restricting access. As far as the data is concerned the telco’s should be blind to its content. TCP/IP has been doing just fine delivering data around the world, since the days that DARPA developed ARPNET. If it aint broke dont fix it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: