The Public is Learning the Truth about Net Neutrality
by Seton MotleyAnd as with all Leftist things, the more they know the less they like
On August 11, more than 150 organizations (including 35 TEA Party groups), state legislators and bloggers signed onto a pair of letters urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to give up on their unilateral Internet power grab – the reclassification of the Web under the oppressive 1930s land line telephone regulatory regime, and the implementation of Network Neutrality.
(Full disclosure: As StopNetRegulation.org’s Editor in Chief, I signed on. As did the President and Vice President of Legal Affairs of the Center for Individual Freedom, the organization that publishes StopNetRegulation.org.)
We became part of a great and growing bipartisan chorus all singing the same song – that the FCC is dramatically overreaching in trying to assert this sweeping new authority. More than 284 members of the United States Congress – from both Parties – have also signed letters stating the same.
Seventeen minority groups did so as well. And the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court – led by a Democrat-appointee judge – ruled 3-0 that the FCC isn’t empowered to do what it’s trying to do.
The FCC only has the authority to do what Congress and the President have given it via legislation. And they have not sanctioned the FCC to regulate the Internet. The Right understands this. The Left does not – or chooses to willfully ignore it.
Word is spreading about the destructive power of FCC Internet reclassification Network Neutrality. And at the grassroots activist level – not just here amongst the D.C. Chattering Class. And that’s a very good thing.
Unless you’re on the Left. In which case this is devastating news. They are supposed to be the populists – all of this TEA Party opposition to their “public interest” agenda is tremendously damaging.
So the Left is doing what the Left does – demonizing their opposition. They are targeting the TEA Partiers in an attempt to discredit their opposition to this High-Tech takeover.
On Monday, the Liberal TalkingPointsMemo (TPM) gave us “Tea Partiers Say Net Neutrality Hurts Freedom.” In which they repeatedly assailed the TEA Partiers as too stupid to understand how much they need Network Neutrality.
“Like many, many grassroots tea party groups across the country, Fountain Hills (Arizona TEA Party) has a Ning social networking site, as well as a more traditional homepage, both key to communicating with members. Supporters of net neutrality often suggest that it’s smaller sites like these that would suffer the most under the tiered Internet plan ISPs are expected to establish if no government rules require them to treat all Internet traffic equally.
“Much like the Netroots movement, the tea party’s communication and information dissemination is fueled by online tools. In addition to Ning, tea partiers are avid tweeters, skypers, YouTubers and Facebookers. Yet their seeming embrace of an Internet divvied up and defined by corporate deals puts them at odds with their Internet-savvy colleagues on the left, who have clamored for net neutrality for years.”
These dolts just don’t know what’s good for them.
Of course it is TPM that fails to grasp just how well these TEA Partiers (and the Leftist Netroots) have done – in the absence of Network Neutrality.
And no matter how uninformed TPM and the Left think these TEA Partiers are, they can’t possibly be as clueless on the issues as are pro-Network Neutrality organizations like Operation Catnip – a spay and neuter clinic – and the Dr. Pepper Museum.
On Tuesday, Leftist Slate magazine gave us “This is liberty? Tea Party takes on net neutrality.” They were even less kind than was TPM.
“Say what you will about the Tea Party platform, at least it’s concise. Rick Barber, the self-proclaimed Tea Party candidate whose failed run at the GOP nomination in a House race in Alabama produced the strangest ad of this election cycle, put it best: “Whenever the government grows, individual liberty withers.” Or, to condense it yet further: “Liberty, good. Government, bad.”
This is the logic that compelled 35 Tea Party organizations to sign a letter condemning FCC efforts to institute net neutrality safeguards that would keep Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to some content and applications. Doing so, in the Tea Party’s view, would mean asserting the government’s power to regulate something that it previously considered outside its jurisdiction.”
Again, it appears to be the Leftists who are a bit slow on the uptake. The TEA Party Movement sprang into life in part to fend off the government as it asserted alleged powers to regulate things that had been previously outside its jurisdiction. Including the Internet.
Not exactly a hard concept to grasp. Except apparently for the likes of those at Slate.
