So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...

[Quantum Windbag]

here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem? how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?

The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.

It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government. There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue. And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.

Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything. We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government. We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.

uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.

if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.

but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.

Guess what?

If that ever happens I know hundreds of ways to watch YouTube without my ISP being able to stop it. I already use them to watch stuff that various government agencies tell me I am not allowed to see because I live in the wrong country. I do not need the government to protect me from the big bad evil ISP, especially since it does not exist, and I can get internet access through another ISP with a phone call.

Do you still call your mommy if someone calls you names? Do you expect her, or the government, to protect you from me when I say you are an idiot? Do you often whine about things that have no basis in reality?

Quiz: Are You a Pussy?: Humor: GQ

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So much for the claims they're different. That's a bit disappointing.

Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality

So dumping Net Neutrality and letting corps charge more for one site than another is congruent with what they preach, how?

Someone said if these people got their way that a corporatacracy would ensue and we'd all be screwed. Hmmm. Looks like they were right.

So, you guys get to yell "Hooray! We got less government!" while opening the door for MSN to charge more for visiting a Conservative site than a Liberal one. Brilliant.

Go ahead. Tell me how less government is ALWAYS a good thing...

The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.

Yeah, they're for freedom all right, freedom for business to do what they want and when they want.

Business will support the Tea Party in return for Tea Party permission for government to fleece us all. This is corporatism, pioneered by Mussolini and developed by Hitler.

The Tea Party favors economic fascism. Some in the party suffer race hatred, and we know where that leads.

The idiot speaketh, let all statists worship at his feet.

 

[Foxfyre]

here's the thing - you've got no argument except that you think government is bad. please, specifically, how would government enforced net neutrality be a problem? how is maintaining the status quo in this situation bad?

The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.

It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government. There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue. And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.

Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything. We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government. We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.

uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.

if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.

but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.

The free market has a means to get around just about any 'trap' unscrupulous enterprise wants to set for its own advantage. When people wanted to be able to post a photo or other content without every Tom, Dick and Harry stealing it, they were able to accomplish that without any help from Big Brother Government.

If somebody tries to block access to Youtube or any other location on the internet, somebody will develop the technology so that every computer owner can easily get around the roadblock. And if that can't be done, then Youtube has a really good case for an anti-trust lawsuit against Time Warner that should take care of the matter. Those laws are already on the books without turning the internet over to the government to manage.

Really, can you think of ANYTHING the government has EVER managed that hasn't been more expensive, more inefficient, and more problematic than it had to be? Why in the world do you think government management of the internet would be any different?

 

[idb]

Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?

So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?

Actually, because of 'deregulation' on a 'regulate' entity or in this case, entities. It's a case of all controls off. The regulated was manipulating the regulators.

But...I thought you would want de-regulation?
That is some pretty twisted logic there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The question wasn't addressed to me but I'm going to answer it.

It is bad because there is no such thing as 'neutrality' when it comes to government. There is nobody in government (or anywhere else) smart enough to define the term when it comes to the internet or any other complex issue. And there is far too much opportunity to be self serving and use government power to enhance one's own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune and sort of 'overlook' any questionable activity by one's friends and beneficiaries and overreact if it is somebody resented or unliked.

Far better to enforce the anti trust laws already on the books and let the free market determine the going rates for anything. We need to start removing a whole lot of inappropriate power from the Federal government. We sure as hell don't want to give it any more.

uh... it's easy to define neutrality in this instance. internet access is to be unrestricted by the ip. they don't get to throttle based on the content requested.

if nobody wants to do that - fine. it'll be a useless law on the books. won't be the first.

but when you can't visit youtube because timewarner wants to send you to their videosharing site instead... well that's when you'll want net neutrality.

Guess what?

If that ever happens I know hundreds of ways to watch YouTube without my ISP being able to stop it. I already use them to watch stuff that various government agencies tell me I am not allowed to see because I live in the wrong country. I do not need the government to protect me from the big bad evil ISP, especially since it does not exist, and I can get internet access through another ISP with a phone call.

Do you still call your mommy if someone calls you names? Do you expect her, or the government, to protect you from me when I say you are an idiot? Do you often whine about things that have no basis in reality?

Quiz: Are You a Pussy?: Humor: GQ

What in the hell is Darjeeling and what is a bookbiding Cafe?

 

[idb]

Seriously, don't you think that Barney, Dodd, Geithner all thought they were 'compromising?' when they were selling the citizenry, most often the working poor, down the tubes? Fannie loves the working poor! Buy a house! No money down! Balloon payments, but heh, you'll be making more in 2 years, right?

