You only need common sense & not technical knowledge , to see why NET Neutrality is good for the con

a reply to: deadeyedick

one great step would be to steer away from the term net neutrality cause it is now a dirty term.

Totally agree. I said it in other posts before that the biggest demise of net neutrality besides the lobbyiest was the name they used.

They should have used "Americas Net" "Free Net" "Patriots Net" as silly as that sounds it worked for the "Patriot Act"

a reply to: interupt42

The only way i would support this is if it would give us the US consumer lower charges like in Europe and Africa and if it increased the band width to 1gig up and 1gig down file transfer like in China. Why should the US consumer pay more for service than everyone else?

a reply to: interupt42

I am glad to see more skepticism of claims that the use of coercive power by the federal government will make your stuff cheaper or faster or not faster or not slower or something.

I have tried to make the argument that we should not trust average people with power to have our best interests at heart, after all, they have their own interests do they not? Are bureaucrats known for their selflessness and altruism?

Statists vociferously disagree with me, I get it, you love and trust the government even though it is run by people not dissimilar to a typical bean counter with average intelligence. Just think of the kid in your 6th grade class who couldn't pronounce Martian correctly for the first week. He's not a bad kid but, I don't want him making important decisions that will directly affect me. I want to make those decisions, it is my responsibility to not buy snake oil and to learn from my mistakes if I ever do buy snake oil.

What was the last thing that negatively affected you personally and was corrected by the passage of new legislation?

Think about that for just a minute before you answer.

I came up with civil rights and the repeal of the prohibition on the sale of alcohol and I wasn't around for either.

Those were both rollbacks of bad laws and they were both constitutional amendments.

a reply to: greencmp

you are right but this nn comes off as a new bill and not a roll back. repubs are hard wired to accept a rollback if it is presented to them correctly. Is nn being pushed now a new bill or law? as far as anyone is concerned when they hear it brings the thought of more changes and honestly i would not be surprised to find out those supporting it are unaware of parts that could be hijacked in the future by others with different intent. rollback will be accepted and nothing new will.

a reply to: greencmp

I find it funny that people think that implementing net neutrality is removing bureaucracy but using bureaucracy was ok when it removed it.

Its also funny to me that they think taking control from the supposed gov't to the most hated Oligopoly industry is a win?


BTW , I supported Ron Paul and believe this country needs libertarian principles, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I'm for small gov't because they are all crooks. However, with that said.

When people blame the gov't for the ills of this country and its bureaucracy they naively think that its our elected officials that draft and create the laws in this country.

Like I said in my previous posts:

1. The GOVERNMENT DOES NOT create anything and very unlikely even drafts bills and regulations. The gov't is a tool used by the LOBBYIST . Recall Pelosi infamous stupidity but honest comment " we need to pass the bill to understand what is in the bill" Congress are Robosigners for the Lobbyiest.

2. The lobbyist are the master mind that draft,consult and and provide the dream team of legal weasel counsel.

So when you are for the lobbyists (so called private sector) your are for the gov't and vice versa.

In addition, with my libertarian hat on:
1. The internet is not a commodity its a virtual global economy.
2. SInce its a virtual global economy I want it to be treated like the free market. Net Neutrality ensures that no one but the market dictates the winners and the looser.

With out net neutrality comcast can and could have decided to kill netflix .facebook,google,etc and make you use their less innovative solutions. SO in essence comcast is deciding the winners and looser in this global economy. Why aren't republicans pissed about that?

a reply to: guitarplayer

Why should the US consumer pay more for service than everyone else?

Because we don't have a free market we have an Oligopoly controlled telecom industry. That is why the Telecom industry consistently ranks on the list of most hated companies by its customers, yet they continue grow in profit and power. How is that possible if its not an Oligopoly without no real competition.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Let me tell you about our water company, yes it is a prime example of what public utilities are.

In our neighborhood, regularly the water company overcharged us $200 or more on a bill. When we called them they said "Oh we must have misread the bill." Then they won't issue refunds but after taking money out of our bank drafts, then give us (I am referring to lots of neighbors) credit on future bills. My last credit for the overcharge lasted for 3 months of water after the "mistake."

