A good week for Rights

[PoliticalChic]

PC - All bullshit aside, you really need to read up on what Net Neutrality is. You're obviously confused.

Let's start with the basics:
Up until now, has their been a bias in what sites you can access based upon who your ISP is?

Up until now, Have you ever been blocked from reaching a site that you wanted to access?

1. Julius Genachowski
Robert McChesney
Van Jones
Mark Lloyd
Barack Obama
George Soros

...just some of the names behind Net Neutrality.




2. The Founders had great faith in the ability of the people to self-govern, to constantly question the prerogatives of centralized authority, and, through grassroots diligence, limit the power of government. But, the ‘immense tutelary power,’ in Tocqueville’s words, will not give up that power.

By using the FCC, government could pull the strings. Losing the power of the broadcast band, the government is now in the process of applying same to the internet. Despite the fact that prices for internet services are falling, and consumer choice is booming, the FCC asserts the need to intervene in this actively functioning marketplace.



3. ...the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation. Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. “Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.
Americans for Tax Reform : The FCC?s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?


4. And then there’s Network Neutrality. Net Neutrality mandates that the government regulate the entire Web. Which means the government lords over every single website on the planet.... Net Neutrality is a constantly shifting, over-regulatory mess of an illegal imposition."
NSA, Net Neutrality, It?s All About Controlling the Internet ? and You | RedState

How about answering the questions I actually asked this time. A simple yes or no for each will do. Give it a shot.

How about you educate yourself as to the political directions of the individuals mentioned above.


That's a shot you should have taken in school, and questioned rather than accepted their indoctrination.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, i certainly do not agree with that either, PC. But the government already created the ISP cartel, so the assertion that "Despite the fact that prices for internet services are falling, and consumer choice is booming, the FCC asserts the need to intervene in this actively functioning marketplace."

There are plenty of consumer options in content, but NOT in ISP. That's the problem I have with it. The market competition has alreqady been compartmentalized to a few large name providers. Who now have the ability to set prices on content providers has they see fit.

This means:

1) any video stream sites will have price increases so the ISP can get in on the action of falling demand for networks, in favor of subscription based streaming
2) independent media outlets can get the shit end of the stick regardles of the ability to pay because larger congloms can contract collusion with ISP.

And these are the anticipated and known consequences.

 

[RDD_1210]

1. Julius Genachowski
Robert McChesney
Van Jones
Mark Lloyd
Barack Obama
George Soros

...just some of the names behind Net Neutrality.




2. The Founders had great faith in the ability of the people to self-govern, to constantly question the prerogatives of centralized authority, and, through grassroots diligence, limit the power of government. But, the ‘immense tutelary power,’ in Tocqueville’s words, will not give up that power.

By using the FCC, government could pull the strings. Losing the power of the broadcast band, the government is now in the process of applying same to the internet. Despite the fact that prices for internet services are falling, and consumer choice is booming, the FCC asserts the need to intervene in this actively functioning marketplace.



3. ...the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation. Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. “Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.
Americans for Tax Reform : The FCC?s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?


4. And then there’s Network Neutrality. Net Neutrality mandates that the government regulate the entire Web. Which means the government lords over every single website on the planet.... Net Neutrality is a constantly shifting, over-regulatory mess of an illegal imposition."
NSA, Net Neutrality, It?s All About Controlling the Internet ? and You | RedState

How about answering the questions I actually asked this time. A simple yes or no for each will do. Give it a shot.

How about you educate yourself as to the political directions of the individuals mentioned above.


That's a shot you should have taken in school, and questioned rather than accepted their indoctrination.

Is there a reason you refuse to answer the very simple questions I've asked?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anyway, i think i've played repeater enough on it.

Lets just be clear that in no way, shape or form, is this move in the direction of free markets.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Courts strikes down the liberal misery known as Net Neutrality...

idiot!

What they struck down was a minor technical issue of the rules/law not labeling the ISPs as common carriers

Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality. - wikipedia

Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute. Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries, including major telecommunications providers.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/317170-net-neutrality-in-court-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

 

[PoliticalChic]

Absolutely. But I fail to see the correlation here. I mean, it probably escapes the LOLberals that the government created the ISP cartels in the first place, so their understanding is only about half the story. But at the same time, I find it appalling that supposed free market advocates would find this news as anything to do with free markets, or capitalism. This is pure unadulterated corporatism at its finest.

Sorry....wrong.

Far worse.


It is about controlling the dissemination of information.

That is what totalitarianism is about.

It is hidden in the well-noted hatred that the Left has of the free market.

Well, yeah. But this repeal GIVES the ISP cartels Carte Blanche to raise, or set prices at their whims. Under the pretext that there was no ISP cartel (formed by government), then the meritocracy of competition would reign and this wouldn't be a problem. But hwen the government cartelizes a sector, then gives them the go-ahead to set prices however they decide (and in many cases that means the guy with the deepest pocket gets the best deal), you create syndicates. Where larger companies negotiate contracts that will squash their competition. And with no ISP competition where consumers can vote with their subscriptions, you create a corporatist climate, and nothing at all that resembles a free market.

