Are conservatives actually against net neutrality?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

This.

For me to support Net Neutrality, I need to be sure that it not only keeps the internet open, but also has safeguards in place that prevents one administration or another from changing it to suit "their side".

If this cannot be achieved then there is no reason for it

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I just don't see how a single person besides a shareholder gets anything out of this deal. I mean it really sucks, you might wanna go to Amazon but your browser supports eBay... I think this is the genie that cannot be put back

If it worked out that way, there would be a massive push back and it would change real fast. Millions of people use both Amazon and ebay, those same shareholders will worry about that bottom line. Not only that, you'd cut your own ad revenue in half doing that.

There will be so many changes you will have a hell of a time even trying to explain them with english words without going into a technical dissertation. For example,

is your browser slow because the site you are going to visit sucks OR are they trying to get you to visit a business partner???

Did your account get hacked because you got phished or because your ISP gave a third party access to your keystrokes?

Did your insurance rates go up because you emailed your brother saying you might have heart problem???

Is your wife receiving lots of PI advertisements because the ISP thinks you might be carrying on an extra marital affair?

And as technology becomes more things you will never even imagine will be subject to the severe stench of this terrible, terrible idea.

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

This.

For me to support Net Neutrality, I need to be sure that it not only keeps the internet open, but also has safeguards in place that prevents one administration or another from changing it to suit "their side".

If this cannot be achieved then there is no reason for it

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I just don't see how a single person besides a shareholder gets anything out of this deal. I mean it really sucks, you might wanna go to Amazon but your browser supports eBay... I think this is the genie that cannot be put back

If it worked out that way, there would be a massive push back and it would change real fast. Millions of people use both Amazon and ebay, those same shareholders will worry about that bottom line. Not only that, you'd cut your own ad revenue in half doing that.

There will be so many changes you will have a hell of a time even trying to explain them with english words without going into a technical dissertation. For example,

is your browser slow because the site you are going to visit sucks OR are they trying to get you to visit a business partner???

Did your account get hacked because you got phished or because your ISP gave a third party access to your keystrokes?

Did your insurance rates go up because you emailed your brother saying you might have heart problem???

Is your wife receiving lots of PI advertisements because the ISP thinks you might be carrying on an extra marital affair?

And as technology becomes more things you will never even imagine will be subject to the severe stench of this terrible, terrible idea.

Its the same thing whether its the ISP or government. Remember the Patriot act, Snowden, and the NSA?

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

You seem to be the kind of person I encountered earlier... What doesn't make any sense about your statement is that the nuance in your position then allows the people who transmit the data to sensor anything they would like. It is very much like double speak because not only will Google, Facebook and others have the ability to censor information through the nature of their business, but you seem to be ok with adding room for yet another layer of censorship for the people who "give you access" to the net itself.

And no, you are not better off with no regulations, again double speak because the companies will then become the regulators of speech and the transmission of communications. Under this new scheme companies can then decrypt your data, sell what you say and do on Facebook and Google, and control even more of your online activities...

You logic is mired in some sort of myopia as you are really advocating for compounding the things you don't like about Obama's policies.

Nope.

If you read again what I posted above, I would strongly support a Net Neutrality where NO ONE can censor anything.

If on the other hand, the current Obama-esque Net Neutrality ends, if I am a Mom and Pop ISP, I could decide not to carry YouTube videos anymore as a protest until Google stops censorship. If enough ISPs join in, Google censorship would end.

Obviously, doing that might not be good for business and my customers might leave me because of it but that is MY choice.

Freedom.

I understand what your are saying, but either you aren't thinking this through or you are willing to give your ISP more control over your browsing than you have.

Under your Mom and Pop ISP scenario, this essentially gives the ISP power to censor what you consume, so now YouTube and your MomPop company are weighing in on your browsing ability. Furthermore, what if your entire county is bought out by a big liberal ISP, then how are you gonna fair when they get to weigh in on what you can see? In some areas there is one ISP and consolidating is only increasing. In the same time it take to blow a terrible fart you will have to listen to the libertarian wisdom and have to start a smoke signal or buy a satellite to communicate freely.

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I think the people that supply the conservative representatives with money are against net neutrality and thus the politicians align themselves with the money supply.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

This.

For me to support Net Neutrality, I need to be sure that it not only keeps the internet open, but also has safeguards in place that prevents one administration or another from changing it to suit "their side".

If this cannot be achieved then there is no reason for it

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I just don't see how a single person besides a shareholder gets anything out of this deal. I mean it really sucks, you might wanna go to Amazon but your browser supports eBay... I think this is the genie that cannot be put back

If it worked out that way, there would be a massive push back and it would change real fast. Millions of people use both Amazon and ebay, those same shareholders will worry about that bottom line. Not only that, you'd cut your own ad revenue in half doing that.