When I confronted them with all the people in just my neighborhood that have experienced the same thing, then confronted them on my latest "mistake" which they had let stand - know what they said - because it was so egregious that I figured they had to see it and know about it.

Oh, we figure that IF something is wrong with your bill, you will tell us. Never mind that the meter readings don't match up, even month to month, on the last month reading. Even if the bill shows you used enough water to fill 2 swimming pools when you don't even own one.

When I asked who was in charge I could complain to, I was told no one. So I asked how to contact the water board and was told that the manager was on the water board and takes issues to them.

I had to finally threaten to take all the proof I had collected to the State utility board before they "admitted" they might have a problem with their remote readers.

Since then miraculously, my neighbors and I have not had a problem. Wonder about all the other neighborhoods in the county?

That is how well I expect the internet to be run once it becomes a public utility.

a reply to: interupt42

You can take the Libertarian hat off now, it doesn't suit you.

Well if you all want someone to blame it all on it goes back to Chuck Schumer and his BS legislation to close up access to the net to protect the children. that maybe when the ISP's got into content distribution schemes back in the mid to late 2000's suddenly the market had been pumping you tube and netflix as legal avenues for content, suddenly people were cutting cables and going to the net. Nobody complained about it when Schumer struck the first blow, typical people that only complain about not getting the services the Schumer and the companies want you to want. Of course they use the guise of protecting kids and shutting down recently things like Silk Road. I could care less about the garbage they dangle as dangerous and in front of us as to why they need to control us, it maybe nothing but BS. IN the long run though they have convinced the public to desire the content avenues they have designed and then used that as excuse to raise the cost to cover the bandwith....before they couldn't figure out exactly what your packets were doing, now they can see what you are doing on YT and Netflix and now they want to measure and sell that bandwith to you, before they could only guess at what you were doing on the net, now everyone basically demands services and bandwith in the manner prescribed by these politicians and companies.

the Amazing thing.....they call this "Net Neutrality" about as Orwellian as "Patriot Act" or "Federal Reserve".

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: interupt42

You can take the Libertarian hat off now, it doesn't suit you.

I take it off sometimes to put my common sense hat on, give it a try.

Sometimes things are on the grey area and no political ideology is perfect for all circumstances.

a reply to: bubbabuddha

the Amazing thing.....they call this "Net Neutrality" about as Orwellian as "Patriot Act" or "Federal Reserve".

I'm not sure that you understand net neutrality.

Also how is exactly giving power to the an Oligopoly not Orwellian?

Nobody complained about it when Schumer struck the first blow, typical people that only complain about not getting the services the Schumer and the companies want you to want. Of course they use the guise of protecting kids and shutting down recently things like Silk Road.

So you are mad that Schumer shutdown Silk Road instead of Comcast ?

Without net neutrality that is exactly what comcast could do. Better yet, Comcast could stop ALL dark net traffic if it wanted to without net neutrality.

a reply to: grandmakdw

That is how well I expect the internet to be run once it becomes a public utility.

That is kind of funny , because my experience with comcast was far worst than that.

It took over 6 months and some favors from family members that work with comcast to fix the issue I was having with them.

I was lied to by the customer support. They actually said due to my numerous issues with them in the last months that they were going to reduce my rate. I said I'm not interested in changing my plan or getting a teaser rate. They assured me that wasn't the case.

Well guess what the comcast support rep from overseas lied purposely to meet his quota. He changed my rates and put me on a teaser rate and didn't even fix my problem. He could care less about my issues he only wanted to meet his quota.

Due to my numerous hang up by support and the amount of time the issue had been ongoing I was also keeping logs of the conversions and time stamps with them,

After many hang ups and tries I finally got a manager who I told to get the tapes they use to record you while you are online with them. As clear as day she hear the guy flat out lie.

That is just a very condensed version of the issue and does not include all the worthless days I had to take off work so they can send someone to my house , despite knowing the issue was not with my house. I even provided them logs where the packets were being dropped once it left my house and past the first hop but still within their nodes. I even explained to them that my neighbors are having the same issue and have called for it.

