"Net Neutrality is the Obamacare of the Internet..."

[PredFan]

The problem: I hate and distrust both Comcast, and the goverent.

The LAST thing that Obama wants is a free and open anything, let alone the Internet.

Uh no, the problem is that you're ill-informed on any and all issues.

Yeah well everyone here knows you are an ignorant hack, dismissed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Net neutrality is obviously nothing like Obamacare

Obvious only to those who live in Bizarro Universe. Massive regulation slathered with a nice topping of special interest payoffs on one side and exactly the same on the other side. Instead of nothing like, it's exactly like.

Okay. What, precisely, do you think net neutrality is, and what is at the heart of the question of net neutrality?

How can the government get control over the Internet, because just having the NSA listening to everything lost its thrill

 

[PredFan]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

 

[Czernobog]

There was another thread on this today and, sure nuff, all the rabid RWs were against Obama's stated wish that the Internet remain free and open to all.

Not one them could say why they are against net neutrality in that thread either.

There are layers of objections but the very lowest hurdle here is "What's the problem?" What harm is being caused which warrants the government coming in and regulating and controlling the rules of the marketplace? We saw how well things worked out when government stuck it's nose in the mortgage lending operations of the financial sector. Now they're completely destroying the health care sector.

What harm have you suffered which warrants the creation of a whole new regulatory regime and who's going to pay for all that regulation?

Interesting. When that same argument is made in regards to gay marriage...well, nevermind.

By all means allow me to clarify for you the "harm":

Freedom of expression:

In describing its opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality rules, Verizon claimed it has the First Amendment right to “edit the Internet.” Now, think about that a minute. These telecoms believe that because they control the broadband connections that we use to get online, that they get to decide what we do and say online.

Meanwhile, the NSA’s domestic spying programs — which are anti-democratic and unconstitutional — are some of the most serious attacks on free expression we’ve ever seen.

Put in the simplest terms, surveillance encourages self-censorship. We word our blogs more carefully. We agonise over what pictures to post on Facebook. We refuse to put our true feelings into allegedly private e-mails for fear that, one day, those words might come back to bite us in the ass.

Access:

Everyone has the right to access the information they need to stay informed and engaged. The Internet is the primary way most of us connect and communicate. Yet thanks to the telecoms’ stranglehold on the broadband business, millions of Americans — not to mention most of the world’s people— still lack affordable and high-speed Internet access.

Openness:

An open Internet enabling everyone to connect to everything without corporate or government interference could become a relic of the past. Without robust Net Neutrality protections, Internet service providers could become self-appointed censors, blocking or slowing down content and applications at will. Consider China, for instance. The State gets to decide what sites can, and cannot be accessed by people. You know, I hear all of you Right Wing loons talking about "Mainstream media", and their refusal to tell the stories their "corporate masters" don't want them to tell. So, what do you think happens when the same corporations start deciding what internet sites "deserve" to have traffic?

Meanwhile, lobbies like the Motion Picture Association of America continue to push bills like SOPA that would criminalize acts of sharing online - and please do not confuse sharing with pirating; they are two very different things. And the revelations about NSA surveillance show how, in the absence of true privacy, we lose the openness that’s long defined the Internet.

Innovation:

All the evidence shows that the open Internet is good for businesses large and small. But companies like AT&T and Verizon see the Internet as their private playground, where they can pick the winners and losers. For innovations in business and technology to flourish, the Internet must remain a level playing field where anyone can compete and succeed, and where companies respect users’ right to privacy. They, in effect, want to control who does, and does not get to play in the sandbox. One would think that "Free Market Libertarians" would be shitting themselves over the idea of mega-conglomerates telling enterprising entrepreneurs, "Sorry. There's just no room for you,"

Privacy:

Internet users have the right to control how their data and devices are used, and should have the right to use the Internet anonymously and privately, without fear of government or corporate intrusion. But very little of what we do online is truly private.

Does this help clear up the "harm" that companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are doing to Americans with their attempted control of the internet?

 

[Czernobog]

In German "Net Neutrality" roughly translates to "Seig Heil!"

Congratulations! Empty, useless rhetoric, and victim of Godwin's Law in one short post. Can't wait to see what you can do with an entire thought...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Isn't any obamacare supporter pissed off that the creators of obamacare think that you are stupid? With that said anyone who supports net neutrality must also be considered stupid.

 

[Czernobog]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

And so your "third option" would be...





And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

 

[PredFan]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

 

[Czernobog]

Isn't any obamacare supporter pissed off that the creators of obamacare think that you are stupid? With that said anyone who supports net neutrality must also be considered stupid.

Please tell me this is you being sarcastic? I really do not want to believe that anyone can really be this stupid...

 

[PredFan]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

And so your "third option" would be...


And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

But TV is under government control. And it is never a good idea to have government control anything.

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Isn't any obamacare supporter pissed off that the creators of obamacare think that you are stupid? With that said anyone who supports net neutrality must also be considered stupid.

Please tell me this is you being sarcastic? I really do not want to believe that anyone can really be this stupid...