So you're claiming that the whole financial crisis/recession/downturn...call it what you will...was because of too much government regulation?

It was due to the Sub prime lending pactices. That is, lending money to the folks with sub prime qualifications: change to read: those who will not pay it back.

This was demanded by laws based on anti discrimination. Money is loaned on the idea that it is loaned to those with the wherewithall to repay it. The government demanded that the idea of repayment be termed discriminatory and that institutions thinking in that way needed to be "regulated".

Some were thereby regulated into olblivion.

The resulting assets are "toxic" and have not been addressed by the Trillions we have squandered to avoid the solution. Thanks Big 0. Godd approach.

Whether you think this is too much regulation or too little, it's government sticking its nose in where it don't belong. Without the intrusion of the government, it doesn't happen and the bubble never exists in the first place to burst in the last place.

This was nothing more than another example of Wealth Redistribution. The result is the inevitable result of this poorly conceived practice.

I've never read that explanation before.
So you're saying that the gummint forced the banks to loan to the sub-prime market?
I suspect you're working too hard to blame the gummint on this.
I think it was simple greed, I can't think of a sector more in need of regulation.

 

[idb]

So far it works without the government. Being pragmatic therefore means keeping the government out of it.

Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?

No.

From the OP link.

A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.

The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.

In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.

OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?

No.

From the OP link.

A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.

The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.

In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.

OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?

I do not know what the Tea Party wants.

I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.

 

[RDD_1210]

Still not seeing difference between what you're describing and what's happening on cable, or anything else in the world (even politics for that matter). But for some reason you've decided to hold the internet upon a loftier pedestal and want government to step in this time. Should we push for Billboard Neutrality? The same issue plagues billboards that plague the internet, whoever can pay more gets their message out better. Then there's Bumper Sticker Neutrality, Mailed Out Store Advertisement Neutrality, NASCAR Sponsor Neutrality, ect.

What makes the internet different from the rest of the world?

Do you really need me to explain the difference between billboards and the internet? Really? Do you understand the role that the internet plays in our world and the increasing importance it has each and every day? The fact that you are comparing the power and importance of the internet to billboards, bumper stickers, etc.. tells me either you're incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.

The importance of the internet is to make communication and information gathering easier, nothing more. Even without the internet you would be able to find all the knowledge in the world, provided you knew where to look and didn't mind putting in the leg work. There is nothing so special about the internet that we need a government watch group hovering over it and protecting it from the very people who own the bandwidth.

My point of listing billboards and bumper stickers was to try and make you realize how crazy your argument sounds, I suppose it's my fault for assuming it would work with an ideologue. You're trying deny a basic fundamental of the world, you get more if you give more. But you only care about it in this instance because it's a big bad boogeyman corporation that's involved. If an internet provider wants to deny access to a certain site then it's their right, as the owners of those lines, to do so. Don't like it? Switch to a different provider.

Even if a provider ever did this, do you honestly think the internet community would just sit back and accept it? They'll start hosting sites within sites, just so people can get around the restriction and view the content anyways.

Bwahahahahaah! Holy shit thanks for making my day. LOL!! Please enlighten me with what you do for a living. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.

 

[RDD_1210]

Whoa there Big Fellow.

Net Neutrality is a set of laws that regulates the Net, is it not? Ending net Nuetrality means leaving it as it is.




Net Neutrality

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:
The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt

This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.

Exactly.

Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.

Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing

Right, and without legislation things could change drastically very soon if the major ISPs get what they want. The legislation simply says, no one, not business, not government can restrict access to any site.

You're acting as if ANY legislation posed by government is automatically going to be bad. This legislation does EXACTLY what you and I both want. The only way you can oppose that is if you don't understand the issue or oppose government existing all-together.

 

[KissMy]

The market only works until the cartels and monopolies take control. Then they may as well be called another government.

That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.

Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.

That would violate existing federal law.

Which part is against existing federal law?

Which law?

Maybe it is against some law & that is why it has not happened on a large scale yet.

Nearly every bit of data in this country passes through certain AT&T & Verizon buildings around the US. There is virtually no way around these companies who control & monitor the entire internet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM"]Mark Klein - AT&T WhistleBlower[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Ummm, didn't the link in the OP say that the FCC was currently involved in regulating the operation of the internet to ensure net neutrality?
And the Tea Party is working to remove the FCC's authority?
Isn't that the whole basis of this thread?

No.

From the OP link.

