GOP are not about "freedom": Move to Kill Net Neutrality Legislation

[thereisnospoon]

"If conservatism is the ideology of freedom, how come they're the ones who are always trying to take that freedom away from us, especially women and minorities? Why did they fight against the effort to end slavery, or to give women and minorities the vote, or to protect them from discrimination? Why are they still supporting efforts to disenfranchise minorities?"

The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England

You worship Obama. You don't matter.

 

[RandomVariable]

The ISPs sell their customers a package with a certain amount of bandwidth, and then they say they don't actually want their customers to be able to use that bandwidth.

Huh?
I have never paid an internet bill based on the amount of bandwidth used. It's a monthly fee based on down and up( load) speed. Amount of content is not in the equation.
I contend it should be. Gamers and hyperdownloaders should pay for their use of bandwidth.
So let's say a company offers internet at 20 Gigs per month for $50. And the user goes over by an additional 20 gigs. That overage should be paid for. This would put a lid on bandwidth hogs.

But this is not all there is to it. It is not a straight bandwidth charge. It is an arbitrary charge completely at the discretion of the ISP. It is a "value added" charge in a sense when they are not adding any value to the product.

Analogies for this seem about impossible but let me try yet another one. Let's say the government builds automobiles. A company that is a car carrier charges a certain amount to carry cars for a monthly fee up to a certain weight at any one time. Now some people are constantly ordering oversized SUVs, let's say the D17. Now the car carrier wants to add a surcharge all those who order the D17 anytime during the month. The car carrier also wants to charge a surcharge for the D12 even though it weights 1/3 the D17.

Why I say the government makes the automobiles is because the government did fund practically all aspects of the Internet. The individual websites have content paid for either by subscription or by ads. As I said the analogy is really, really difficult to make. The bottom line is the ISP is not providing value added and their charges are completely arbitrary. It is perfectly logical and appropriate for the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.

 

[g5000]

So why not do the same to the internet is your belief? Because....it happens.

Now change that one ESPN into 1000's of other pages. They can stop it if they want and if the consumer doesnt like it they can...oh I know...Never use the internet again.

Again, this is because your federal government only allows you access to a single ISP. The government has established a monopolistic fiefdom which is allowed to run roughshod over your wallet.

THAT is the real problem.

And now you are saying to Uncle Sam, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

Dude live in the now...the reality is there isnt competition out there. Competition is the answer but the problem is there isnt any.

Do you understand how foolish it is to just say go get something that isnt there? Go to a hungry person and say "get food".

They wouldn't be hungry in the first place if you hadn't supported it being taken from them.

Look how much energy has been spent by the proponents of "net neutrality" and all the advances they have made.

If that energy was instead being turned toward solving the REAL problem, the problem would be getting solved.

So start turning it toward the real problem. Don't double down on your foolishness!

 

[RandomVariable]

So what happens when an ISP puts a website out of business?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The ISPs sell their customers a package with a certain amount of bandwidth, and then they say they don't actually want their customers to be able to use that bandwidth.

Huh?
I have never paid an internet bill based on the amount of bandwidth used. It's a monthly fee based on down and up( load) speed. Amount of content is not in the equation.
I contend it should be. Gamers and hyperdownloaders should pay for their use of bandwidth.
So let's say a company offers internet at 20 Gigs per month for $50. And the user goes over by an additional 20 gigs. That overage should be paid for. This would put a lid on bandwidth hogs.

That is how many ISPs already do it, but 20 gigs is way too little.

I get 100 Gigs a month, then $50 for each additional 50 gigs.

This has nothing to do with "net neutrality", though.

I simply used that number as a point of reference to make my point.
Then net neutrality must be better explained. It is my understanding that many people believe they are entitled to any part or quantity of internet usage they wish. Then these same people complain when they believe their ISP is 'choking down' their connection.

 

[RDD_1210]

Once again the GOP proves that when they preach about freedom and small business that it's all total horseshit. The GOP is about one thing....big business and freedom for big business to do what they want, when they want. The GOP doesn't care about freedom for the individual and they certainly don't care about small business. Their ridiculous stance on Net Neutrality proves that without a shadow of a doubt.

Republicans Will Try to Kill New Net-Neutrality Rules - NationalJournal.com

If you are against Net Neutrality, you either don't understand the issue or you're a corporate shill. There is no other explanation.