Than I won't go into details how they randomly changed my rates or plan when they felt like it. Or how they randomly charged VOD charges to my parents without them even being able to use VOD . Or how they have done this to my friends and other family members.


You want to talk about bureaucracy try getting support from comcast when the issue can't be resolved by rebooting your computer and network or try to correct a billing matter.


Also look at how great it is to deal with the company that you are trying to empower.
www.slate.com...

originally posted by: seeker1963
EDIT: Also, if the Democrat and Republicans both support it, then what is the issue? Partisan wise, if both parties support it, then what can the FCC do?

Someone is not telling the truth.

Republicans support it as in the public. It's part of the Republican party platform to be against Net Neutrality.

That aside, what the FCC can do is allow Verizon and Comcast to get their way... or not. The problem is similar to the problem we have with the banks. High ranking industry professionals are chosen to regulate the industry because they know how it works. They're given terms for a few years, but then these people need to go back to work and their skillset means they need to go back to that industry. The only way they're going to have a job is if they give that corporation preferential treatment while they're a regulator.

The whole problem with Net Neutrality and the FCC is the same as the problem with Goldman Sachs. There's a revolving door between business and government.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: grandmakdw

That is how well I expect the internet to be run once it becomes a public utility.

That is kind of funny , because my experience with comcast was far worst than that.

Also look at how great it is to deal with the company that you are trying to empower.
www.slate.com...

Sorry about your experience!

I bet we could get lots of public utility nightmare stories.

Most people aren't as aggressive as we were. Imagine, I had to threaten to go to the state utilities board with my proof of what I think is illegal activity.

For the entire internet to be run as a public utility like Obama wants, is a set up for corruption so vast and so evil, it is unfathomable. Just look at our petty little corrupt local public utilities, now imagine that on a national scale with the power to track your every keystroke, and the power to select what information is accessible and what information is not accessible.

originally posted by: seeker1963
Also, if the Democrat and Republicans both support it, then what is the issue? Partisan wise, if both parties support it, then what can the FCC do?

Yeah, Obama went public with his opinion (for his own reasons) and Cruz came out against it. When I say "Republicans and Democrats", I meant the PEOPLE, not the politicians. I know the GOP platform is against NN (they don't care what the people want), but the people who use the Internet support it. I do understand your point.

Someone is not telling the truth.

If you're talking about the politicians, you can guarantee they're both lying! LOL! I would trust Skeptic Overlord on this one. Or else dig into the technicalities and find out for yourself what a Title II classification means. I know this thread isn't about that, but if you want to know the truth, without counting on common sense, find out for yourself.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Let me tell you about our water company, yes it is a prime example of what public utilities are.

That's a local company. Net neutrality is a nationwide utility. Comcast is going to be the one messing around with your charges.

The internet always has being treated as a utility. Then Comcast got permission from the FCC to control it. If we don't get the Net classified as a Title II service, pretty soon, your service is going to slow down (because others are paying more for special treatment and your information will move slower), you'll be viewing more ads (because people can pay COmcast to force their ads) and you'll be re-routed to the search engine (or video viewing site) that is paying more, instead of being permitted to choose your own search engine or viewing site. Of course, you will be allowed to pay more and get faster service, but are you ready to compete with corporations who have millions to spend on their internet service?

Have you seen this? THe Oatmeal on Net Neutrality

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: interupt42

after digging through some of the debate i am left with the thought that we already have the right laws from long ago that offer plenty of protection. We just need them to be enforced.

They are common carriers and laws exist that limit what they can legally do to content.

This. I really wish people would stop and actually really read the issue for a minute.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I bet we could get lots of public utility nightmare stories.

Thats the point we can go tit for tat in bureaucracy and customer nightmare between the gov't controlled versus privately controlled , especially in the Telecom Oligopoly.

So when people say its better that the telecom Oligopoly controls it than the good for nothing gov't they are either being naive or disingenuous at best.

For the entire internet to be run as a public utility like Obama wants, is a set up for corruption so vast and so evil, it is unfathomable.

1. Net neutrality has been proven to work
Forget Obama for the moment. The point is that NET NEUTRALITY is good for the consumers and the majority of the public. After all , we had NET NEUTRALITY until the beginning of this year.