So...you'd rather have government set all prices?

Really?





1. Now, here is the determining criterion as to which is better: which is better able to correct itself? This is the difference between, as Thomas Sowell would say, the free market (constrained) and the Liberal (unconstrained) view of the world. Either side may be wrong about plans, or about programs. But which system is better able to discard the failed and experiment to find the new.

a. The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.



2. The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.

a. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.



3. The individual must demand the reduction of state, and state powers to the point necessary to carry out legitimate purposes. We have the instructions, called the Constitution.
Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge,” p. 58-61

 

[ClosedCaption]

1. Julius Genachowski
Robert McChesney
Van Jones
Mark Lloyd
Barack Obama
George Soros

...just some of the names behind Net Neutrality.




2. The Founders had great faith in the ability of the people to self-govern, to constantly question the prerogatives of centralized authority, and, through grassroots diligence, limit the power of government. But, the ‘immense tutelary power,’ in Tocqueville’s words, will not give up that power.

By using the FCC, government could pull the strings. Losing the power of the broadcast band, the government is now in the process of applying same to the internet. Despite the fact that prices for internet services are falling, and consumer choice is booming, the FCC asserts the need to intervene in this actively functioning marketplace.



3. ...the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation. Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. “Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.
Americans for Tax Reform : The FCC?s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?


4. And then there’s Network Neutrality. Net Neutrality mandates that the government regulate the entire Web. Which means the government lords over every single website on the planet.... Net Neutrality is a constantly shifting, over-regulatory mess of an illegal imposition."
NSA, Net Neutrality, It?s All About Controlling the Internet ? and You | RedState

How about answering the questions I actually asked this time. A simple yes or no for each will do. Give it a shot.

How about you educate yourself as to the political directions of the individuals mentioned above.


That's a shot you should have taken in school, and questioned rather than accepted their indoctrination.

Here is another example of someone who opposes something they actually support based on the names involved.

She actually supports the idea but she hates the people so much that she is going against herself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about answering the questions I actually asked this time. A simple yes or no for each will do. Give it a shot.

How about you educate yourself as to the political directions of the individuals mentioned above.


That's a shot you should have taken in school, and questioned rather than accepted their indoctrination.

Is there a reason you refuse to answer the very simple questions I've asked?

I have answered.
The problem is that you are educationally ill-equipped to understand the answer.

 

[RDD_1210]

How about answering the questions I actually asked this time. A simple yes or no for each will do. Give it a shot.

How about you educate yourself as to the political directions of the individuals mentioned above.


That's a shot you should have taken in school, and questioned rather than accepted their indoctrination.

Here is another example of someone who opposes something they actually support based on the names involved.

She actually supports the idea but she hates the people so much that she is going against herself.

Yup, it's why she refuses to answer the very simple basic questions I asked her.

 

[RDD_1210]

How about you educate yourself as to the political directions of the individuals mentioned above.


That's a shot you should have taken in school, and questioned rather than accepted their indoctrination.

Is there a reason you refuse to answer the very simple questions I've asked?

I have answered.
The problem is that you are educationally ill-equipped to understand the answer.

We both know you didn't answer. Now you're a liar to boot. You should be proud.

 

[RDD_1210]

The best part is she is linking us to sites like RedState and Americans for Tax Reform.

Let's say she uses Comcast as her ISP, which she very well could be. With Net Neutrality abolished, Comcast could easily decide that they don't like the content being put out by RedState and Americans for Tax Reform and then slow down their speeds or block them all together....you know...because of "freedom" and all.

Then she would be forced to use her brain to form her opinions instead of visiting her favorite tin foil hat sites to find her latest unfounded talking points.

On second thought...maybe abolishing Net Neutrality isn't such a bad thing.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Again...they just dislike Obama for his policies which they support but will argue against if Obama is for it.

Your fav website doesnt pay a fee guess what? No website for you..and its not Obamas fault. Its yours for shooting yourself in the face just because....And why wouldnt they support it?

They've been taught that if something is progressive its automatically bad. They've been taught by the Heritage foundations reading of rules for radicals to mock and isolate. They've been taught that if Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute support it then by golly it MUST be good.

Fucking dumbasses

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry....wrong.

Far worse.


It is about controlling the dissemination of information.

That is what totalitarianism is about.

It is hidden in the well-noted hatred that the Left has of the free market.

Well, yeah. But this repeal GIVES the ISP cartels Carte Blanche to raise, or set prices at their whims. Under the pretext that there was no ISP cartel (formed by government), then the meritocracy of competition would reign and this wouldn't be a problem. But hwen the government cartelizes a sector, then gives them the go-ahead to set prices however they decide (and in many cases that means the guy with the deepest pocket gets the best deal), you create syndicates. Where larger companies negotiate contracts that will squash their competition. And with no ISP competition where consumers can vote with their subscriptions, you create a corporatist climate, and nothing at all that resembles a free market.