And it is the Left that fails to grasp the utter inconsistency of demanding we maintain the Internet status quo – by fundamentally changing it with reclassification and Network Neutrality.
So exactly who is it that’s dim?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
168 Comments
But, the problem is, it is out of the hands of the public. The public's hands are tied. Just look at Healthcare, and how that was shoved down our throats. The Government will do anything it wants, to anyone, at anytime, and WE are powerless to stop them.
Except for the Department of Defense, for the most part, if the Government is doing it, we are getting screwed and what they are doing is BAD.
I said it before. Genachowski will be in some deep spinach if they "move on" with this. No one will protect him and he will be clobbered with suit after suit. He will not get a wink of rest. Should he do it and resign criminal charges will follow. Oh no, I wouldn't want that as my legacy. No way, no how.
Does ANYONE have a source to a definitive definition of "Net Neutrality"? I have heard lots of different interpretations of this. Kind of hard to nail it down when its floating like a balloon.
Discussing this issue with people its my conclusion the vast majority of net neutrality supporters have no clue what it is OR they think its "net for free no matter how much you use".
Hey Folks, We are having some real problems out here getting Republican Candidates funding. One example is Conservative Paul Smith (R) in the California 5th Congressional District is Running against Dorris Matsui (D). Smith is all out of Dollars and putting his Campaign into suspense. The guy has had to fund himself with no help from the RNPC (Wow, who would have thought). This guy needs some help. What is the Tea Party doing?
Matsui is a Lap Dog for PaLousy, Obama, Reid and Boxer.
No wonder ONLY the Mega Rich or those with Union Mobster Backing can run for Office today.
If you can help out or know someone who can make a small contribution. Please go to http://www.paulsmithforcongress.org/
Neutrality = Control = Tax = Loss of Freedom
This is what I found on Wikipedia, follow all of the links, especially those relating to laws, "media concentration" and proposed regulations.
In my opinion it is far too much power in the government's hands…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
Big Government Internet control means no more free speech.
Who exactly is complaining about the net and access that this is still being discussed? Oh wait is this another false crisis being created by the crisis lover in chief? This site and others like it are a threat to DC because they disseminate the truth unlike the radical bias fringe media. So because of a few websites, AM radio and one news network the gov't feels so threatened they want to control the net. Good fine go ahead and as I have said be warned when you mess with the net you are messing with hackers playground. They allow us to dwell here, so go ahead DC DO IT! I will enjoy the digital slaughter you will put yourself into by individuals who know how to ruin credit, erase banks accounts etc etc.
Give corrupt politicians, bias fringe media and the special interest groups a "lethal" dose of their own medicine through http://www.savingtherepublic.com
NY TIMES SAYS OBAMA IS A MUSLIM…….
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttw...
Remember this gem from mark Lloyd…
“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”
Or Van Jones…
"give them all the power, give them all the wealth… We're gonna change the WHOLE system.."
the left is good at ignoring things they don't like. they started with the Constitution. After that, it's easy.
Here's some more info from CNS news service…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055
if you cede the power of the 'Net to Obama's FCC you aren't going to get more Andrew Breitbart's…
Everything this lot advances is self serving to the max. They desperately want control of the internet- they have whined about being targeted by it 'unfairly' ever since the election. So, it stands to reason that any changes will be in the order of limiting expression,not furthering it.
Our experts tell us that their plan is to limit access by raising fees, to which they would then give FCC 'diversity' discounts to the favored sites. Not being experts on this ourselves, we'll take them at their word. But you know
there is NO altruism here, that's for sure…
True, very true. Especially with the leftist, progressive marxists in charge of 2 branches of our Republic.
We the People can save ourselves from this…all of it. November is coming.
These people love these ideas when they are in power but no one has the common sense to consider what the ramifications these decisions and regulations will have 5, 10, 15 yrs later when maybe someone they DON'T agree with is running the FCC or the White House. The DOE and other agencies can try to spread propaganda on the virtues of regulation but just like government I am more of a fan of LIMITED regulation and LIMIT government to just the basic and most obvious things.
