FCC Member Wanrs Net Neutrality is Not Neutral

www.breitbart.com...

Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

Mod Edit

Please do not just copy paste a piece of the headline and then nothing else. Please provide your thoughts about the article in the headline.

Please refrain from using ALL CAPS titles.

a reply to: amfirst1

They won't listen. They'll only learn it the hard way.

a reply to: amfirst1

problem reaction solution at its finest. See how that works?

originally posted by: amfirst1
Ajit Pai, the sole Republican Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), inferred in a Tweet that President Barack Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

How is all that inferred from his tweet: "Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside"???

a reply to: amfirst1

What are your thoughts besides just putting a quote form the site.

again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

Oh the humanity!

Why do we need to continue to say things like this with such a negative connotation?

From what the owners of this site have been putting out it seems that our gov is working to keep the net as it is now.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

How is all that inferred from his tweet: "Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside"???

I agree, that's a whole lot of inferring going on there. But at the same time, aren't you even a little curious as to why the public can't read the bill? Sounds like Obamacare all over again and maybe, just maybe... Ted Cruz isn't epic stupid after all.

All I know is that when the government gets involved, it gets more complicated, messy, and never goes well for a good portion of the public.

pass the lube

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: amfirst1

What are your thoughts besides just putting a quote form the site.

again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

Oh the humanity!

Why do we need to continue to say things like this with such a negative connotation?

From what the owners of this site have been putting out it seems that our gov is working to keep the net as it is now.

I'm sure that's the case. After all our wonderfull government has been working so hard lately these past couple dozen years to preserve freedoms. It's like they are some kind of super freedom fighting force that just wouldn't even think of anything except what is best for us.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

How is all that inferred from his tweet: "Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside"???

I agree, that's a whole lot of inferring going on there. But at the same time, aren't you even a little curious as to why the public can't read the bill? Sounds like Obamacare all over again and maybe, just maybe... Ted Cruz isn't epic stupid after all.

They knew what was in the ACA before they passed it after all they debated about it for over a year perhaps you confused that with the Patriot act. And yes Ted Cruz is epic stupid after all.

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: amfirst1

What are your thoughts besides just putting a quote form the site.

again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

Oh the humanity!

Why do we need to continue to say things like this with such a negative connotation?

From what the owners of this site have been putting out it seems that our gov is working to keep the net as it is now.

I'm sure that's the case. After all our wonderfull government has been working so hard lately these past couple dozen years to preserve freedoms. It's like they are some kind of super freedom fighting force that just wouldn't even think of anything except what is best for us.

So do you think letting a few large corporations have total control of the internet is a good thing? Take and look at what they did to Netflix and see if you want that done to everyone.

a reply to: caterpillage

Meh you might be right, both sides of the coin have shown their sides and I just want the internet to stay how it is and only one side seems to be for that.

Sure that side has a history of lying and looking out for its best interest but so does the other side.

I would rather be lied to then told right to my face what is going to happen and then be mad about it.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: amfirst1

What are your thoughts besides just putting a quote form the site.

again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

Oh the humanity!

Why do we need to continue to say things like this with such a negative connotation?

From what the owners of this site have been putting out it seems that our gov is working to keep the net as it is now.

I'm sure that's the case. After all our wonderfull government has been working so hard lately these past couple dozen years to preserve freedoms. It's like they are some kind of super freedom fighting force that just wouldn't even think of anything except what is best for us.

So do you think letting a few large corporations have total control of the internet is a good thing? Take and look at what they did to Netflix and see if you want that done to everyone.

And, do you think somehow that those huge corporations you speak of are not controlling both sides of the isle? Do you really think they haven't thought this out? Do you really think this is something that is geared toward YOUR freedom? Have you been paying attention to the way things have been working out lately in this country?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: caterpillage

Meh you might be right, both sides of the coin have shown their sides and I just want the internet to stay how it is and only one side seems to be for that.