Hey moron, "net neutrality" is not freedom. It is quite the opposite.

Thanks for identifying yourself as not understanding the issue.

 

[RDD_1210]

So we are against freedom because we oppose the government regulating the internet?

Some people are so mixed up.

Do you like how you have been able to access the internet up until now?

Of course. Which is precisely why I oppose the government getting involved. We dont have a problem accessing it now. We won't in the future, unless the government starts regulating us.

The internet is the most free forum the people have. Which is precisely why totalitarians want to regulate it and shut us up.

Ok, you're confused. All Net Neutrality does is keep things EXACTLY like they have been. Nothing changes. If you want things to change then you are against Net Neutrality. But you like things the way they are. Net Neutrality has been in place for years now so if you like how its worked, you like Net Neutrality.

 

[Cowman]

IT'S HILARIOUS the way fascist left-wing idiots put warm and fuzzy names on their hypocritical attempts to silence all oposition

How does Net Neutrality "silence" anyone or anything?

I think you can be filed in the "don't understand the issue" category...

ISPs can control speed or access to whatever site they choose to, or are paid to do.

There is no free market in the selection of ISP, and people like you are turning a blind eye to corporations preventing competition, by denying compete rights and infrastructure.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm still waiting for someone to speak up and say that they were unhappy with the way they have been able to access the internet up until now. Anyone?

I do...I object to having just two choices of HSI.
I think all companies should be able to market to all customers.

You will NOT get increased choice with Net Neutrality removed.

 

[mamooth]

Where do you live, North Korea?

I live in Indianapolis, and my only choice is AT&T. Comcast came out and told me I'd have to cut down a lot of big trees to get a cable line. Dish also said all the trees would have to go if I wanted to get a signal. So, I have one choice. If I wanted to massacre the trees, I'd have the choice of 3 colluding near-monopolies, all charging nearly the same price for the same stuff. Big whoop. And if I wanted to switch, it would cost me hundreds of dollars in fees. High barriers to switching mean that there effectively isn't a free market.

Civilized nations now offer internet from governments, at high speed and low cost. The USA is not among them, going the opposite way by often banning the government from saving everyone money and providing better service without censorship. That's why the USA is nearly at 3rd world nation status when it comes to internet speed. Conservatives refer to that as "liberty". No, nobody can figure it out.

I wonder if any of the progressives here would be this lit up, if the government were trying to force DirecTV to carry The Blaze?

That question doesn't even seem connected to the issue, being that TV shows and internet access are completely different things. People, having paid for internet access, are entitled to get any free part of the internet for free, without any middleman monopoly demanding a cut.

In the real world, as opposed to the libertarian fantasy world, many of the threats to our liberty come from the private sector, with the government being the defender of our liberties. If someone denies that, they need to take their juicebox back to the kiddie table and leave the grownups in peace.

 

[peach174]

So why not do the same to the internet is your belief? Because....it happens.

Now change that one ESPN into 1000's of other pages. They can stop it if they want and if the consumer doesnt like it they can...oh I know...Never use the internet again.

Again, this is because your federal government only allows you access to a single ISP. The government has established a monopolistic fiefdom which is allowed to run roughshod over your wallet.

THAT is the real problem.

And now you are saying to Uncle Sam, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

Dude live in the now...the reality is there isnt competition out there. Competition is the answer but the problem is there isnt any.

Do you understand how foolish it is to just say go get something that isnt there? Go to a hungry person and say "get food".

What in the world are you talking about?
We have plenty of ISP Competition.
If the Feds start regulating we won't have any competition. Most of these would go out of business and then we would maybe have only the top 10 of the top 20.

Here are just the top twenty let alone all of the others that are out there.
20 Top Internet Service Providers » Practical Ecommerce

Here are 123
Category:Internet service providers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They don't even have ours under the T's which is TransWorldNetwork

You are all assuming that only bandwidth will be for the internet.
Future technology will get us even farther and faster than just bandwidth, but if the Government starts to regulate it, it will be only bandwidth and nothing else.

 

[g5000]

The federal government is very good at establishing monopolistic fiefdoms and cartels. They have done so with Internet Service Providers, Cable TV providers, and health insurance providers.