That means with net neutrality the internet became what could be considered the biggest innovation for our generation.

2. The internet is a market place and no one should control it.
It is not a commodity.

You have businesses that only exist in the internet with economic impact world wide. Net neutrality ensures that no one controls the internet market place nor decides who are the winners or looser.

That is why REPUBLICANS and LIBERTARIANS SHOULD BE for Net Neutrality.

Ted Cruz is not for it , simply because of lobbying money. While Obama claims to be for it he likely will not support it unless he is held to the fire, because he is getting the same money.

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE, ITS A CONSUMER VERSUS CORRUPTION ISSUE.

3. Back to OBAMA.

IMO Obama is a weasel politician just like all others. He might be saying what you want to hear , but I have no delusion that the bill he backs will be the same bill that republicans back. This is because the Telecom Oligopoly is sponsoring them both.

The FCC is the Telecom industry : Executives between those two entities are one in the same and they jump from the FCC to the Telecom industry and vice versa.

So this is NOT a Democrat (Obama) versus Republican thing (Cruz). This is a consumer versus corruption thing.

The lobbyist use the two party system to separate the people and remove common sense from the equation.


4. Public Utility
The point is not whether Obamas solution is the right solution , the point is that NET NEUTRALITY is a GOOD thing for consumers and for people that believe in a FREE MARKET place.

What I see is people already siding with their party line and throwing common sense out the window because of what Ted Cruz said and because the lobbyist are trying to make this a political issue.


5. What needs to happen:

5.A. Individual democrats and individual republicans should BOTH be in support of Net neutrality because:

1. The internet is not a typical commodity its in its own grey area and a world market by itself.

2. Net Neutrality principles ensures that NEITHER gov't or Oligopolies control this internet world market.

3. It been proven to work.


5.B. Individual democrats and individual republicans should BOTH join forces to not allow their party DNC or RNC to make this a political issue so common sense is thrown out.

5.C. Republicans and democrats SHOULD join forces to ensure REGARDLESS what the politicians say : that what ever solution and legislation is passed it should support NET NEUTRALITY principles and to watch for the old switcharoo.

Summary:
What I see happing is republicans are putting on their party cheerleader hats on and saying that NET NEUTRALITY is BAD for the masses and the consumers.

That is a flat out lie because we had Net neutrality up to this year and its been proven to work. The minute they undid NET NEUTRALITY principles they started to extort the online business for money. Keep in mind the undoing of net neutrality hasn't been 100% undone as its suppose to take several years to roll-out.

Wow that was long sorry about that. However I feel this is an important thing for us the consumers because I don't want gov't or Oligopolies messing up something that had been working so well.

Nor Do I want OUR ONLY form of unfiltered communication around the world to be filtered and struck down by the undoing of net neutrality principles.

The internet with Net neutrality principles empowered the voices of the people. It allows for an individual to have the same voice as a mega billion dollar company. That is also a big reason why they don't want Net neutrality principles.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

your service is going to slow down

What these so called ted cruz fiscal responsible republicans don't see is that gov't websites will be at the mercy of extortion as well.

In addition, people fail to see that not only are content providers going to have to deal with extortion from 1 ISP they are going to have to deal with extortion from ALL the ISP. This is because while some users have comcast others have verizon or ATT.

Therefore to ensure that all medicare, DMV, Social Sercurity, and all other online gov't websites are served properly to the people the gov;t is going to have to pay ALL ISP in America their piece of the action.

[sarcasm] Don't you worry you fiscal conservative anti-neutrality republicans, private companies aren't usually known for over billing the gov't or overcharging the tax payers [/sarcasm]

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: interupt42

after digging through some of the debate i am left with the thought that we already have the right laws from long ago that offer plenty of protection. We just need them to be enforced.

We HAD the laws. But the Comcast lawsuit changed all that.

They are common carriers and laws exist that limit what they can legally do to content.

That's what was changed. Comcast sued the FCC and won. The FCC no longer has jurisdiction over their Internet service. Changing the Internet to a Title II classification would insure that the FCC would be in control. I know that sounds scary. But it's worked great up until Comcast won this suit.

Comcast v FCC