GOP Concedes to Obama on Net Neutrality

[Dexter]

I think that is why we are having this debate.

So you support net neutrality in its current form without the FCC regulations? (just like I do)

[Dexter]

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.

That is why net neutrality (AS IT IS NOW WITHOUT THE FCC REGULATIONS) needs to be left alone. The double speak is actually being used to turn people on net neutrality, which is actually a good thing. Net neutrality is not a regulation; the 300+ pages of nonsense the FCC wants to pass are regulations.

[aligncare]

I think that is why we are having this debate.

Yes, exactly.

You know, until the government regulators came along pushing net neutrality, I didn't know just how terrible the cable companies were treating me. /s

[240B]

So, if I post,, 'Hey I really like Rubio/Cruz/Walker, then I am forced to post by government that I equally support Hillary? Even though I really want her to smoke shit and die?

What does 'neutral' mean?

Are we ants, in a colony? Are we bees in a hive?

[Dexter]

Yes, exactly.

You know, until the government regulators came along pushing net neutrality, I didn't know just how terrible the cable companies were treating me. /s

So we have determined that there are two understandings of what net neutrality is, yes? We have what the FCC is trying to pass, which is not good, and we have net neutrality as it always has been on the internet. Do you support the latter? Nobody here supports the FCC regulations. I am trying to ascertain whether or not people here understand that net neutrality (not what the FCC is trying to pass) is a good thing.

[aligncare]

We're not children here. We understand net neutrality is short hand for the proposed changes to FCC regulations.

We all like and appreciate 'net neutrality'.

What we hate is red tape in an area that currently has none.

[flowers]

Let me say...............I don't care whatever it is or called. Tomorrow all on the net will be controlled by the regime soon.  Only the sites they deem OK for the masses will be allowed and not fined up the wazzoo. How long until they go for the bank accounts of those deemed to wealthy? Net neutrality good or bad , tomorrow all changes. They win. Once again.

[Dexter]

We're not children here. We understand net neutrality is short hand for the proposed changes to FCC regulations.

We all like and appreciate 'net neutrality'.

We we hate is more red tape in an area that currently has none.

If you support net neutrality as it is now (without FCC regulation) then you cannot at the same time support what the cable companies want to do. They want to get rid of net neutrality as it is now so they can create new standards for the internet.

[Dexter]

So, if I post,, 'Hey I really like Rubio/Cruz/Walker, then I am forced to post by government that I equally support Hillary? Even though I really want her to smoke shit and die?

What does 'neutral' mean?

Are we ants, in a colony? Are we bees in a hive?

Net neutrality means that nobody can decide some information is better than other information on the internet and then give preferential treatment to the information they like. Whatever the FCC is doing, that's not net neutrality. I think the double speak is being used to get people to turn on something that is good and has helped us enjoy a free internet since its creation.

[240B]

All through history, there have been times like this.

We are experiencing history itself.

[flowers]

All through history, there have been times like this.

We are experiencing history itself.

Yes we are. Off topic I watched Night Will Fall last night.

[ABX]

Net neutrality means that nobody can decide some information is better than other information on the internet and then give preferential treatment to the information they like.

That's the propaganda of what Net Neutrality is.  Even that propaganda is pretty bogus once you scratch the surface.

[EdinVA]

Net neutrality means that nobody can decide some information is better than other information on the internet and then give preferential treatment to the information they like. Whatever the FCC is doing, that's not net neutrality. I think the double speak is being used to get people to turn on something that is good and has helped us enjoy a free internet since its creation.

Follow the money Dex.  It is about taxes (revenue enhancements).  The feds have tried for years to get a tax on internet usage and by classifying the internet as a utility, they get to tax it, and they will tax it heavily (use tax, excise tax and sales tax).  No matter how it gets twisted that is the end game.

[Dexter]

Follow the money Dex.  It is about taxes (revenue enhancements).  The feds have tried for years to get a tax on internet usage and by classifying the internet as a utility, they get to tax it, and they will tax it heavily (use tax, excise tax and sales tax).  No matter how it gets twisted that is the end game.

I think the FCC AND the cable companies should leave the internet alone.

[Scottftlc]

I think the FCC AND the cable companies should leave the internet alone.