So...you'd rather have government set all prices?

Really?



1. Now, here is the determining criterion as to which is better: which is better able to correct itself? This is the difference between, as Thomas Sowell would say, the free market (constrained) and the Liberal (unconstrained) view of the world. Either side may be wrong about plans, or about programs. But which system is better able to discard the failed and experiment to find the new.

a. The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.



2. The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.

a. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.



3. The individual must demand the reduction of state, and state powers to the point necessary to carry out legitimate purposes. We have the instructions, called the Constitution.
Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge,” p. 58-61

Absolutely not. I'd prefer the government not be involved in economic/market affairs at all. BUT, since they have already created ISP cartels, I would prefer to have these cartels instructed by their creators that they are common providers, and can not collude with immunity, with large content providers to destroy the remaining semblance of internet freedom.

Get rid of those fuckin' cartels, as I said, adn i have no problem with the ISP's making such rules for content providers. But only if a competitive meritocracy returns. That means in the ISP world. I want consumers to have as many options as possible, and I want the best regulation there is on market sectors - competition.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Good news. The internet is a place for free exchange of thoughts and ideas, as well as for commerce. The internet extends far beyond American borders. You can't regulate something the whole world uses on a daily basis.

So you should be in favor of Net Neutrality.....

They make no attempt to understand the subtle or not-so-subtle ramifications of abandoning Net Neutrality. If there ever was one this should be a non-partisan issue. But someone mentioned "Government Regulation" and the wagons immediately circled. They'll never understand it'll turn into a circular firing squad until it's too late. Pretty frightening if you truly love "freedom".

 

[thanatos144]

why do people always think something bad is going to happen when trade becomes more free?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Read for yourself:

Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules - WSJ.com

A federal court has tossed out the FCC's "open internet" rules, and now internet service providers are free to charge companies like Google and Netflix higher fees to deliver content faster. Gautham Nagesh reports on digits. Photo: Getty Images.

Do you support this? I dont..

WASHINGTON—A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out federal rules requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally, raising the prospect that bandwidth-hungry websites like Netflix Inc. NFLX +0.41% might have to pay tolls to ensure quality service.

Again, Do you support treating all internet traffic equally? Why not?

For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up.

Support or not? I dont..

Though the FCC said it might appeal, the ruling for now means Internet-service providers are free to experiment with new types of pricing arrangements, such as charging content companies like Google Inc. GOOG +0.01% or Netflix higher fees to deliver Internet traffic faster. Or, they could choose to degrade the quality of certain online content unless its creators were willing to pay up.

Yea or Nay?

 

[thanatos144]

Read for yourself:

Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules - WSJ.com

A federal court has tossed out the FCC's "open internet" rules, and now internet service providers are free to charge companies like Google and Netflix higher fees to deliver content faster. Gautham Nagesh reports on digits. Photo: Getty Images.

Do you support this? I dont..

WASHINGTON—A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out federal rules requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally, raising the prospect that bandwidth-hungry websites like Netflix Inc. NFLX +0.41% might have to pay tolls to ensure quality service.

Again, Do you support treating all internet traffic equally? Why not?

For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up.

Support or not? I dont..

Though the FCC said it might appeal, the ruling for now means Internet-service providers are free to experiment with new types of pricing arrangements, such as charging content companies like Google Inc. GOOG +0.01% or Netflix higher fees to deliver Internet traffic faster. Or, they could choose to degrade the quality of certain online content unless its creators were willing to pay up.

Yea or Nay?

Gee freedom really does scare you fascists .

 

[TakeAStepBack]

why do people always think something bad is going to happen when trade becomes more free?

You'll have a different view when Sony starts charging a monthly fee to access the network to cover the increases set forth by ISPs. OR, certain ISPs do not allow such networks at all and you find yourself not able to get on the network at all.

THAT is what is about to come down the pike. There is no freedom on top of authoritariansim. The ISP cartels have won the day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well, i certainly do not agree with that either, PC. But the government already created the ISP cartel, so the assertion that "Despite the fact that prices for internet services are falling, and consumer choice is booming, the FCC asserts the need to intervene in this actively functioning marketplace."

There are plenty of consumer options in content, but NOT in ISP. That's the problem I have with it. The market competition has alreqady been compartmentalized to a few large name providers. Who now have the ability to set prices on content providers has they see fit.

This means:

1) any video stream sites will have price increases so the ISP can get in on the action of falling demand for networks, in favor of subscription based streaming
2) independent media outlets can get the shit end of the stick regardles of the ability to pay because larger congloms can contract collusion with ISP.

And these are the anticipated and known consequences.

And this is why she ignored your post. You arent a liberal so her canned responses wont work. She would have to use her brain instead

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Let me ask. How many choices do you have in your area for an internet provider?