GOP Concedes to Obama on Net Neutrality

[Dexter]

"net neutrality" is a come-on term used to put a smiley face on the poisonous FCC regulations to follow.

Yes, we all love our Internet just the way it is. So, why invite the federal government in?

We shouldn't invite the government in. Why should we invite the cable companies in? Giant corporations have already demonstrated that they do the government's bidding. Allowing them to prioritize our information leads to information censorship. You can support net neutrality and oppose the FCC regulations at the same time. By arguing against net neutrality you are arguing for giant corporations and the government to be able to restrict what we can see, just like they do on T.V.

[aligncare]

These are my two favorite comments from the Mark Cuban thread:

bagofmilk
- Feb. 25, 2015 at 10:35am

This has absolutely nothing to do with regulating the Internet. This is merely a sorry excuse for more taxes. If this bill is overruled, the Government will find a new excuse to pursue their original plan – tax Internet services. The moment the government realized this commodity became a necessity they had to find a way to tax it because in this age Internet is now a necessity and we will pay whatever to have it. “Regulating the Internet” is just Cool-speak to soothe the ears of those who can’t read. Just like the “Affordable Care Act” is not affordable at all.


DoubtingTom
- Feb. 25, 2015 at 11:33am

Why would you trust the federal government to do anything? Let’s see. Bankrupt post office, medicare, social security and government retirement systems. Almost 100 trillion of unfunded “benefit” liabilities that can never be paid. Corrupt, over-reaching and heartless IRS, EPA and Justice Department. More recently, incompetent and corrupt healthcare oversight which will only get worse! But this time, you say, they are finally going to get one right! The definition of insanity….

[Dexter]

I'm really quite amazed that so many of you support information censorship. When we're just like China I would like to say I told you so, but I probably won't be able to at that point.

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is from USA Today:

Q: Why is Wheeler pitching his open Internet proposal now?

A: The FCC has been recasting net neutrality rules because the previous set was tossed out by a federal court in January 2014. Since then, the agency has had no official authority to protect an open Internet.

Q: So the FCC essentially wants to treat the Internet like a public utility. Why?

A: To give it the authority to regulate it. To do so, the FCC must reclassify Internet providers as "common carriers," private companies that sell their services to all consumers without discrimination, similar to how consumers got landline telephone service.

I read that, and the concept of supporting an "open Internet" by seeking the "authority to regulate it" just boggles my mind.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm really quite amazed that so many of you support information censorship. When we're just like China I would like to say I told you so, but I probably won't be able to at that point.

If you don't know (no one knows) what's on the 300+ pages, how do you support it?

Remember, the topic of this thread is those 300+ pages, and whether they're needed or not.

P.S. The only way that you wouldn't be able to say "I told you so" like in China, is if the Internet was regulated by the government, like it is in China.

Our government is seeking the ability to regulate the Internet, just like the government in China regulates the Internet.

[Dexter]

This is from USA Today:

I read that, and the concept of supporting an "open Internet" by seeking the "authority to regulate it" just boggles my mind.

The FCC should leave the internet and net neutrality alone. Do you support net neutrality as it is now? As it has always been?

[Dexter]

how do you support it?

I don't. Those 300 pages and net neutrality are not the same thing. Net neutrality needs to be part of this conversation because many of you have been duped into believing it is synonymous with the government regulating the internet. Getting rid of net neutrality is what will lead to the government owning and controlling the internet.

[aligncare]

We shouldn't invite the government in. Why should we invite the cable companies in? Giant corporations have already demonstrated that they do the government's bidding. Allowing them to prioritize our information leads to information censorship. You can support net neutrality and oppose the FCC regulations at the same time. By arguing against net neutrality you are arguing for giant corporations and the government to be able to restrict what we can see, just like they do on T.V.

Your talking to the wrong guy. I love giant corporations. They bring goods and services to the public at cheaper prices. Look at the falling prices for big screen TVs. The price keeps dropping, seemingly overnight, all the while the features keep improving.

Giant corporations can't make money in a competitive marketplace if they screw their customers. Because if they do, someone will come along with a better and more affordable product or service.

[Dexter]

Your talking to the wrong guy. I love giant corporations. They bring goods and services to the public at cheaper prices. Look at the falling prices for big screen TVs. The price keeps dropping, seemingly overnight, all the while the features keep improving.

Giant corporations can't make money in a competitive marketplace if they screw their customers. Because if they do, someone will come along with a better and more affordable product or service.

So you support giant corporations and eventually the government deciding what we see online?

Also, there isn't a competitive marketplace when you're talking about cable companies. They have monopolized the market and actively screw their customers with complete disregard.

[aligncare]

So you support giant corporations and eventually the government deciding what we see online?

You've got to be kidding, right?

Today the internet is the most open source of information available. And along comes this man who says, "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Google any type of pornography you like and see the number of hits you get. There is currently no censorship on the Net. But, that all could change, starting tomorrow.