Sure that side has a history of lying and looking out for its best interest but so does the other side.

I would rather be lied to then told right to my face what is going to happen and then be mad about it.

I do as well want the internet to remain the way it is. I frankly am kind of surprised it's as free as it is at this point.

Some may say we need the government to regulate it so we don't have band width issues and have to pay more, and I would agree that would suck. But, do we really want the government in controll of it? Man, that scares me way more than slower bandwidth on netflix and more cost.

The fix,,,,,,

Ban the FCC.

Deregulate the air. Allow new startup cable companies and network tv providers. Let the free market work.

a reply to: buster2010

I hope the Republicans run him (and they will) just to watch you tools flip your freaking wigs lol.

Do you support this net neutrality bill? If so, why?

originally posted by: buster2010

So do you think letting a few large corporations have total control of the internet is a good thing? Take and look at what they did to Netflix and see if you want that done to everyone.

That's not the issue here. The issue is will Obama's plan actually do what you guys want it to do, without *snip*ing the rest of us over. We cant read this thing, so how do we know it wont do exactly what this guy says? Its not like we can trust the Dems to be honest about it.

Here's a crazy thought, why don't we just uphold the laws already in the books that fix this kind of thing.

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: caterpillage

Meh you might be right, both sides of the coin have shown their sides and I just want the internet to stay how it is and only one side seems to be for that.

Sure that side has a history of lying and looking out for its best interest but so does the other side.

I would rather be lied to then told right to my face what is going to happen and then be mad about it.

I do as well want the internet to remain the way it is. I frankly am kind of surprised it's as free as it is at this point.

Some may say we need the government to regulate it so we don't have band width issues and have to pay more, and I would agree that would suck. But, do we really want the government in controll of it? Man, that scares me way more than slower bandwidth on netflix and more cost.

The fix,,,,,,

Ban the FCC.

Deregulate the air. Allow new startup cable companies and network tv providers. Let the free market work.

I think that the air waves should have more freedom, the F.C.C. should open up more frequencies and create more opportunity as in low power FM radio and T.V. etc. The same for other media, however, things can get out of control without rules and enforcement.

I'm not sure what should happen to the internet, but I'm big on more freedom and opportunity and I believe that the air waves and frequencies are like the air itself, free for the use of the people, not controlled by government and corporations with a monopoly.

originally posted by: Bone75
But at the same time, aren't you even a little curious as to why the public can't read the bill?

There is no bill. This document (if it really exists) is just a draft of a "plan", by Tom Wheeler (NOT Obama).
The FCC commission hasn't even voted on the idea yet. That happens on the 26th.
It's not a "secret", it's just in preliminary stages.
Everything negative you're hearing about this draft is from this one Republican FCC commissioner who is against it.
Congress gave the FCC power to update its own rules, so that's what's happening.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So it's just the FCC updating its regulations?

You are OK with this 'updating' led by a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the telcom industries?

Sorry. I don't share your confidence in the benevolence of this hired gun. This plan/document is just another example of double speak (e.g. the Patriot Act).

www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: ABNARTY
You are OK with this 'updating' led by a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the telcom industries?

Ex-lobbyist. He's actually defying biggest telecom lobbyists in the business. So, absolutely!

But what the critics failed to highlight, say people who know Wheeler, is that his stints as entrepreneur and venture capitalist make him more likely to side with an underdog rather than with a market power.
...
Wheeler supporters also point out that it's been 31 years since he lobbied for the cable industry and 11 years since he left the wireless industry. To put things in perspective, Apple Computer had just introduced the Macintosh and "Ghostbusters" was the hit of the year when Wheeler left his post as the head of NCTA.

"He is no more a former lobbyist than I am a former high school student," said Reed Hunt, a fellow Democrat who served as FCC chairman from 1993 to 1997.

Why Tom Wheeler is Defying Telecoms

This plan/document is just another example of double speak.

That's kind of how I feel about the opposition to Net Neutrality.