A federal court ruled the FCC did not have authority over the issue this year, opening the door for Verizon and Google to cut side deals among themselves, and the agency must now decide whether or not to try and reassert control while lawmakers debate whether to intervene as well.

The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.

In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.

OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?

The FCC should be watching all mass communications in the USA and be prepared to apply the law in all cases of illegal infringement or illegal business practices. Speaking as a tea partier, I have no problem with that. Laws are useless unless enforced and anti trust laws are good laws.

The Tea Party and I would hope every American who is opposed to an ever over reaching and growing federal government does not want the Federal government to have any power as to who can and can't use the internet even if they tell us the power will not be exercised.

 

[RDD_1210]

No.

From the OP link.

The article obviously put a negative spin on it, but the fact remains that the FCC does not regulate the internet. Congress specifically refused to give them the authority, and their repeated attempts to create it out of laws that apply to other things has repeatedly been struck down.

In other words, what you see today exists without government regulation, and it works. Being pragmatic I want to keep it working, and therefore insist that the government stay out of it.

OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?

I do not know what the Tea Party wants.

I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.

So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?

I do not know what the Tea Party wants.

I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.

So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?

Most of our laws are reactionary. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that jazz.

But it doesn't even matter if they do restrict content, it's their right to do so. I'm just not understanding your problem with allowing businesses to run their company the way they see fit, within the context of the law of course.

 

[Oddball]

That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.

Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.

That would violate existing federal law.

Which part is against existing federal law?

Which law?

Maybe it is against some law & that is why it has not happened on a large scale yet.

Nearly every bit of data in this country passes through certain AT&T & Verizon buildings around the US. There is virtually no way around these companies who control & monitor the entire internet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM"]Mark Klein - AT&T WhistleBlower[/ame]

Yeah?...And what do you think will be accomplished by creating a new federal bureaucracy for the likes of AT&T and Verizon to buy off?

What makes you think that this mythical "net neutrality" bureaucratic unicorn will turn out any better than the FDA, AMTRAK, or the "universal service" telephone regs that ended up creating one of the biggest monopolies of all time: AT&T?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.

Exactly.

Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.

Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing

Right, and without legislation things could change drastically very soon if the major ISPs get what they want. The legislation simply says, no one, not business, not government can restrict access to any site.

You're acting as if ANY legislation posed by government is automatically going to be bad. This legislation does EXACTLY what you and I both want. The only way you can oppose that is if you don't understand the issue or oppose government existing all-together.

People have been warning me things could change for the worse for decades. Funny thing, not one of them has proven the need for government regulation yet, yet they still keep spouting the warnings.

Each and everyone person that thinks the government needs to fix something that is not broken is an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is absolutely correct. It is virtually impossible to get data sent from point A to point B in this country without it traveling on an AT&T fiber or router at some point along the way. AT&T will use packet discrimination to only allow I-Phones running on AT&T network or any AT&T subscribers data packets to move at the fastest speed. They would quickly put all other cellular companies, ISP's, telecoms, Google Android, Skype & VOIP out of business becoming an even larger monopoly.

Not only will AT&T monopolize every form of communication & charge you more for it. They will restrict access to certain content, business & political affiliations who are not acting in AT&T's best interest.

That would violate existing federal law.

Which part is against existing federal law?

Which law?

Maybe it is against some law & that is why it has not happened on a large scale yet.

Nearly every bit of data in this country passes through certain AT&T & Verizon buildings around the US. There is virtually no way around these companies who control & monitor the entire internet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM"]Mark Klein - AT&T WhistleBlower[/ame]

It has not happened at all.

By the way, how is a video about how the government is abusing its power supposed to convince me that we need to give the government more power?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, granted.
I've done a tiny bit more research now.
It does appear that the FCC has taken somewhat of a watchdog role to date without having actual authority to enforce any regulations.
Is the Tea Party et al wanting to remove the FCC even from this role?

I do not know what the Tea Party wants.

I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.

So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?

Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.

I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.

 

[KissMy]

Yeah?...And what do you think will be accomplished by creating a new federal bureaucracy for the likes of AT&T and Verizon to buy off?

What makes you think that this mythical "net neutrality" bureaucratic unicorn will turn out any better than the FDA, AMTRAK, or the "universal service" telephone regs that ended up creating one of the biggest monopolies of all time: AT&T?

Well I guess you are right, since Comcast lost the case monopolization has not happened again. So in light of that I will agree that we don't need FCC bureaucratic "net neutrality".

 

[RDD_1210]

I do not know what the Tea Party wants.

I oppose giving the government more power just because there might be a problem at some vague point in the future.

So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?

Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.

I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.

Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?

I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.