And the left wonders why Rupert Murdoch is donating so much to Republicans this year…The White House has said Fox is not a news organization and attacks talk radio and the new media on a regular bases…Yup we are just a bunch of stupid dummies that can't add 1+1 and come up with 3. I guess we need our hearing checked too.
In this case, neutrality means leftist control. In the Israeli case, neutrality means support for hamas.
November is coming, we get one shot. But it will take much more than a wipeout of the Democrats to fix America. The evil will still lurk.
We need a re-birthing, a re-founding if you will, a sharp return to what made America great, rediscovering our Constitution, our values, our principles, and what it means. What it means to be an American.
I participated in the 1994 election, the defolyeate campaign in particular, and was shocked how it all so quickly got consumed, and shifted off, to the purposes of the political ruling class. We are now standing at the crossroads of liberty and tyranny. Liberty requires us to never quit — Never rest again. Be ever vigilant.
It's a time for choosing, and for that we have Imam Obama to thank for the clarity.
net neutrality should be called by its real name: net neuterality.
If you don't get the joke…. well…. never mind.
LOL……That's too advanced for the progressives.
NEWSFLASH: SOROS BAILING OUT OF U.S. STOCK MARKET:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/it-b...
Slavery by debt so large it can never be repaid.
"White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily" – News Headline
5 times a day!
What I never understood about Net Neutrality: What, exactly, is so horribly broken about the Internet today, that supposedly requires such sweeping regulatory changes in the first place?
Net Neutrality, Orwell/Obama Watching = http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4338/bhobigbro...
Amen Brother!
Conservative FREE SPEECH is your answer.
The Dhimmicrats didn't think (as usual) their lies and tactics would be so easily exposed and disseminated to the concerned public by this form of communication. They have to silence the truth and prevent us from learning the truth or they will be powerless and voted away, thus the Net Neutrality Act.
Correct-the original "fairness doctrine" was ginned up by the FDR zombies who wanted to shut down the Southern Baptist churches that opposed most of the FDR commie plans to destroy America from within. Now Mark LLoyd, another racist anti-american whitey hater, thinks hes God. Too bad, Pink Lloyd, you are not God ,and we on the side of right will show you just that.
By the way-notice WHO was exempt from the original "fairness" doctrine-the 3 major networks with communist syncophats like Murrow and Huntley.
Let's give the FCC more power, they handle it so well. They gave up on the Citizen Band radio mess, and the Janet Jackson debacle still rings in my head. Trust them to control your freedom on the Internet and you will have no freedom. When they say net neutrality, they mean "Neutralize the Average Citizen's Free Speech". If it happens, The First Amendment on the Internet will be dead. This from a 69 year old guy with am FCC Radio Telephone License and Amateur Radio License.
Well said. They will do whatever THEY want! They don't care about elections because too many people have their hand out. Not enough people take responsibility for their own actions.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Ronald Reagan
I work in the internet industry and as best as I can figure out, it will prevent telecommunications companies from offering better services at higher costs. Every one pays the same and every one gets the same.
That's means high bandwidth sites like RushLimbaugh.com and the Big sites could have their bandwidth reduced essentially tying up traffic in knots.
The analogy I use is picture a luxury hotel. The rooms on the top are the biggest and most expensive. And the cheaper rooms are considerably smaller.
The left is selling this as a method to make the hotel refurbish their hotel so every room is the same as the penthouses, but costs as little as the cheapest rooms. Instead the exact opposite will happen. The big expensive pent houses will be replaced and every room in the building will look like the cheapest.
The way I see it, the solution is to NAME NAMES! and IDENTIFY THE MEETINGS! WITH THE FCC! Those who are participating in over-reaching into our Freedom of Communication by collaborating with the FCC to curtail U.S. in any way get publicly marked, and announced at Rallys! OVER A MEGAPHONE!
No more hiding behind closed doors inside the confines of the White House!! We will name names of BOTH PARTIES! Also we can "OUT THEM" right here on BigGovernment!
NO MORE POLITICIANS HIDING THEIR CORRUPTION! We're on watch, so leave our Freedoms alone or you'll wind up in Court for Deriliction of Duty!, and Abuse of Power!, and failurt to uphold your OATH of Office!