And, gee, look how prices and services are out of whack in all three of those markets!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you like how you have been able to access the internet up until now?

Of course. Which is precisely why I oppose the government getting involved. We dont have a problem accessing it now. We won't in the future, unless the government starts regulating us.

The internet is the most free forum the people have. Which is precisely why totalitarians want to regulate it and shut us up.

Ok, you're confused. All Net Neutrality does is keep things EXACTLY like they have been. Nothing changes. If you want things to change then you are against Net Neutrality. But you like things the way they are. Net Neutrality has been in place for years now so if you like how its worked, you like Net Neutrality.

This is like trying to tell a child the thing they loved for dinner the night before was brussel sprouts and they scream "No its not because I hate Brussel Sprouts"

They like how net neutrality works they just hate that net neutrality is backed by the govt and if its backed by the govt it must be wrong.

 

[bendog]

Of course. Which is precisely why I oppose the government getting involved. We dont have a problem accessing it now. We won't in the future, unless the government starts regulating us.

The internet is the most free forum the people have. Which is precisely why totalitarians want to regulate it and shut us up.

Ok, you're confused. All Net Neutrality does is keep things EXACTLY like they have been. Nothing changes. If you want things to change then you are against Net Neutrality. But you like things the way they are. Net Neutrality has been in place for years now so if you like how its worked, you like Net Neutrality.

This is like trying to tell a child the thing they loved for dinner the night before was brussel sprouts and they scream "No its not because I hate Brussel Sprouts"

They like how net neutrality works they just hate that net neutrality is backed by the govt and if its backed by the govt it must be wrong.

bingo. I half expect that if Exxon and BP fixed gas prices, and the DOJ told them to stop, people would complain of a LW Marxist socialist conspiracy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Again, this is because your federal government only allows you access to a single ISP. The government has established a monopolistic fiefdom which is allowed to run roughshod over your wallet.

THAT is the real problem.

And now you are saying to Uncle Sam, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

Dude live in the now...the reality is there isnt competition out there. Competition is the answer but the problem is there isnt any.

Do you understand how foolish it is to just say go get something that isnt there? Go to a hungry person and say "get food".

They wouldn't be hungry in the first place if you hadn't supported it being taken from them.

Look how much energy has been spent by the proponents of "net neutrality" and all the advances they have made.

If that energy was instead being turned toward solving the REAL problem, the problem would be getting solved.

So start turning it toward the real problem. Don't double down on your foolishness!

So once again your solution is to get in a way back machine and undue the present. Since there is no way back machine your answer doesnt exist.

Like I said in the first place and you want Net Neutrality struck down because....Who knows? The only things you keep saying is it shouldnt be this way. Ok but it is. The house shouldnt be on fire but it is. Are you going to grab a bucket or just go on about the bad electrical that was put in?

 

[peach174]

Where do you live, North Korea?

I live in Indianapolis, and my only choice is AT&T. Comcast came out and told me I'd have to cut down a lot of big trees to get a cable line. Dish also said all the trees would have to go if I wanted to get a signal. So, I have one choice. If I wanted to massacre the trees, I'd have the choice of 3 colluding near-monopolies, all charging nearly the same price for the same stuff. Big whoop. And if I wanted to switch, it would cost me hundreds of dollars in fees. High barriers to switching mean that there effectively isn't a free market.

Civilized nations now offer internet from governments, at high speed and low cost. The USA is not among them, going the opposite way by often banning the government from saving everyone money and providing better service without censorship. That's why the USA is nearly at 3rd world nation status when it comes to internet speed. Conservatives refer to that as "liberty". No, nobody can figure it out.

I wonder if any of the progressives here would be this lit up, if the government were trying to force DirecTV to carry The Blaze?

That question doesn't even seem connected to the issue, being that TV shows and internet access are completely different things. People, having paid for internet access, are entitled to get any free part of the internet for free, without any middleman monopoly demanding a cut.

In the real world, as opposed to the libertarian fantasy world, many of the threats to our liberty come from the private sector, with the government being the defender of our liberties. If someone denies that, they need to take their juicebox back to the kiddie table and leave the grownups in peace.