Dems think their supporters are stupid

 

[Czernobog]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

And so your "third option" would be...


And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

But TV is under government control. And it is never a good idea to have government control anything.

Really? No. In China television is under government control. In most Middle East countries television is under government control. If television were truly under government control do you honestly believe that the NSA story would ever have seen the light of day? I'm not sure you really understand what "government control" actually means. You should speak to someone who had to grow up under a totalitarian regime sometime, and you might have a some idea of what "government controlled" media actually looks like.

If anything television is under corporate control. Although, fortunately, even that is not universal - yet.

 

[Czernobog]

Isn't any obamacare supporter pissed off that the creators of obamacare think that you are stupid? With that said anyone who supports net neutrality must also be considered stupid.

Please tell me this is you being sarcastic? I really do not want to believe that anyone can really be this stupid...

Dems think their supporters are stupid

Well, I certainly think that anyone who thinks that empty rhetoric like "Dems think their supporters are stupid" is a rational debate position is stupid; and unworthy of debate.

Lemme know when you actually know what Net Neutrality is, and are capable of rational, reasonable debate. In the meantime, why don't you toddle on back to the sandbox - grown ups are talking here...

 

[Rikurzhen]

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

And so your "third option" would be...


And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

But TV is under government control. And it is never a good idea to have government control anything.

Really? No. In China television is under government control. In most Middle East countries television is under government control. If television were truly under government control do you honestly believe that the NSA story would ever have seen the light of day? I'm not sure you really understand what "government control" actually means. You should speak to someone who had to grow up under a totalitarian regime sometime, and you might have a some idea of what "government controlled" media actually looks like.

If anything television is under corporate control. Although, fortunately, even that is not universal - yet.

Not with people like Edward Snowden working for the NSA Some Americans are patriots even if they work for the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Isn't any obamacare supporter pissed off that the creators of obamacare think that you are stupid? With that said anyone who supports net neutrality must also be considered stupid.

Please tell me this is you being sarcastic? I really do not want to believe that anyone can really be this stupid...

Dems think their supporters are stupid

Well, I certainly think that anyone who thinks that empty rhetoric like "Dems think their supporters are stupid" is a rational debate position is stupid; and unworthy of debate.

Lemme know when you actually know what Net Neutrality is, and are capable of rational, reasonable debate. In the meantime, why don't you toddle on back to the sandbox - grown ups are talking here...

I think elected democrats are right their supporters are stupid.

 

[PredFan]

The problem is that too many people trust the government. I hate Comcast just as much as the next guy but if you think that the government is going to just make sure that the Internet is equal then you are the worst of naive fools and have learned nothing from history. A free and open Internet is doomed with either choice.

Okay...this isn't about "hating" Comcast. Comcast is a business. I expect it to behave as a business will - to make profits any way it can. That's what businesses do. However, this is why I do support federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, the FDC, the FDA, and the FCC to hep to ensure that these businesses are not able to hunt those profits at the cost of my safety, well-being, and individual liberties.

Also, one of the nice things about these oversight agencies is that they operate independently of any administration, or party. You don't have to trust Obama in order to trust that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Republicans to know that the EPA is going to do what it does. You don't have to trust Progressives to know that the FCC is going to do what it does. These agencies existed long before any of the current players in Washington were in the game, and they will be around long after all of them are long gone.

Those ARE government agencies and this isn't about Obama and the progressives. This us about government. Government never does anything efficiently, and it is never ever satisfied with the power and authority that it has. Your example of the EPA is a case in point. It has way too often overstepped its bounds and gone off the rails. If you let the government get it's hooks into the Internet then that will be all she wrote, and it won't matter who is in the White House. In the "interest of fairness", or the "security of the nation" blah blah blah. No freedom.

 

[Czernobog]

There is probably a third option that isn't even being considered. I don't think that allowing huge companies like Comcast to dictate and parcel out the Internet leads to anything like freedom, and I'm absolutely sure that if the Internet comes under government control, it will definitely not be free.

And so your "third option" would be...


And for the record, no one wants the internet "under government control" any more than television, or radio is "under government control". However, having the government put into place protections to prevent anyone "taking control" of the internet seems like a pretty good idea.

But TV is under government control. And it is never a good idea to have government control anything.

Really? No. In China television is under government control. In most Middle East countries television is under government control. If television were truly under government control do you honestly believe that the NSA story would ever have seen the light of day? I'm not sure you really understand what "government control" actually means. You should speak to someone who had to grow up under a totalitarian regime sometime, and you might have a some idea of what "government controlled" media actually looks like.

If anything television is under corporate control. Although, fortunately, even that is not universal - yet.

Not with people like Edward Snowden working for the NSA Some Americans are patriots even if they work for the government.

You really are that stupid, aren't you? If television, in the United states, were "under government control" what makes you think that you would ever have even heard of Edward Snowden? Control means just that - control. That means the government decides what you see, what you hear, what you read. The government decides what is for "public consumption". The very fact that you even know who Edward Snowden is is proof that the government does. not. control. our. media.

 

[rightwinger]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

Like healthcare, he wants the Internet reserved for those who can afford it