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

[OKTexas]

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.

Should the government put snoopers in the Newsroom?

They gave up on that one. No survey.

 

[Cowman]

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.

Why would anyone who is not a Corporate Shill oppose net neutrality?

Wait, I know, because corporations are the ones that support it.

Actually, Google has been very vocal about Net neutrality and has been posting public policy blogs on the topic for many years. Verizon has fought the FCC in the Courts as it believes that route to be cheaper than administrative challenges.
Also, organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have a more fundamental problem with the Net neutrality proposed policy, since the EFF just doesn't trust the FCC at all: "Historically, the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the demands of corporate lobbyists and 'public decency' advocates than it has for individual civil liberties."

Net Neutrality in a Nutshell | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times

Google and Verizon both like it, it must be good, right? The fact that they will make more money off of it is just a coincidence, and the FCC has never ever ever come down in favor of big companies over individuals.

GOOGLE likes Net Neutrality.. Verizon doesn't like Net Neutrality. Verizon is all for tiering the internet and blocking websites unless people pay special fees to see them.

There are many companies for Net Neutrality, and there are many companies against Net Neutrality.

You'll typically find the companies for Net Neutrality are NOT ISP's... because a loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISP's to prejudice access to their website compared to others.

You know NOTHING about the issue, evidently.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Why would anyone who is not a Corporate Shill oppose net neutrality?

Wait, I know, because corporations are the ones that support it.

Actually, Google has been very vocal about Net neutrality and has been posting public policy blogs on the topic for many years. Verizon has fought the FCC in the Courts as it believes that route to be cheaper than administrative challenges.
Also, organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have a more fundamental problem with the Net neutrality proposed policy, since the EFF just doesn't trust the FCC at all: "Historically, the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the demands of corporate lobbyists and 'public decency' advocates than it has for individual civil liberties."

Net Neutrality in a Nutshell | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times

Google and Verizon both like it, it must be good, right? The fact that they will make more money off of it is just a coincidence, and the FCC has never ever ever come down in favor of big companies over individuals.

GOOGLE likes Net Neutrality.. Verizon doesn't like Net Neutrality. Verizon is all for tiering the internet and blocking websites unless people pay special fees to see them.

There are many companies for Net Neutrality, and there are many companies against Net Neutrality.

You'll typically find the companies for Net Neutrality are NOT ISP's... because a loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISP's to prejudice access to their website compared to others.

You know NOTHING about the issue, evidently.

Why would they do that when anyone can switch ISPs to one that gives better service?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why would anyone who is not a Corporate Shill oppose net neutrality?

Wait, I know, because corporations are the ones that support it.



Net Neutrality in a Nutshell | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times

Google and Verizon both like it, it must be good, right? The fact that they will make more money off of it is just a coincidence, and the FCC has never ever ever come down in favor of big companies over individuals.

GOOGLE likes Net Neutrality.. Verizon doesn't like Net Neutrality. Verizon is all for tiering the internet and blocking websites unless people pay special fees to see them.

There are many companies for Net Neutrality, and there are many companies against Net Neutrality.

You'll typically find the companies for Net Neutrality are NOT ISP's... because a loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISP's to prejudice access to their website compared to others.

You know NOTHING about the issue, evidently.

Why would they do that when anyone can switch ISPs to one that gives better service?

Most people have very limited number of choices in ISP's.
i have just two. And one, the local telco, the top download speed is 6 mbps with a max 1mbps download....And it will never get any faster. Plus the telco plant is ancient and is subject to frequent internet problems.
That leaves Time Warner. I get my service through them. I have the middle of the road package. My down is 15mbps and upload is 1.5 sometimes near 2 mbps.
I can watch video content fairly well except on school days from about 5 pm until 8 or 9 when the kids get home and fire up their computers and game consoles. Then it's pretty shitty.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

GOOGLE likes Net Neutrality.. Verizon doesn't like Net Neutrality. Verizon is all for tiering the internet and blocking websites unless people pay special fees to see them.