We are number 2 in internet speed and number one in mobile.
List of countries by number of broadband Internet subscriptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ClosedCaption]

Again, this is because your federal government only allows you access to a single ISP. The government has established a monopolistic fiefdom which is allowed to run roughshod over your wallet.

THAT is the real problem.

And now you are saying to Uncle Sam, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

Dude live in the now...the reality is there isnt competition out there. Competition is the answer but the problem is there isnt any.

Do you understand how foolish it is to just say go get something that isnt there? Go to a hungry person and say "get food".

What in the world are you talking about?
We have plenty of ISP Competition.
If the Feds start regulating we won't have any competition. Most of these would go out of business and then we would maybe have only the top 10 of the top 20.

Here are just the top twenty let alone all of the others that are out there.
20 Top Internet Service Providers » Practical Ecommerce

Here are 123
Category:Internet service providers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They don't even have ours under the T's which is TransWorldNetwork

You are all assuming that only bandwidth will be for the internet.
Future technology will get us even farther and faster than just bandwidth, but if the Government starts to regulate it, it will be only bandwidth and nothing else.

You are assuming these ISP's are available everywhere.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Where do you live, North Korea?

I live in Indianapolis, and my only choice is AT&T. Comcast came out and told me I'd have to cut down a lot of big trees to get a cable line. Dish also said all the trees would have to go if I wanted to get a signal. So, I have one choice. If I wanted to massacre the trees, I'd have the choice of 3 colluding near-monopolies, all charging nearly the same price for the same stuff. Big whoop. And if I wanted to switch, it would cost me hundreds of dollars in fees. High barriers to switching mean that there effectively isn't a free market.

Civilized nations now offer internet from governments, at high speed and low cost. The USA is not among them, going the opposite way by often banning the government from saving everyone money and providing better service without censorship. That's why the USA is nearly at 3rd world nation status when it comes to internet speed. Conservatives refer to that as "liberty". No, nobody can figure it out.

I wonder if any of the progressives here would be this lit up, if the government were trying to force DirecTV to carry The Blaze?

That question doesn't even seem connected to the issue, being that TV shows and internet access are completely different things. People, having paid for internet access, are entitled to get any free part of the internet for free, without any middleman monopoly demanding a cut.

In the real world, as opposed to the libertarian fantasy world, many of the threats to our liberty come from the private sector, with the government being the defender of our liberties. If someone denies that, they need to take their juicebox back to the kiddie table and leave the grownups in peace.

We are number 2 in internet speed and number one in mobile.
List of countries by number of broadband Internet subscriptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not even close. Where did you even get that?

http://www.cabletechtalk.com/broadb...in-average-worldwide-internet-speed-rankings/

 

[RandomVariable]

Yes, Netflix really is slower ? and it's probably Verizon's fault - The Week

If Netflix has seemed a little slow to load on your laptop or smartphone in recent months, it's probably not your imagination. Average Netflix speed and quality in the U.S. was already pretty subpar, according to Netflix, at about two megabits per second (Mbps) — hey, that was better than Mexico and Ireland — but it's been dropping since last October:

And that drop isn't uniform across internet service providers (ISPs), as this chart from The Wall Street Journal shows. The slowdown has been particularly egregious for customers of Verizon, one of the country's largest ISPs due to its FiOS fiber-optic broadband service.

 

[g5000]

Dude live in the now...the reality is there isnt competition out there. Competition is the answer but the problem is there isnt any.

Do you understand how foolish it is to just say go get something that isnt there? Go to a hungry person and say "get food".

They wouldn't be hungry in the first place if you hadn't supported it being taken from them.

Look how much energy has been spent by the proponents of "net neutrality" and all the advances they have made.

If that energy was instead being turned toward solving the REAL problem, the problem would be getting solved.

So start turning it toward the real problem. Don't double down on your foolishness!

So once again your solution is to get in a way back machine and undue the present. Since there is no way back machine your answer doesnt exist.

Bullshit. "We've been doing it this way for too long to change now" is one of the weakest arguments for continuing bad policy there is.

It is the same excuse used by bigots. "We have always oppressed blacks/fags/etc. and therefore should not change tradition".

To then add MORE bad policy on top of the existing bad policy is doubling down on the insanity.

Reversing bad policy is not unprecedented. In fact, rolling back bad ideas is what our country excels at. It is one of the things which makes our country great.