Agreed. If you're looking for angels you're better off trying a church than government.
Lack of government control.
Your all going to hate me….but, I have not found good sources that explain why net neutrality is a bad thing. I fear that the internet could turn into cable tv. Insuring that ISP's allow all data seems like a good thing. Please, sombody educate me, Im a libertarian at heart, so it should be easy to convince me of what I'm missing. Any good reads I should look at?
Excellent Quote Ed.
Told you it was not what is sounded like! The DIMS use this strategy all the time, use a nice sounding name to get your agenda passed!!!!
Read Rules for Radicals and you will know their playbook!
Here's the problem: You fail to state "the truth", ever define Net Neutrality, or even say what's bad about it.
That's because it is a GOOD thing for consumers. Net Neutrality = same internet for everyone, same data at the same rate.
I really don't think you have any understanding of what it actually entails, and can't figure out the reason that you would be against it. All I ever see is "Regulation bad! GRARRRRR" when it's almost exactly the opposite of regulation.
This is a horrible, horrible thing to run with, because anyone who actually understands what it means and does not run an ISP can't help but be in favor if it.
I am in Information Technology, and I'm just gonna say….the reason you can't find why it's a bad thing…is because it's a good thing. The cable TV analogy is exactly right. Imagine a Clear Channel ISP that doesn't allow access to Fox News or Big Government, or any unapproved sources….unlikely, but entirely possible.
Net Neutrality is so bad that even my uber-lib friends think this stinks on ice. Knowing them that says a lot.
That is a good description of Net Neutrality.
Furthermore, it is a massive disincentive for increased investment in both network and cloud datacenters as well as new net technologies such as WiMAX.
Put it this way: would you want an FCC bureaucrat to decide how much services cost and what services could be offered instead of letting the individual companies decide based on both current market and what they envision as the future market? No, not all. Conversely, if you were an accomplished crony capitalist (think Goldman Sachs), would you want a corruptible governmental entity to decide for a huge number of people what they MUST purchase? Of course.
When thinking about Democrats and their policies, it is good to remember that they are wholly owned and operated by public employee unions and crony capitalists.
So signing up with new names so you don't have a history and RED negatives numbers by your names? You're OUTED already.
You got an ISP problem, solve it AT YOUR LOCAL LEVEL where the PROBLEM is. It's your LOCAL government ALLOWING that monopoly. If you don't like a service – SWITCH. Don't get the Fed. involved in a LOCAL problem you idiot.
From your comments, it's you who have NO idea what you are talking about. You're a big government freak who thinks PRIVATE companies that spend money to INVEST in new technology, somehow shouldn't be able to profit from it because – OMG – someone "might" not be able to afford it. That's what it breaks down to.
We'd be still using 9600 baud modems if the gov. had been in control all this time. We got this far without government – we don't need it now.
I AM a consumer – and I know EXACTLY what it would mean for me. LESS access at HIGHER prices.
Oh,you'll just get someone complaining about your being a moron ,because you're just another right-wing nut that can't spell.
Actually, going back…I may have posted here once before if there was a different comment system. So, full discosure, if a while back this site used Google logins and there's a post from "The Lazy Bike Commuter" that you think looks similar to this, that would be me.
Yeah,along with avoidance of ice cream which he once said in an interview,is something he hates.Seems like he always has a cone up his nose.
If a company isn't providing what consumers want, they will go elsewhere. Where will I go when the federal government isn't providing me what I want? It's all about choice. The market gives it to us. The government gives us no options.
Why do you think conservatives push for state power? Because federal control forces everybody to live one way. State control allows 50 different groups of people the right to live how they want. What makes more sense?
End of story.
Wow, I'm glad you can conclude so much about me from my stand on one issue in a field that I've been working in since I was a teenager.
And I agree that technology would suck if the gov't was in charge of creating it. Luckily that has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality–quite the opposite.
All network neutrality means is that all information on a network is treated equally. Time Warner can't charge you extra for watching videos on Hulu instead of YouTube (as an example). Highly unlilkely to raise prices, but slightly higher prices would be vastly preferable to a fractured internet where you have to choose the ISP you use depending on the sites you would like to be able to access.