There are many companies for Net Neutrality, and there are many companies against Net Neutrality.

You'll typically find the companies for Net Neutrality are NOT ISP's... because a loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISP's to prejudice access to their website compared to others.

You know NOTHING about the issue, evidently.

Why would they do that when anyone can switch ISPs to one that gives better service?

Most people have very limited number of choices in ISP's.
i have just two. And one, the local telco, the top download speed is 6 mbps with a max 1mbps download....And it will never get any faster. Plus the telco plant is ancient and is subject to frequent internet problems.
That leaves Time Warner. I get my service through them. I have the middle of the road package. My down is 15mbps and upload is 1.5 sometimes near 2 mbps.
I can watch video content fairly well except on school days from about 5 pm until 8 or 9 when the kids get home and fire up their computers and game consoles. Then it's pretty shitty.

No Dish?
No 4G wireless?

Even if the answers to those questions are "no", that still doesn't explain why any ISP would block content.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

You are the one assuming that.
All I did was list the number of companies.
There are plenty of ISP Companies, perhaps your City or State is the one that is discouraging them from coming in. Especially if your State and City have high taxes.

uh no, its not the states fault at all. The ISP has "contracts" for certain areas and basically you are stuck with them if you live in certain areas. Of course its governments fasult to you and not how the system is set up. The way the current system is set up, it creates very little competition. More so in rural areas where your pickings are slim.

I have the option of Comcast, Comcast, or comcast. If you tell me to just up and move, you can either pay me to do it or go **** yourself for the stupid answer.

Its amazing just how ignorant you people can be because for some reason even this topic has to be made into a political football.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are the one assuming that.
All I did was list the number of companies.
There are plenty of ISP Companies, perhaps your City or State is the one that is discouraging them from coming in. Especially if your State and City have high taxes.

I know, thats all you did and pretended it showed a healthy amount of competition. But if those ISP's arent in all areas then why list them at all? If I say there are no Bar-B-Q competition where I live are you going to proceed to list all Bar-b-q places that exist in the US?

I did not pretend anything. We have many IPS Companies.

I'm guessing that where you live you have high taxes.
I bet that any of you that do not have many Companies to choose from have high State and City taxes.
States that have low taxes have plenty of IPS Companies to choose from.
We here in Cochise County have many to choose from, because we have low City, State and property taxes.
List of our Internet Service Providers
Century Link
Hughes Net
Acceller
Dishnet
TV Service Now
Sprint
EarthLink
Net Zero
Cox
TransWorld Network
US Satellite
WildBlue

no high taxes are not the reason at all. Jesus christ you are stupid.
Take New York city where you can get Time Warner and Fios. Im sure there are others but for the sake of being short ill use these. See What happens is these companies create contracts with the buildings so the other companies can not get in. Therefore you move into a place and your only option is Time warner.

Again you dont know what you are talking about, so i suggest you go talk about fluffy kittens or something someplace else.

 

[Kondor3]

I'm a Chicago suburbanite - living 30-40 miles southwest of downtown Chicago and in another county, and, although the area has built-up and developed heavily over the past couple of decades, we still consider ourselves to be living 'out in the sticks'.

But, I keep forgetting, the six 'collar counties' surrounding Chicago (and Cook County) have also invested heavily in infrastructure in the past couple of decades, and even our own suburban town, and those surrounding us, are pretty much wired up and down every block with ultra high-speed fiber optic cable, etc., buried safely deep underground against the weather, etc., and enjoy (relative) blindingly fast high-speed and rock-solid Internet connectivity as a daily fact of life.

And, living within a 50-mile radius of such a huge city with so many resources, I tend to forget that we are NOT, in fact, living "in the sticks" any longer, and that so much of the country will still be years, catching up to where we are now, if, indeed, some of those areas ever DO catch-up.

We have lots of choices, for I(nternet) S(ervice) P(roviders), as well; I guess we're spoiled, in that respect, in the part of the country where I live.

