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

[AvgGuyIA]

I'm no fan of Obama, but wake up and smell the coffee on this one. Letting ISPs win this one and remove net neutrality DOES NOT benefit you in any way shape or form.

You take the Internet away from the private sector, giving it to the government and it will become expensive, slower and no longer free. Look at the DMV. Learn.

Net neutrality will prevent it from becoming expensive, and slower. It's not free now. You don't have an ISP bill every month?

Same argument as "healthcare is expensive, wait until we make it free."

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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...

Lemme guess. You believe in global warming aka climate change?

 

[Czernobog]

Dear Senator Ted Cruz I m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal

Maybe this will help RWs understand why net neutrality is a GOOD thing.

Yeah, I doubt it too.

You give Obama control of the Internet and you can kiss your pornography goodbye.

First, I doubt that protecting Net Neutrality is going to cause pron to "go away", if that is really your concern.

Second, you do get that Obama is gone in two years, right? So, advocating that the government do what it can to protect Net Neutrality is a far cry from "giving Obama control" of anything.

 

[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...

Lemme guess. You believe in global warming aka climate change?

Lemme guess. You always try to debate by introducing red herrings, and strawmen.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

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

It scares me that you are allowed to vote in elections.

Cruz would just as soon auction off the Internet to the highest bidder. Same as he wants for healthcare

You jokers want free internet and you hope the government will give it to you.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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...

Lemme guess. You believe in global warming aka climate change?

Lemme guess. You always try to debate by introducing red herrings, and strawmen.

I'm right. You believe in it. Just like you trust your government won't lie to you. I'm going to start calling you people Grubers.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

SNIP;
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now
By Emily Zanotti on 11.10.14 | 3:11PM

• SmallerLarger
• Print Article

The President has decided to heed the message voters gave to the Democratic Party last week and will now work with Republicans to implement a common-sense policy agenda that includes a reasonable approach to Internet bandwidth questions currently in front of the FCC.

Ha! No. After his outburst on immigration this morning - that he'll pass it by executive order if Congress doesn't pass it's own version before years end (which he'll probably veto anyway) - Barack Obama decided to announce, while in China of all places, that he intends to control your Internet, which is great news, if you're a fan of how the government typically runs, well, anything. Of course, the FCC, which is handling the policy, is an independent organization that the President cannot control unless he's hired his own Comcast lobbyist, but that seems to make absolutely no difference as far as he's concerned.

In a detailed statement and video, Mr. Obama called for bright-line rules that ban broadband providers from blocking websites or cutting deals with content companies for better access to consumers, known as paid prioritization.
”We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama said.

Firefox Vice President Johnathan Nightingale says President Obama's proposal to group broadband providers with phone companies would be a step toward eliminating online "discrimination."

To achieve that goal, the president called for the FCC to increase its regulatory authority over the broadband industry by placing them in the same category as public utilities or common carriers, such as the old landline phone network.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as Less Government President Seton Motley notes, the Internet has been classified as Title I utility, which means it's loosely regulated. Title I doesn't let the FCC impose "Net Neutrality" restrictions that put everyone on "equal footing: (though, as I suppose you know by now, nothing, where government is concerned, is ever truly equal). Barack Obama is arguing that the Internet, a vast series of tubes that he claims to understand, fits more soundly under the 1934 Telecom Act, which regulates land line phones. Reclassifying it would make it a Title II utility, and will give the government authority to heavily regulate.

ALL of it here:
All of Your Internets Belong to Barack Obama Now The American Spectator

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

The internet is not free unless you spend all your time in Starbucks, you have an internet bill like everyone else. Like I said it's not about anything being free. It's about corporations wanting to limit access.

The customer will tell the corporations what they can and cannot do, if they want his business. The government can tell us customers to go **** ourselves.

 

[Barb]

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.

Obama and the democrats should issue a warning against toasting bread in the bath tub.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

This explanation staggers me. In an environment where you can choose internet providers and thus punish those who "edit" their internet infrastructure in a way you don't support, you don't allow yourself to choose this option, instead you want government to "edit" the internet for EVERYONE. Instead of dozens of local competitors existing or springing up and offering different "edit" choices you're going to let all your freedom ride on ONE "edit" choice.

Secondly you point to NSA spying as a harm and instead of pinning the blame on the government you're using government malfeasance as an example of corporate harm.

