Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

I still have a wary eye on this whole issue. The government wants to fix something that is not broken as yet. This fix contains 300+ pages of "government-speak". IMO, it is a certain faction within this administration that is doing the fear-mongering.

Regardless of what the proposal says NOW, we all know the government can change it once it is the one in control.

One other little thing. If you want to get into the mindset of what Obama's bunch really are about and shed some light on a bit of their hidden agenda, read up on Mark Lloyd, his FCC diversity officer up to 2012. All is not what it seems, my friends.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: greencmp

As I mentioned, that's not how it works. (sigh)

Is it really that difficult to grasp the threat that this poses?

originally posted by: queenofswords
I still have a wary eye on this whole issue. The government wants to fix something that is not broken as yet.

That's the thing, it is broken.

Comcast extorted Netflix for new payments to reach ComCast customers at full speed by slowing down Netflix videos to a useless speed -- even for ComCast customers paying a premium for faster service.

Verizon sued the FCC, mostly to get it's FIOS service out from under Title II common carrier classification (net neutrality), AFTER Verizon took advantage of Title II rights-of-way to install the FIOS fiber lines on the cheap.

Those are just two examples. I call that broken.

If you want to get into the mindset of what Obama's bunch really are about and shed some light on a bit of their hidden agenda...

This concept of Net Neutrality, Title II classification as a common carrier, began with ultra-conservative Justice Scalia and President George W. Bush. What is finally being proposed by the FCC is very nearly exactly what was described 10 years ago by conservatives.

originally posted by: greencmp
Is it really that difficult to grasp the threat that this poses?

No. It's not hard at all to realize that the threat of Net Neutrality failing is the end of the free and open Internet.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: queenofswords
I still have a wary eye on this whole issue. The government wants to fix something that is not broken as yet.

That's the thing, it is broken.

Comcast extorted Netflix for new payments to reach ComCast customers at full speed by slowing down Netflix videos to a useless speed -- even for ComCast customers paying a premium for faster service.

Verizon sued the FCC, mostly to get it's FIOS service out from under Title II common carrier classification (net neutrality), AFTER Verizon took advantage of Title II rights-of-way to install the FIOS fiber lines on the cheap.

Those are just two examples. I call that broken.

If you want to get into the mindset of what Obama's bunch really are about and shed some light on a bit of their hidden agenda...

This concept of Net Neutrality, Title II classification as a common carrier, began with ultra-conservative Justice Scalia and President George W. Bush. What is finally being proposed by the FCC is very nearly exactly what was described 10 years ago by conservatives.

Why am I still amazed that every bad idea put forth by Republicans is celebrated shortly afterward by the Democrats as they implement the very same flawed plan.

originally posted by: greencmp
Why am I still amazed that every bad idea put forth by Republicans...

That bit about Bush and Scalia was in response to the repeated presumption that this contemporary net neutrality debate is about the "sneaky shenanigans" of the Obama administration.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Why am I still amazed that every bad idea put forth by Republicans...

That bit about Bush and Scalia was in response to the repeated presumption that this contemporary net neutrality debate is about the "sneaky shenanigans" of the Obama administration.

This particular proposal appears to have come directly from the white house and has displaced the one Wheeler proposed last year.

Not only can we be shocked that the white house would attempt (and apparently succeed) to dictate to an independent agency but, it cannot be suggested that this one comes from the Republicans.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Actually, when you get right down to it, this net neutrality debate is about control. Who should control the internet?

The "shenanigans" of the Obama administration is real. I'm reminded of his plan about this time last year to send FCC monitors into America's newsrooms to gather information about how stories are selected, how stations prioritize, what biases may be there, what communities are being served, etc. It also reminds me of the reports about his spying goons at the AP, his justice department being used to attack certain reporters.

I'm sorry, but when you are dealing with an administration that will use government agencies to gather information and manipulate an agenda (IRS. Remember?), overstep his constitutional authority every time we turn around, you better peel back every layer and look closely at every "secret" being hidden in the hundreds of pages being pushed down the proverbial throat of The People. As I said, I'm still looking at this one. Too bad much of it is being manipulated in secret. Why? Ask yourself.

a reply to: queenofswords

Actually, when you get right down to it, this net neutrality debate is about control. Who should control the internet?

Who do you think should control it the government who built the internet or a handful of corporate conglomerates? Seeing how the citizens paid for it then the government should control it.

a reply to: greencmp

You're going to get the same answers they gave us when we asked that congress read the ACA before passing it.
'There's no time, the evil corporations will ruin things any second now!'
The bill passed, and the bureaucratic medicine monster began to creep from the shadows, slowly revealing one horrible Frankensteinian appendage at a time. It'll take a decade or so before the less-aware half of the country sees the ACA in all its obscene glory. And the damn thing still leaves millions uninsured.

Same thing this time around. Healthcare for the uninsured and freedom on the internet - both are concepts for which Americans show overwhelming support. Just like ACA, the White House secretly wrote up sweeping policies under the tag-line 'Net Neutrality' and refused to release details until after the vote has passed.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people are willing to hand the internet over to the federal government, when many were eager to do so with their healthcare. But without even knowing the details? To me, that is unforgivable stupidity.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You post bullet points as if you have actually read the propsed Net Neutrality. Do you admit that no one outside of government knows what changes and regulations they intend to make?

a reply to: greencmp

Does it matter who it comes from? This legislation is bipartisan and believe it or not the Republicans (voters, not party heads) actually are more in support of Net Neutrality than the Democrats are.