Other than DSL-based Internet service (AT&T, et al) which I've used in the past in servicing business sites back in the bad-old-days 5-10 years ago, I don't have much experience with other means of delivering an Internet connection, but I shudder to think that circumstances might have landed me in one of those parts of the country, as well.

I suppose if you've never had The Good Stuff, you don't know what you're missin', and, therefore, you don't begrudge your own circumstances as much as you otherwise might.

Hats off, and salude, to those suffering with such lower-order providers.

 

[Plasmaball]

One turning point for American broadband came last decade when the Federal Communications Commission rolled back the old common carrier rules that forced incumbent telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T to allow ISPs such as Earthlink to buy space on their DSL broadband networks at discount prices. The incumbent telecom carriers successfully lobbied the FCC to revoke these rules in 2005 by arguing that rival cable companies weren’t required to let other ISPs use their networks and thus had an unfair competitive advantage over the telcos.

The result is that competition for last-mile services among small startups is all but dead and America is now lagging behind other countries in terms of broadband subscribers per capita. According to statistics compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, America has slipped from No. 10 in the world in broadband connections per 100 people to No. 16 over the past 10 years, which Greeley says is a sign that our approach to spreading broadband adoption has failed.

so maybe Peach might ******* get a clue.

Comcast Time Warner Cable merger criticism: no evidence it will help | BGR

 

[Darkwind]

You are assuming these ISP's are available everywhere.

You are the one assuming that.
All I did was list the number of companies.
There are plenty of ISP Companies, perhaps your City or State is the one that is discouraging them from coming in. Especially if your State and City have high taxes.

I know, thats all you did and pretended it showed a healthy amount of competition. But if those ISP's arent in all areas then why list them at all? If I say there are no Bar-B-Q competition where I live are you going to proceed to list all Bar-b-q places that exist in the US?

If there are millions of BBQ places in the country and yours is the only one without, it must be the rest of the worlds fault, right?

How weak an argument is that?

Face it. You people just want something for free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why would anyone who is not a Corporate Shill oppose net neutrality?

Wait, I know, because corporations are the ones that support it.

Actually, Google has been very vocal about Net neutrality and has been posting public policy blogs on the topic for many years. Verizon has fought the FCC in the Courts as it believes that route to be cheaper than administrative challenges.
Also, organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have a more fundamental problem with the Net neutrality proposed policy, since the EFF just doesn't trust the FCC at all: "Historically, the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the demands of corporate lobbyists and 'public decency' advocates than it has for individual civil liberties."

Net Neutrality in a Nutshell | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times

Google and Verizon both like it, it must be good, right? The fact that they will make more money off of it is just a coincidence, and the FCC has never ever ever come down in favor of big companies over individuals.

GOOGLE likes Net Neutrality.. Verizon doesn't like Net Neutrality. Verizon is all for tiering the internet and blocking websites unless people pay special fees to see them.

There are many companies for Net Neutrality, and there are many companies against Net Neutrality.

You'll typically find the companies for Net Neutrality are NOT ISP's... because a loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISP's to prejudice access to their website compared to others.

You know NOTHING about the issue, evidently.

Verizon does like net neutrality, they just have a problem with the fake net neutrality the FCC came up with after Obama got elected.

Google, Verizon team up to throw support behind FCC's net neutrality push

Feel free to continue pretending you are always right though, it makes it easier to laugh at you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

GOOGLE likes Net Neutrality.. Verizon doesn't like Net Neutrality. Verizon is all for tiering the internet and blocking websites unless people pay special fees to see them.

There are many companies for Net Neutrality, and there are many companies against Net Neutrality.

You'll typically find the companies for Net Neutrality are NOT ISP's... because a loss of Net Neutrality would allow ISP's to prejudice access to their website compared to others.

You know NOTHING about the issue, evidently.

Why would they do that when anyone can switch ISPs to one that gives better service?