I swear, try as I might, I just can't think like a liberal. How do you guys operate when you abandon all rules of logic?

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.

Where do you come up with this bullshit? That right doesn't exist at all. Don't be making up rights out of thin air.

The telecoms don't have a stranglehold on the internet. You can go and start your own company and lay down fiber and build the infrastructure yourself. Why don't you round up your liberal buddies and start the Communist Internet Company and run it as you please. You can give away your services for free just as you're proposing telecoms do.

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?

Good God Almighty. This is ignorance on steroids.

So let me see if I can decipher this "logic." We have a competitive marketplace now which allows IPs to rise and fall based on customer satisfaction and these IPs are not beholden to regulators so they can be disruptive to government intrusion and you point to China as an example of internet infrastructure being controlled by a State and censoring news, so to prevent that from arising here you want to destroy the competitive marketplace and replace it with the US Government having powerful oversight control of all internet operations. The same US Government which sicced the NSA on the American populace.

Can you not even get a vague sense of how idiotic your logic is? Are you so liberal-bubble-universe isolated that you think that what you wrote makes sense? That to prevent a China censorship scenario arising here we should destroy independent control and assign control to the US Government alone.

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,"

No one trusts government, no one except you apparently. Remember when IBM ruled the world. Same too with General Motors. Same too with Microsoft. Same too with Sony. If Verizon tries to be a bully and this creates a business opportunity, then competitors will enter the marketplace. Google is laying down fiber in Austin, Provo and Kansas City and pricing their service at $70 per month for 1 Gb/s throughput. Can you get service that cheaply? Google didn't have to ask permission from a regulator, a regulator captured by existing industry and trying to protect existing industry.

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?

Actually, no none of this addressed the issue of harm that is being done in the marketplace. All this was was a contrived effort to point to POTENTIAL harm in the future and you used very tortured logic which results in putting the fox (Government) in charge of the hen house. The Government which controls the NSA would now have a HUGELY powerful LEVER or AX or CLUB to hold over the heads of non-cooperating telecoms. Why on Earth would you want to give an out-of-control government even MORE power to run roughshod over privacy? Ideally we should be working to give telecoms the ability to say "piss off" to the government when the government comes calling. Look at Apple's decision to enable encryption on all their products without having a back door. If Apple was beholden to a regulator, then Apple would not have the freedom to make that choice.

You fundamentally don't understand the world nor these issues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Dude obama has people on his staff that are related to those who control the flow of information from every major news outlet but fox, and I'm sure if I dug hard enough A fox executive will have a relative on obamas staff. So yes obama controls the mainstream media.

WOW....You're really in fine form tonight. I have a cousin who works at a gas station, Does that mean I control Exxon?
View attachment 33999

Stupid, we already know the creators of obamacare think you you are stupid, but owning a gas station is not like owning the oil rigs. to control the flow of oil.
These people have the power to control the informatiuon that is released to the public.
But thanks for playing you dumb son of *****, now go look your cousin up and do what you do best. slurp slurp

 

[PredFan]

Regulation isn't control? What are you smoking? At any rate regulation certainly isn't freedom now is it?

This is the misinformation of our recent age.

Regulation is a set of rules, a framework within which you can act.

Sorry, you can't hunt your neighbor's dog, feed it to your kid, and build your tent city on airport property. You can't cook the dog meat on your car's engine and sell it to strangers, and call yourself a street vendor. You can't stand on the public street and scream at the top of your lungs at 3 in the morning, and you can't walk into the White House and complain personally to the President.

You are REGULATED.

Yes, thus you are controlled.

Really? Because you can't do any little thing that pops into your little head? How long has it been since people have truly been "free," in that case?

long time, but the internet is now. Are you starting to understand? Regulation is just the beginning. You actually think that the government will only regulate it's fairness and then stay out?

 

[PredFan]

Regulation isn't control? What are you smoking? At any rate regulation certainly isn't freedom now is it?

This is the misinformation of our recent age.

Regulation is a set of rules, a framework within which you can act.

Sorry, you can't hunt your neighbor's dog, feed it to your kid, and build your tent city on airport property. You can't cook the dog meat on your car's engine and sell it to strangers, and call yourself a street vendor. You can't stand on the public street and scream at the top of your lungs at 3 in the morning, and you can't walk into the White House and complain personally to the President.