Yeah, and I thought Obama should leave our healthcare alone...and that happened..../s

[EdinVA]

I think the FCC AND the cable companies should leave the internet alone.

The big cable companies are the ones behind the push to regulate.  Knocks the little guys out and leaves them with a bigger piece of the pie....

[Dexter]

The big cable companies are the ones behind the push to regulate.  Knocks the little guys out and leaves them with a bigger piece of the pie....

Indeed.

[GourmetDan]

The big cable companies are the ones behind the push to regulate.  Knocks the little guys out and leaves them with a bigger piece of the pie....

Big companies are always in favor of regulation for this very reason.  Makes the cost of entry higher and reduces competition.

Peeps never learn...

[Dexter]

Big companies are always in favor of regulation for this very reason.  Makes the cost of entry higher and reduces competition.

Peeps never learn...

 

[Fishrrman]

alice wrote above:
[[ I tried to warn everybody about McConnell. ]]

It's now almost two months since the "new Republican majority" assumed office, and they've led the way from one defeat to another to the next.

Unless something happens to change this progression 180 degrees in the next 3-4 months or so, I'm going on record today to predict a BIG Republican loss in election year 2016.

The American people are simply going to turn away from the Republicans -- who they thought would put a brake on the Obammunists -- with a "what's the use?" shrug of the shoulders.

Even a strong Republican presidential candidate in 2016 (and I think Scott Walker might be the strongest) may not be enough.

Voters will mutter "we gave you the House, and we voted you into the majority in the Senate, and you STILL didn't make a stand. Why should we bother giving you the presidency as a reward?"

If the Republican party loses the presidency in 2016, it may be quite some time before they win it again, if ever.

But unless there's a reversal of fortune in the Congress, and unless the Republicans there begin acting as a majority and using every reserve of the powers they may yet retain against an out-of-control presidency, they don't have a chance in '16...

Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong.
But I think not....

[mystery-ak]

alice wrote above:
[[ I tried to warn everybody about McConnell. ]]

It's now almost two months since the "new Republican majority" assumed office, and they've led the way from one defeat to another to the next.

Unless something happens to change this progression 180 degrees in the next 3-4 months or so, I'm going on record today to predict a BIG Republican loss in election year 2016.

The American people are simply going to turn away from the Republicans -- who they thought would put a brake on the Obammunists -- with a "what's the use?" shrug of the shoulders.

Even a strong Republican presidential candidate in 2016 (and I think Scott Walker might be the strongest) may not be enough.

Voters will mutter "we gave you the House, and we voted you into the majority in the Senate, and you STILL didn't make a stand. Why should we bother giving you the presidency as a reward?"

If the Republican party loses the presidency in 2016, it may be quite some time before they win it again, if ever.

But unless there's a reversal of fortune in the Congress, and unless the Republicans there begin acting as a majority and using every reserve of the powers they may yet retain against an out-of-control presidency, they don't have a chance in '16...

Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong.
But I think not....

WOW...that is exactly how I feel also....

[Oceander]

I think the FCC AND the cable companies should leave the internet alone.

Fair enough; however, the cable companies actually have skin in the game:  they own the physical plant, and they cannot simply force revenue out of unwilling consumers at the point of a gun, unlike the government, which can simply impose a tax and enforce it by seizing your property and throwing your a$$ in jail.  Go ask Wesley Snipes about that.

The FCC has absolutely no business messing with the internet.  And the cure to the cable companies is competition, and if there isn't enough, then the fault usually lies with the way in which state and/or local law has prescribed the ability of start-ups to compete with the established market.

[Fishrrman]

One thing I've come away from insofar as the net neutrality argument in this thread goes...

By imposing what it calls "neutrality", the policy of the government is the last thing that is going to remain "neutral" towards the 'net.

No longer neutral, but VERY MUCH in CONTROL....

[Oceander]

One thing I've come away from insofar as the net neutrality argument in this thread goes...

By imposing what it calls "neutrality", the policy of the government is the last thing that is going to remain "neutral" towards the 'net.

No longer neutral, but VERY MUCH in CONTROL....

And that is the only take-away that matters.  The only "neutrality" will be the neutrality of the grave.

[alicewonders]

And that is the only take-away that matters.  The only "neutrality" will be the neutrality of the grave.

The only place where everyone is equal.