I have a feeling this isn't going to go anywhere though, because all you want to do is make accusations about me and call me names instead of address the issue.
I totally agree with you….for most things. The current state of affairs, however, means that there is very little competition in most marketplaces. I live in a decent-sized city (Dayton, OH) and can choose cable, slow DSL, or highly expensive, not-very- good satellite internet. My parents live in rural Bowling Green, KY and can choose either cable (faster than what I have), satellite, or dialup.
Satellite is prohibitively expensive for most people, dialup is slow enough to be basically useless, and cable is pretty much a natural monopoly. There's not any real competition in most places, and the only way to get it is if A) another company lays their own lines to every single house or B) the government forces the cable company to sell their lines to competitors.
People keep approaching this as dictating what people are allowed to access, but it is in fact telling companies that they are not allowed to STOP you from accessing whatever you want, or to charge you more for accessing certain content.
Maybe you should go back check over the past TWO years right here on this site. We've already debunked EVERYTHING you have brought up time and time again. Go do your OWN research, I'm not going to repeat things over and over. Don't come here "claiming" this or that, when it's clear you just want free stuff that you can't afford to pay for from PRIVATE companies.
So you actually ADMITTED you'd pay HIGHER prices for lower quality??? So you can get your torrents faster??? (yeah, we've already seen your type here quite a bit…)
It's directly because of the '94 elections.The web winked on in '92.At the time everyone was really excited about the "outing" of dems,especially Rostenkowski(Chicago dem mobster,coincedentally).We were exccited about the prospect of the web tearing control out of the hands of entrenched dems for the last 50 years.Where as we Reagan conservatives immediately saw the power of the web,the dims are only now getting it.They are dangerous and will frag the internet.
As a charter member of the 2600-popcorn,munch,munch,munch. K:P
So who are these companies that are blocking site?? Names? Facts only please.
And again – if cable is the "only" thing in YOUR area, then FIRE the local politicians for PROTECTING that local cable company. Sheeeeze. Again, we've ALREADY debunked all your arguments. Keep it coming and we'll FINALLY get to the point that YOU want something for FREE and YOU want the Fed. Gov. to give it to you by force.
Once I hear "Shoved down our throats" I stop reading. Think (and comment) for yourself.
The government is responsible for maintaining the freedoms we have on the Internet thus far, do your research. If we reduce FCC regulations, and give power to the corporations, the days of open source will be limited.
The FCC cannot regulate how much you pay for your access to the Internet, nor would increased regulations either. That is a BS assessment.
There is zero logic in your equation . You just stringed together right wing talking points.. here ill try it:
PUBLIC "OPTION" = Control = Tax = Loss of Freedom
Education = Control = Tax = Loss of Freedom
14th Amendment = Control = Tax = Loss of Freedom
how about
Constitution = Control = Tax = Loss of Freedom
W/out intervention you will be paying for the speech you want to hear. That's not free. Wake up.
Your link says opinion.
And the Right's argument over repealing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is….
Again.. its not free when your going to have to pay for it.
No, you have it all wrong. Preventing better services at higher costs? My provider already offers packages of differing value for increased levels of bandwidth, and that's how it has always been with ISP's. The FCC cannot regulate how much a service provider charges for their services, that is up to the consumer and the companies along with most other industries in America.
Here's a much better analogy using the hotel model:
The more you pay, the more benefits you have associated with staying at the hotel. As it stands now, you pay a certain amount of money to get a certain quality of room, but everyone has access to all the amenities the hotel has to offer. In the case of losing net neutrality, the following analogy would happen: Every amenity would cost extra excluding the amount you already pay for your room. Want to park? Have to pay extra. Want cable tv? Have to pay extra. And, by the way, you are not allowed to bring in any McDonalds into the hotel, because the hotel has a Burger King there. Get my drift? Right now, we pay to have access to the Net, that's it, once we gain access, we can do, literally, whatever we want within the boundaries of the law.
Comcast already created controversy a while ago by banning the use of BitTorrent. What gives Comcast the right to ban certain things on the Net? We are not paying them to dictate to us how wwe use the Net, we are paying them for access, and that's the way it should remain.