[Dexter]

There is currently no censorship on the Net.

That is because of net neutrality! We have and always have had net neutrality online! I don't support the FCC regulations, but I DO support net neutrality. Getting rid of the equal treatment of information online is what leads to censorship. Getting rid of net neutrality leads to censorship. They have muddied the issue to the point that people can't differentiate between FCC regulations and net neutrality. Now people like you don't support net neutrality and are helping the corporations and the government take over the internet.

[flowers]

We've always had net neutrality. The cable companies want to take that away so they can prioritize the information we have access to.

Look whatever they say is a baldfaced lie. They say it is the cable companies and that is what you may have read and believe......... BUT it is not the intent. It is full on control of the net is the goal.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That is because of net neutrality! We have and always have had net neutrality online! I don't support the FCC regulations, but I DO support net neutrality. Getting rid of the equal treatment of information online is what leads to censorship. Getting rid of net neutrality leads to censorship.

Did you watch the Cuban interview with Glenn Beck, or did you just dismiss it?

Censorship is allowed into the Internet when you allow the government to regulate it.

[Dexter]

It is full on control of the net is the goal.

EXACTLY, and getting rid of net neutrality is the first step towards that goal.

[Dexter]

Censorship is allowed into the Internet when you allow the government to regulate it.

Good thing I don't want the government to regulate it then, huh? Good thing at no point did I ever support that, huh? The removal of net neutrality and the prioritization of what we can see online is what leads to censorship and government control.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't. Those 300 pages and net neutrality are not the same thing. Net neutrality needs to be part of this conversation because many of you have been duped into believing it is synonymous with the government regulating the internet. Getting rid of net neutrality is what will lead to the government owning and controlling the internet.

Which is why you're so frustrated.

They're calling those 300+ pages "net neutrality" or rather the ability to regulate "net neutrality" in order to have people defend their actions while thinking that the're defending net neutrality.

The subject of this thread are those 300+ pages.

You're in here defending something that's not being discussed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which is why you're so frustrated.

They're calling those 300+ pages "net neutrality" or rather the ability to regulate "net neutrality" in order to have people defend their actions while thinking that the're defending net neutrality.

The subject of this thread are those 300+ pages.

You're in here defending something that's not being discussed.

It's called "doublespeak".

[aligncare]

Good thing I don't want the government to regulate it then, huh? Good thing at no point did I ever support that, huh? The removal of net neutrality and the prioritization of what we can see online is what leads to censorship and government control.

Excuse me, but, what the heck are you arguing for then? The FCC is a regulatory body. You want government regulations, fees, taxes, decency standards?

Leave the Net alone! It ain't broke.

[Dexter]

You're in here defending something that's not being discussed.

No, I'm not, because I understand that those 300+ pages are not actually net neutrality, but many people do not. I've been saying since the beginning that net neutrality needs to be left as it is, with no FCC regulation.

Do you support the equal treatment of information online, or do you believe the cable companies should be allowed to prioritize what we see?

[flowers]

That is because of net neutrality! We have and always have had net neutrality online! I don't support the FCC regulations, but I DO support net neutrality. Getting rid of the equal treatment of information online is what leads to censorship. Getting rid of net neutrality leads to censorship. They have muddied the issue to the point that people can't differentiate between FCC regulations and net neutrality. Not people like you don't support net neutrality and are helping the corporations and the government take over the internet.

I don't support anything that has anything to do with fed gov control. Net neutrality from what I understand is a government entity that is involved in the net.

[Dexter]

Leave the Net alone! It ain't broke.

I want to leave the net alone. I don't support the FCC regulations. Net neutrality is how the internet has always been. Leaving the internet alone means leaving net neutrality alone. What the FCC is proposing is not "net neutrality."

[Dexter]

Net neutrality from what I understand is a government entity that is involved in the net.

Your understanding is wrong. Net neutrality is the equal treatment of information on the internet. Net neutrality means a cable company can't limit what you have the ability to view on the internet.

[DCPatriot]

Regulators will be 'watching' periodically for value and truth of content to the overall good of society.

If a site is deemed "offensive", the provider will be fined up the whazoo, unless said content is shut-off from the public.

WTF is so hard for some of you to understand?

[flowers]

They're calling those 300+ pages "net neutrality" or rather the ability to regulate "net neutrality" in order to have people defend their actions while thinking that the're defending net neutrality.

I think that is why we are having this debate.

[flowers]

Regulators will be 'watching' periodically for value and truth of content to the overall good of society.

If a site is deemed "offensive", the provider will be fined up the whazoo, unless said content is shut-off from the public.

WTF is so hard for some of you to understand?

Exactly....not hard for me to understand. No mater what is the rule now net neutrality or not.....If a site is deemed "offensive", the provider will be fined up the whazoo, unless said content is shut-off from the public.