There will be so many changes you will have a hell of a time even trying to explain them with english words without going into a technical dissertation. For example,

is your browser slow because the site you are going to visit sucks OR are they trying to get you to visit a business partner???

Did your account get hacked because you got phished or because your ISP gave a third party access to your keystrokes?

Did your insurance rates go up because you emailed your brother saying you might have heart problem???

Is your wife receiving lots of PI advertisements because the ISP thinks you might be carrying on an extra marital affair?

And as technology becomes more things you will never even imagine will be subject to the severe stench of this terrible, terrible idea.

Its the same thing whether its the ISP or government. Remember the Patriot act, Snowden, and the NSA?

Gosh man, sometimes being so abstinent is really a terrible thing for self interest. It is certainly not the same thing man, the government is mired with laws that are judged under the constitution so even if they do something terrible there is a legal framework to challenge those things... With a deregulated internet there is no law and therefore no legal recourse as no laws are being violated.

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

We are talking about the same government that was recently revealed to have a shush fund to cover up its sexual misdeeds, right?

Government is a large, bureaucratic body just like those corporations you hate. Both of them are supposedly governed by the same laws and regs that are Constitutionally tested. So if you have no faith that one group will remain so bound, why do you have endless faith the other will?

I got news for you. Both groups are composed of human beings with all the same virtues and vices. Corruption is just as likely to take root in either one, but we trust government to be the watchdog. Who watches the watchdog when it runs amok?

The FCC guy Pai says the FTC will regulate transparency.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

We are talking about the same government that was recently revealed to have a shush fund to cover up its sexual misdeeds, right?

Government is a large, bureaucratic body just like those corporations you hate. Both of them are supposedly governed by the same laws and regs that are Constitutionally tested. So if you have no faith that one group will remain so bound, why do you have endless faith the other will?

I got news for you. Both groups are composed of human beings with all the same virtues and vices. Corruption is just as likely to take root in either one, but we trust government to be the watchdog. Who watches the watchdog when it runs amok?

It sounds impassioned, but it really isn't saying anything that improves the terrible policy. And as far as law is concerned, you don't seem to very well versed in law because both are not held to the same standards or laws. The government is bound to specific forces, the constituency is a very powerful one and the constitution which limits and constrains what the government can do. Corporations on the other hand cannot be voted out, they can effectively buy politicians to do things like this and they are not subject to the constituion in the way the government is. Without laws or with this new proposal your ISP can mine and SELL your keystrokes, your communications, your contacts, your health status, what you view on your screen, the businesses you can interact with, the news you can see and a whole host of things that can be capitalized.

Furthermore and corporation cannot break a law if the law does not exist and this is why the corporations are keen to dereguate everything. If it is not illegal to sell your person health status to your insurer, then they can do so because your healthcare information wouldn't be covered by HIPA as the information cannot expected to be private if the ISP is allowed to create the rules. The implications go on for days...

As far as who regulates the regulators, this is a good question, but it is rhetorical in nature. The regulators do as they please until the constituency forces in a person who pursues new policy. In the end though, the constituion applies. It does not apply for ATS however, they can censor your free speech ALL DAY LONG

originally posted by: xuenchen
The FCC guy Pai says the FTC will regulate transparency.

Oh yeah! Wait until someone more crooked than Hillary gets elected and see how happy you guys are lol

Conservatives are biting off way more than they can chew with this stance, it's the exact


opposite of those freedoms they want. Makes no sense, they're not ok with Gubmint or you & me telling them where they can go online, but....just fine with their ISP doing it. While using the excuse of if individual websites have their own house rules or cave to the demands of their patrons, then no one should have full WWW access across the board.

What. the. F.

That is tantamount to selling off all the public roads in the country to private companies & turning every stretch of road into a monopolized system of tiered toll roads instead of making them stay mostly free & open for traffic to go where it pleases. Then allowing it to go a step beyond a just a toll road by saying the Walmart, McDonalds, etc Commuter Networks can now dictate where people can go unless they pony up even more.

Way to be lead by the short & curlies unwittingly.


Edit: Before anyone takes a stab at the weird thread linked in my post up there^^, that was not my doing. I have no idea what the hell the site linking in a 13 year old thread in my post has to do with the topic of this one.

I really hope people move beyond this being partisan if that is really the case. It's way bigger than that. I'm seeing claims that Net Neutrality is Soros baked, socialist censorship, etc, this is by sites that would be "censored", likely even end, if NN does. Maybe that agenda has plans to shut them down too with the rest of the free internet.

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Oh, I am familiar with what the COTUS says it's constraining government to do or not do, but I am also aware that there are many ways government gets around this.

Obamacare anyone?

There must be some clear examples of ISP abuse before the current regulations took effect right?

I know the "throttling" thing was an issue.

a reply to: dreamingawake

The problem I had with it is the supposition that we will all have equal access. The pro people all had their knickers in a bunch that some people might be able to buy privileged access or faster access that they couldn't afford, and for them, the "benefit" of net neutrality is that all would have the same access.