Does the FCC regulate the price of POTS (plain old telephone service) in any way? At least as regards the interstate charges? If Net Neutrality means everyone pays the same for the same serve, then definitions of service start getting very interesting.
Bottom line, I have at least 4 ways of connecting to the internet from home. My business has even more, when colo, hosting, and cloud computing are considered. Where is the need for the FCC to insert itself?? Except to save cronies, there is little reason.
How do you equate neutrality to loss of freedom? What freedoms has the FCC taken away from you in regards to your Internet usage over the past 15 years?
Name one example of the government banning speech on the Internet that didn't violate already pre-set laws?
You do realize that government regulation is less today than it was 12 years ago, right?
what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
Today? Nothing, because as it stands the FCC already enforces the concept of net neutrality to a certain degree. What is being debated right now is refining the current rules to add more specificity. However, with the Google/Verizon backdoor dealings, it's possible we may lose more regulations than we already have in aplce. What does this mean? More power to the corporations, allowing them to dictate to their customers what they can and cannot access on the Net.
Name one example of the government "neutralizing free speech" on the Net.
What about corporate tomfoolery? Why not call them out? Do you really think the government is the bad guy in this scenario? Be realistic.
I agree with Axess, there is nothing wrong with Net Neutrality. here's a website to better educate you.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
why is it bad?
Right now, the most terrifying words are 'let me be clear' – I know a big fat lie is going to follow and another heap of dirt is thrown over us -
You might actually have a point warlover – I mean really, I have seen zero evidence of this administration attempting to control anything! Healthcare, mortgages, big business, small business, oil drilling – nope, not a shred of evidence that there is any design to control – thanks so much for the lesson! You are brilliant!!!
wake the hell up wardude – how many pages of regulations has barry put in place in the short time he's been our feckless leader?? how many? And don't write some smarmy ass comment, look it up and tell the truth!
Now stop talking such garbage, don't you ever get tired of swimming upstream??
Newflash: Devil at it again, no rest for the wicked
What direction does he point as he prays?
Any net neutrality will be marxist approved and sharia compliant not to defile Islam.
My provider already offers packages of differing value for increased levels of bandwidth, and that's how it has always been with ISP's
Yes, and I am fairly sure that's what the government wants to regulate.
Comcast is a private business and you are free to make a contract for a service with them. If you do not like that service at the cost they demand, you are free to find another service provider. If have to pay a fee to break your service contract you're an idiot for signing it in the first place.
Comcast is not forcing you to do anything, and trust me net neutrality has nothing at all to do with Bit Torrent other than some obscure Washington bureaucrat decidinh 'what the hell, let's piss some people off.'
There we go – so if this haven't happened…then WHY do we need this change? Hmmmm?
I'm sorry, but please pray tell, what "freedoms" are being blocked RIGHT NOW on the internet for you? Is there a website you can't get to right now?
Even IF there is some issue here with Net Neutrality ( I have yet to see an agreed upon definition of this), government regulations would be far more disastrous. Regulations do a few things:
1. They aren't enforced. Regulations on BP were not enforced (probably due to that $75 mil they gave the democrats) and the oil spill happened anyway.
2. Regulations usually favor the big hitters to keep smaller competitors out of the market.
3. Regulations are poorly worded, too general or too open ended. Either they cannot be enforced at all or are too loose to be enforced.
4. Regulations put needless expense on companies to comply and needless restrictions which slow down business.
5. Regulations in a lot of cases simply aren't needed. The private sector will usually adopt a set of standards that are more accurate and better than the gov regulations. Air bags in cars for example.
6. Regulations breed regulations. Once the door is opened its like maggots and in a few years the industry will be inundated with feel good, useless and inefficient regulations.
When I see a HOMO quote a phrase like… Shoved down our throats….
I stop reading and giggle because I know he must have lots of experience.
When I see a COMMIE write a phrase like… "Think (and comment) for yourself"….
I stop reading because 'Commie' and 'individual thinking' is an oxymoron.
Might help if there was an exact definition.