Most people have very limited number of choices in ISP's.
i have just two. And one, the local telco, the top download speed is 6 mbps with a max 1mbps download....And it will never get any faster. Plus the telco plant is ancient and is subject to frequent internet problems.
That leaves Time Warner. I get my service through them. I have the middle of the road package. My down is 15mbps and upload is 1.5 sometimes near 2 mbps.
I can watch video content fairly well except on school days from about 5 pm until 8 or 9 when the kids get home and fire up their computers and game consoles. Then it's pretty shitty.

Net neutrality will not fix your problem, getting rid of the government sanctioned monopolies will.

By the way, I am willing to bet I can find more options for you wherever it is that you live.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are assuming these ISP's are available everywhere.

You are the one assuming that.
All I did was list the number of companies.
There are plenty of ISP Companies, perhaps your City or State is the one that is discouraging them from coming in. Especially if your State and City have high taxes.

uh no, its not the states fault at all. The ISP has "contracts" for certain areas and basically you are stuck with them if you live in certain areas. Of course its governments fasult to you and not how the system is set up. The way the current system is set up, it creates very little competition. More so in rural areas where your pickings are slim.

I have the option of Comcast, Comcast, or comcast. If you tell me to just up and move, you can either pay me to do it or go **** yourself for the stupid answer.

Its amazing just how ignorant you people can be because for some reason even this topic has to be made into a political football.

You also have the option of educating yourself.

Wait, the only way you can learn is if you sit in a school that teaches you how to pass a test, right?

 

[JWBooth]

Nothing is guaranteed except government interference in everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know, thats all you did and pretended it showed a healthy amount of competition. But if those ISP's arent in all areas then why list them at all? If I say there are no Bar-B-Q competition where I live are you going to proceed to list all Bar-b-q places that exist in the US?

I did not pretend anything. We have many IPS Companies.

I'm guessing that where you live you have high taxes.
I bet that any of you that do not have many Companies to choose from have high State and City taxes.
States that have low taxes have plenty of IPS Companies to choose from.
We here in Cochise County have many to choose from, because we have low City, State and property taxes.
List of our Internet Service Providers
Century Link
Hughes Net
Acceller
Dishnet
TV Service Now
Sprint
EarthLink
Net Zero
Cox
TransWorld Network
US Satellite
WildBlue

no high taxes are not the reason at all. Jesus christ you are stupid.
Take New York city where you can get Time Warner and Fios. Im sure there are others but for the sake of being short ill use these. See What happens is these companies create contracts with the buildings so the other companies can not get in. Therefore you move into a place and your only option is Time warner.

Again you dont know what you are talking about, so i suggest you go talk about fluffy kittens or something someplace else.

The only way a building can force me to use a specific provider for a service is if they are a hell of a lot smarter than the internet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People don't know they have ISP choices! It's a secret! Big Cable, Big Teleco, Big Satellite and Big Wireless are keeping this information from the people!! WE NEED MO' GUBBAMINT TO HAP US!! HAP ME!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One turning point for American broadband came last decade when the Federal Communications Commission rolled back the old common carrier rules that forced incumbent telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T to allow ISPs such as Earthlink to buy space on their DSL broadband networks at discount prices. The incumbent telecom carriers successfully lobbied the FCC to revoke these rules in 2005 by arguing that rival cable companies weren’t required to let other ISPs use their networks and thus had an unfair competitive advantage over the telcos.

The result is that competition for last-mile services among small startups is all but dead and America is now lagging behind other countries in terms of broadband subscribers per capita. According to statistics compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, America has slipped from No. 10 in the world in broadband connections per 100 people to No. 16 over the past 10 years, which Greeley says is a sign that our approach to spreading broadband adoption has failed.

so maybe Peach might ******* get a clue.

Comcast Time Warner Cable merger criticism: no evidence it will help | BGR

So that you might actually learn to think.

The Comcast merger with Time Warner sucks. It will make thing worse, and probably force some smaller companies out of business. But that is only because idiots, like you, support the government interfering in the market. If we simply eliminated the power of the government to tell companies what they can, and cannot, do, the merger that scares you would result in a plethora of new competition, lower prices, and better customer service for everyone.