Trying to actually establish some Net Neutrality framework is one of the few good things the Bush administration actually did. If Obama follows through, it will be one of the few good things he has done. If we don't get some actual laws on Net Neutrality web based small business in the US will go extinct.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: greencmp

You're going to get the same answers they gave us when we asked that congress read the ACA before passing it.
'There's no time, the evil corporations will ruin things any second now!'
The bill passed, and the bureaucratic medicine monster began to creep from the shadows, slowly revealing one horrible Frankensteinian appendage at a time. It'll take a decade or so before the less-aware half of the country sees the ACA in all its obscene glory. And the damn thing still leaves millions uninsured.

Same thing this time around. Healthcare for the uninsured and freedom on the internet - both are concepts for which Americans show overwhelming support. Just like ACA, the White House secretly wrote up sweeping policies under the tag-line 'Net Neutrality' and refused to release details until after the vote has passed.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people are willing to hand the internet over to the federal government, when many were eager to do so with their healthcare. But without even knowing the details? To me, that is unforgivable stupidity.

You seem to have confused the ACA with the Patriot act. The Patriot act was passed in the middle of the night and no one had a chance to read it the ACA was debated on for over a year before it passed.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I am confused as to why supporters of net neutrality legislation are always pointing to the Netflix/Comcast issue. It has nothing to do with net neutrality or internet freedom. It's just everyday economics.

Businesses enter into contracts. Contracts are often re-negotiated. Comcast decided it needed to charge more to Netflix for the use of their infrastructure and service, and that Netflix could afford it. Netflix was then faced with the choice to either cough up more money (by raising prices and/or cutting into profits), or find another way to bring its product to the consumer. It would likely be cheaper for Netflix to pay a little more to Comcast than it would be to invest in infrastructure of their own. But maybe that infra investment would pay off long-term? That's for the people who run Netflix to decide. That's business.

The argument made by net neutrality legislation supporters is that Comcast should be forbidden from ever raising its prices due to increased traffic. That's like saying UPS should not be allowed to charge Amazon extra if they choose to. Why should that be forbidden by law? History shows us that meddling with the free market on that level can only cause harm.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: greencmp

Does it matter who it comes from? This legislation is bipartisan and believe it or not the Republicans (voters, not party heads) actually are more in support of Net Neutrality than the Democrats are.

Trying to actually establish some Net Neutrality framework is one of the few good things the Bush administration actually did. If Obama follows through, it will be one of the few good things he has done. If we don't get some actual laws on Net Neutrality web based small business in the US will go extinct.

All laws in this country were written by Democrats and Republicans, it is statism that is to blame.

I believe that you believe that, I do. Do you believe that I believe what I am saying?

Which of us has more evidence supporting their claims (beliefs aside)?

What law has been passed that has directly helped you in some way? What law has been passed that was intended to help you but, instead proved deleterious?

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, the Republicans sure don't like this, and are trying to twist the information to make it look like a bad decision for the average American when, in reality, the FCC ruling/decision gives some breathing room to an internet under attack.

Do you know what else the Republicans didn't like ... and FOR GOOD REASON? Obamacare.

If you think putting the government, especially this one, in charge of what you and I and everyone else here does on this website ... you are nuts.

But when they come to you demanding that you license this site? What will you do? When they determine that your political content is too much one way or the other and thus throttle you just like you're afraid your ISP is going to do if you don't pay them ... what will you do?

You do know that everything they tell you to be afraid the evil big businesses will do to you is precisely what they will get around to doing to you given the time and rules.

Also, why on earth aren't they letting anyone in the public see these rules if they are so great?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: greencmp

You're going to get the same answers they gave us when we asked that congress read the ACA before passing it.
'There's no time, the evil corporations will ruin things any second now!'
The bill passed, and the bureaucratic medicine monster began to creep from the shadows, slowly revealing one horrible Frankensteinian appendage at a time. It'll take a decade or so before the less-aware half of the country sees the ACA in all its obscene glory. And the damn thing still leaves millions uninsured.

Same thing this time around. Healthcare for the uninsured and freedom on the internet - both are concepts for which Americans show overwhelming support. Just like ACA, the White House secretly wrote up sweeping policies under the tag-line 'Net Neutrality' and refused to release details until after the vote has passed.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people are willing to hand the internet over to the federal government, when many were eager to do so with their healthcare. But without even knowing the details? To me, that is unforgivable stupidity.

You seem to have confused the ACA with the Patriot act. The Patriot act was passed in the middle of the night and no one had a chance to read it the ACA was debated on for over a year before it passed.

Um, seriously?

a reply to: buster2010

So...you supported and agree with the Patriotic Act, including they way it was passed?

Or are you demonstrating a double standard?

Anything that disseminates information to main street quickly is a bad thing as far as TPTB is concerned.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: greencmp

You're going to get the same answers they gave us when we asked that congress read the ACA before passing it.
'There's no time, the evil corporations will ruin things any second now!'
The bill passed, and the bureaucratic medicine monster began to creep from the shadows, slowly revealing one horrible Frankensteinian appendage at a time. It'll take a decade or so before the less-aware half of the country sees the ACA in all its obscene glory. And the damn thing still leaves millions uninsured.

Same thing this time around. Healthcare for the uninsured and freedom on the internet - both are concepts for which Americans show overwhelming support. Just like ACA, the White House secretly wrote up sweeping policies under the tag-line 'Net Neutrality' and refused to release details until after the vote has passed.

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people are willing to hand the internet over to the federal government, when many were eager to do so with their healthcare. But without even knowing the details? To me, that is unforgivable stupidity.

You seem to have confused the ACA with the Patriot act. The Patriot act was passed in the middle of the night and no one had a chance to read it the ACA was debated on for over a year before it passed.

Um, seriously?

Yes seriously.
Patriot Act

From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1.

The ACA

Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009 Committee consideration by Ways and Means Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0) Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212) Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010