Are you kidding, if there was an exact REAL definition of what they want to do, even the Hack Lib Posters here wouldn't be able to defend it. They can only do so now, because it's vague terms and all touch-feely "tested" talking point terms.
Please allow me to correct your misbelieve from your statement:
Constitution = Control = Tax = Loss of Freedom
The US Constitution limits the power of government, not the other way around.
My four-word statement was written because I believe this discussion of "neutrality" is disingenuous. It's merely a Trojan horse from a government looking for ways to tax and control the use of the Internet. Whenever government gets involved you ALWAYS end up on the short end. It's their last great hope of dough besides your 401K (but watch out, they are looking at that right now). Secondly, those companies that are seemingly cooperating (Comcast, AT&T and Verizon) will not be interested in any of this unless it benefits them, or their stockholders. In my opinion, what we have here is a brew of disingenuous negotiators that ultimately you and me will get the short end of it all. I don’t trust it.
Warglory, my concern is not what they have done, it's what they will do if, or when they gain control over this. Government only has interest in this because they want to find a way to tax it and to find a way to control the content. That should be a concern of yours, shouldn't it?
Are you kidding! It's not about getting free porn and movies.
It's about the next bunch of politicians shutting down certain sites at the very least.
I would love to hear your BS if Dick Cheney was Pres. and Jerry Falwell was the head of the FCC.
Also, we can fight back if business screws with us, and they will use government anyway to get what they want. Just stop with your big business is evil crap. They are only evil when they get in bed with governments.
If you want to "research" the evil of big corporations….start with your beloved Apple and Job's non-union Chinese sweat shop factories and how they must put netting around the building to stop suicide jumpers.
It seems I'm one of the few here who actually support some form of net neutrality (and, before you get carried away about me being a spy or plant or some such nonsense, I'm as insane libertarian as the next guy), and so now I'm confused.
I was under the impression that what the FCC wants to do (which I guess is beyond it's grasp, but that's not my issue atm) is to prevent ISPs from controlling what someone could access. It would say, prevent your ISP from deciding that the only news sites you can look at are MSNBC and CNN, and if you want to go to conservative sites you need to pay extra. And before you say the market could correct this, it can't, because there is really isn't a competing market in ISP, phone, power, or cable companies (with the exception of satellite). They own the lines going to your house, and so you generally have two, maybe three choices.
Is there something I'm missing here? But usually I agree entering with people on this site, and right now, I don't.
Edit: I see I'm not the only one who sees this as good. Now the question is, why? Are Axess and I just more used to being mistreated by ISPs (who are ALMOST as bad as cell providers) then the FCC?
If that's your contention – please pray-tell, what websites are being blocked now?
OR
is this one of those "policies" like the ruling in the Az case – that "something maybe, possibly, might happen", so "we" are going to take control??
(And ENOUGH with the "monopoly" BS!!! FIRE YOUR LOCAL POLITICIAN(s) FOR ALLOWING IT!!!!! Sheeeeze – can't you people EVER listen??)
Every night when the Imam chants the Call to Prayer!
None I know of. That is the purpose of Net Neutrality. They can't stifle us until they get their power.
Let me improve upon AxessDenyd's analogy:
Imagine a bureaucrat that doesn't allow access to Fox News or Big Government, or any unapproved sources….unlikely, but entirely possible.
If you have problems with Clear Channel, there are other options, but what works best is consumer voices rising up. Just like our voices coming out against our Comrade in Chief.
The Internet is not broke. Let's not try to break it.
Great, now how about you answer the question?
I meant specifically with the FCC in regards to the Internet, anything else is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
don't bite ,..don't bite,…………
you know he does not mean that,…….
nobody can possibly be that dumb,……….
all he wants is attention.
I really don't understand your logic. The Internet is already regulated, in fact, it's far less regulated than it once was, and now the ISP's and telecoms are starting to be judicious with what they can get away with because of the current lack of oversight. Regulation protects the people from greedy corporations. If we were to de-regulate the Internet, you can kiss innovative sites like Wikipedia and Youtube goodbye in the future, because all of us "consumers" will have to pander to big business.
Keep this in mind, cable TV was once going to be free of commercials…
You must be logged in to post a comment.