Of course, that would force you to change your mind, which we all know is impossible.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Comcast merger with Time Warner sucks. It will make thing worse, and probably force some smaller companies out of business..."

Unless the government intervenes, decides that such a merger would add to the tendency towards monopolization of the Internet and Cable TV (and even telephone) wires, and refuse to allow the merger to proceed - which I personally, favor, based upon what I know of the situation so far.

"...If we simply eliminated the power of the government to tell companies what they can, and cannot, do, the merger that scares you would result in a plethora of new competition, lower prices, and better customer service for everyone..."

Yes, that was the argument that John D. Rockefeller and Company used, as well, trying to drum-up public support, to oppose President Theodore Roosevelt's Trust-Busting proposals. Rockefeller lost. So did AT&T, in the 1970s, right before The Big Divestiture.

And, because the Feds busted-up Ma Bell into a bunch of Baby Bells, and sat on 'em for twenty years or more before they let-up on the pressure... AFTER the Diviestiture, TONS of new providers sprang up, and had a shot at real market penetration and growth that would have been impossible if Ma Bell had been left on top of the heap and had The Big Divestiture not materialized.

Why let ComCast or anybody else climb too far up the ladder towards Ma Bell status?

It's called "headin' 'em off at the pass", or crushing the head of the serpent before it grows fangs...

Barring ComCast from merging with Time-Warner would be appropriately proactive in such a context, or so it seems to this amateur observer, at first glance.

 

[Kondor3]

People don't know they have ISP choices! It's a secret! Big Cable, Big Teleco, Big Satellite and Big Wireless are keeping this information from the people!! WE NEED MO' GUBBAMINT TO HAP US!! HAP ME!!

That's certainly true, in some areas; in others, folks are probably down to one or two choices, and pushing us closer to Ma Bell (near-monopoly) status by allowing the merger of two Giants does not seem likely to empower serious competition and alternatives - especially when The Giants control most of the buried cable, nationwide, and will probably be able to lobby for tighter controls on who can use their buried cables, etc., as their market share and lobbying power increases.

We've seen this before - decades ago - with the telephone industry.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...The Comcast merger with Time Warner sucks. It will make thing worse, and probably force some smaller companies out of business..."

Unless the government intervenes, decides that such a merger would add to the tendency towards monopolization of the Internet and Cable TV (and even telephone) wires, and refuse to allow the merger to proceed - which I personally, favor, based upon what I know of the situation so far.

"...If we simply eliminated the power of the government to tell companies what they can, and cannot, do, the merger that scares you would result in a plethora of new competition, lower prices, and better customer service for everyone..."

Yes, that was the argument that John D. Rockefeller and Company used, as well, trying to drum-up public support, to oppose President Theodore Roosevelt's Trust-Busting proposals. Rockefeller lost. So did AT&T, in the 1970s, right before The Big Divestiture.

And, because the Feds busted-up Ma Bell into a bunch of Baby Bells, and sat on 'em for twenty years or more before they let-up on the pressure... AFTER the Diviestiture, TONS of new providers sprang up, and had a shot at real market penetration and growth that would have been impossible if Ma Bell had been left on top of the heap and had The Big Divestiture not materialized.

Why let ComCast or anybody else climb too far up the ladder towards Ma Bell status?

It's called "headin' 'em off at the pass", or crushing the head of the serpent before it grows fangs...

Barring ComCast from merging with Time-Warner would be appropriately proactive in such a context, or so it seems to this amateur observer, at first glance.

Would you look at that, someone is trying to be clever, and proves me right.

The "tendency towards monopolization of the Internet and Cable TV" exist solely because the government enforces laws that enable it. If you really want to end that tendency, a fact I sincerely doubt, you would jump wholeheartedly on the anti government regulation bandwagon.

By the wya, idiot, by the time the government got into the anti monopoly business Standard Oil was hemorrhaging market share because they couldn't keep up with the competition. That's right, the government got involved to fix a problem that didn't exist anymore. The only monopolies that have ever survived are the ones enforced by governments, free markets make them impossible.