Of course, no one stopped to think that the "same" access might not be good access. That there might be better access available to others elsewhere in the world that we can't have because not all could have it. That reducing the internet to the status of public utility more or less ensures that it will ossify and degrade like most of our other public infrastructure.

Had government run it from the start, we'd still all be on dialup.

And ... you want the government to run it in the era of "fake" news? Do you trust the government to be a gatekeeper to information like that?

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

This.

For me to support Net Neutrality, I need to be sure that it not only keeps the internet open, but also has safeguards in place that prevents one administration or another from changing it to suit "their side".

If this cannot be achieved then there is no reason for it

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I just don't see how a single person besides a shareholder gets anything out of this deal. I mean it really sucks, you might wanna go to Amazon but your browser supports eBay... I think this is the genie that cannot be put back

If it worked out that way, there would be a massive push back and it would change real fast. Millions of people use both Amazon and ebay, those same shareholders will worry about that bottom line. Not only that, you'd cut your own ad revenue in half doing that.

There will be so many changes you will have a hell of a time even trying to explain them with english words without going into a technical dissertation. For example,

is your browser slow because the site you are going to visit sucks OR are they trying to get you to visit a business partner???

Did your account get hacked because you got phished or because your ISP gave a third party access to your keystrokes?

Did your insurance rates go up because you emailed your brother saying you might have heart problem???

Is your wife receiving lots of PI advertisements because the ISP thinks you might be carrying on an extra marital affair?

And as technology becomes more things you will never even imagine will be subject to the severe stench of this terrible, terrible idea.

Its the same thing whether its the ISP or government. Remember the Patriot act, Snowden, and the NSA?

Gosh man, sometimes being so abstinent is really a terrible thing for self interest. It is certainly not the same thing man, the government is mired with laws that are judged under the constitution so even if they do something terrible there is a legal framework to challenge those things... With a deregulated internet there is no law and therefore no legal recourse as no laws are being violated.

I don't remember the last time government punished itself..

And what if I told you that costs would get passed on to the consumer? Or you'd have the potential for an abusive government to step in and say "we must do x to protect the internet from "fake news", effectively doing exactly the thing you lay out in your ISP scenarios.

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

And

To make their proposals palatable, network neutrality advocates suggest that the FCC might in its discretion “forbear” from various regulations. But FCC forbearance takes years with uncertain outcomes. And the FCC likely does not have the discretion to find that some interstate telecommunications services pay fees and others do not. Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.

Forbes article - 2014

It's from 2014, but I'd say its still relevant since the core of NN remains the same.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I really hope people move beyond this being partisan if that is really the case. It's way bigger than that. I'm seeing claims that Net Neutrality is Soros baked, socialist censorship, etc, this is by sites that would be "censored", likely even end, if NN does. Maybe that agenda has plans to shut them down too with the rest of the free internet.

That is exactly the MO of whoever is pitting America against their own interests.People are worried about their guns so much, they will sleep on their freedom of speech. What is see is mention the word Soros, Hillary or Obama and it is like the brain shuts off and people are malleable to the extreme. Before is was that way with OBL, terrorism, 9/11 and radical islamic terrorism... We are pretty screwed

For it, against it.

Meh.

Government will do whatever it wants regardless of what any of us say.

*jazz hands*

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

When I wrote what I did about fake news, I was thinking about people's fears surrounding Trump.

Like it or not, the internet is one of the best mouthpieces of the press we have right now.

If you think the ISPs are problematic, then the best move is to perhaps start looking into anti-trust measures against Silicon Valley.

*NOT*

Looking at giving all power to the government.

Consolidating power is never a wise move if you value your freedom.

originally posted by: xuenchen
There must be some clear examples of ISP abuse before the current regulations took effect right?

I know the "throttling" thing was an issue.

you can see by viewing past policy proposals that got shut down. All them designed to increase revenue and make the internet exclusive and more profitable for the ISPs. Can you site a few benefits you would get from this proposal?

I have yet to hear one single example of what you get out of this.

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I really hope people move beyond this being partisan if that is really the case. It's way bigger than that. I'm seeing claims that Net Neutrality is Soros baked, socialist censorship, etc, this is by sites that would be "censored", likely even end, if NN does. Maybe that agenda has plans to shut them down too with the rest of the free internet.

That is exactly the MO of whoever is pitting America against their own interests.People are worried about their guns so much, they will sleep on their freedom of speech. What is see is mention the word Soros, Hillary or Obama and it is like the brain shuts off and people are malleable to the extreme. Before is was that way with OBL, terrorism, 9/11 and radical islamic terrorism... We are pretty screwed

You should look at how other countries' governments handle their internet. You're dazzled by the lower prices, but gave the government the power to track you, and without the 1A, imprison you for wrongthink.