You are REGULATED.

Yes, thus you are controlled.

"Damn government says I can't rape, and shoot my neighbor!!! ******* dictatorship! Down with the controlling government!!!!"

Yeah...that argument makes a lot of sense...

Yeah I'll ignore your dodge of the point, and just realize you have nothing further to add.

 

[Ravi]

Obama needs to start using reverse psychology. If he had come out in favor of corporations deciding what content we could see, the Republicans would suddenly be in favor of net neutrality

 

[PredFan]

I'm no fan of Obama, but wake up and smell the coffee on this one. Letting ISPs win this one and remove net neutrality DOES NOT benefit you in any way shape or form.

You take the Internet away from the private sector, giving it to the government and it will become expensive, slower and no longer free. Look at the DMV. Learn.

Left wingers cannot learn. Thus they are left wingers.

 

[PredFan]

I'm no fan of Obama, but wake up and smell the coffee on this one. Letting ISPs win this one and remove net neutrality DOES NOT benefit you in any way shape or form.

You take the Internet away from the private sector, giving it to the government and it will become expensive, slower and no longer free. Look at the DMV. Learn.

Net neutrality will prevent it from becoming expensive, and slower. It's not free now. You don't have an ISP bill every month?

You poor uneducated fool.

 

[rightwinger]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

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

It scares me that you are allowed to vote in elections.

Cruz would just as soon auction off the Internet to the highest bidder. Same as he wants for healthcare

Auction off? You think the internet is owned by the government?

Of course not

But if Ted Cruz has his way, it will be owned by the 1%

 

[Roadrunner]

No, actually it was Ted Stevens the famous kook from Alaska who made the silly remark about tubes. Obviously you prefer the wealthy have access to high speed internet, and let the people who can't afford it deal with artificially slowed access. Typical right winger wants to give unfair advantage to the rich while limiting the rest. I'm sure rush would be proud of you.

There we go, thanks for your honesty.

It is all about another freebie to the unproductive.

It has nothing to do with anything being given for free.

Sure it is.

Equal footing=Free to dependent class.

I'm long since on to this shit, don't even bother me denying it.

The internet is not free unless you spend all your time in Starbucks, you have an internet bill like everyone else. Like I said it's not about anything being free. It's about corporations wanting to limit access.

The customer will tell the corporations what they can and cannot do, if they want his business. The government can tell us customers to go **** ourselves.

It is amazing what the customer can do if they stand up for themselves. I got Direct TV reduced 35%, phone reduced 50%, and Hughesnet upped my plan for free for a year, all because I called, told the rep to STFU and get me a supervisor, and told them either cut the price or up the service, or cancel immediately.

I think super's must get bonuses when they keep a customer from cancelling.

You have to be aggressively assertive with them.

Start with, "this is how it is going to be, or, you can cancel the account NOW"!

 

[Roadrunner]

Kinda like fuckin' junior high kids...

hey! What you wanna do in the privacy of your own home is your business. But this was about net Neutrality. Think we can stay on topic?

Your perverted musings on teacher/student sex and lowering of the age of consent precede you, perv.

Again, I don't usually worry about reporting people's stupidity. However, if you cannot stay on topic, I may have to make an exception here. Do you have anything to actually say about the topic, or are you only interested in following me around from thread to thread, attacking me personally?

Aw, your avatar looks like it is going to cry.

This is not CDZ, so report away.

So that would be, "No. I intend to continue to be an ignorant **** with nothing intelligent to say". Got it, thanks for letting me know. Now I can just put you on ignore with the other ignorant *****. Buh bye.

I recall who you are now, from a few years ago.

Why don't you pack your shit and go back to that board that fired you as a mod?

 

[rightwinger]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

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

It scares me that you are allowed to vote in elections.

Cruz would just as soon auction off the Internet to the highest bidder. Same as he wants for healthcare

You jokers want free internet and you hope the government will give it to you.

Where has anyone said anything about free?

Did I miss something?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can Cruz be a bigger asshole?

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

It scares me that you are allowed to vote in elections.

Cruz would just as soon auction off the Internet to the highest bidder. Same as he wants for healthcare

Auction off? You think the internet is owned by the government?

Of course not

But if Ted Cruz has his way, it will be owned by the 1%

That's exactly what he's working toward and the dumb RWs are in favor of it.