Care about net neutrality?

[OhShoot!]

Big money wants a piece. They want a piece of everything that sells well.

You're right. But Big Money is just Little Money that did things right and made it big. I don't see that as a legitimate reason to despise big corporations or the wealthy. It seems a rather anti-capitalist mindset.

I'm not anti capitalist at all actually, but just anti monopolistic.

[Pablo]

I dunno...I think I'd rather have a company screw me more so than the government screw me. Seems that letting an unelected body who is beholden to nobody, the FCC, call the shots isn't a very good idea.

At least with a company, there is the chance of having a choice in the matter.

And with the gov you are butthumped for life.

No thanks.

Yeah fuck the government and their laws. The 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments are all horrible things. The last thing we want to do is include Net Neutrality in there.

I put Net Neutrality on the same level as the 2nd Amendment. It's not a bad law, it's a good law that protects us. The fact ANYBODY is against it blows my mind.

I never said "fuck the government and their laws"

You are equating Net "Neutrality" with the BoRs?

Really? What exactly does this thing protect us from? Be specific.

[snozzberries]

I'm not going to rehash everything I've posted over 5 pages.

Access to the internet is Freedom of Speech.
It's access to the entire accumulation of human knowledge.

And you guys want to let some random ass corporation where profit is their reason for existing control your access. Instead of letting the government say "nobody can fuck this up".

[Captain90s]

Access to the internet is Freedom of Speech.
It's access to the entire accumulation of human knowledge.

I hate to agree with Snozz on this one but.... I agree with Snozz on this one.

[Pablo]

I'm not going to rehash everything I've posted over 5 pages.

Access to the internet is Freedom of Speech.
It's access to the entire accumulation of human knowledge.

And you guys want to let some random ass corporation where profit is their reason for existing control your access. Instead of letting the government say "nobody can fuck this up".

Bullshit.

Answer the question. Specifically.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And to up it one more, demonstrate where in the 1st Amendment you are protected from companies or people. AND how are companies controlling your access to the internet?

[Pablo]

I'm not trying be a pickledickle. ANYONE, PLEASE explain to me - simple or complex - why and how government regulating the internet (aka free speech) is a good thing, and how EXACTLY it will work. This thread and the internet are filled with joy and wonderment on how great this will be, but there is no top down/bottom up analysis of the primary, secondary and tertiary consequences - intended and unintended.

[edogg]

I dunno...I think I'd rather have a company screw me more so than the government screw me. Seems that letting an unelected body who is beholden to nobody, the FCC, call the shots isn't a very good idea.

At least with a company, there is the chance of having a choice in the matter.

And with the gov you are butthumped for life.

No thanks.

Yeah fuck the government and their laws. The 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments are all horrible things. The last thing we want to do is include Net Neutrality in there.

I put Net Neutrality on the same level as the 2nd Amendment. It's not a bad law, it's a good law that protects us. The fact ANYBODY is against it blows my mind.

Note that our Bill of Rights primarily focuses on what the gov't CANNOT do to the people. While this Net Neutrality stuff puts the internet squarely into the purview of unelected bureaucrats where the gov't can legally have some impact. And I don't think that's a great idea.

You say that you don't want companies to decide what content gets prioritized. What about the gov't deciding what content can be distributed at all?

While reading a little more about FCC Title 2, I came across this writeup about the unintended cost consequences of moving internet content into Title 2, which is what Net Neutrality does.

http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/ ... -ecosystem

So...yeah....I'm not sold. Maybe 'cause I don't trust the Feds to make decisions that are in the best interest of the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[edogg]

I'm not going to rehash everything I've posted over 5 pages.

Access to the internet is Freedom of Speech.
It's access to the entire accumulation of human knowledge.

And you guys want to let some random ass corporation where profit is their reason for existing control your access. Instead of letting the government say "nobody can fuck this up".

See, I think this is the disagreement. You say the government is going to protect free access. My crystal ball, while sometimes wrong, predicts that bad things can happen by putting internet content under control of the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TINCANBANDIT]

the answer to our problems is not more government, in fact half of our problems are the government

[Guns4Liberty]

I dunno...I think I'd rather have a company screw me more so than the government screw me. Seems that letting an unelected body who is beholden to nobody, the FCC, call the shots isn't a very good idea.

At least with a company, there is the chance of having a choice in the matter.

And with the gov you are butthumped for life.

No thanks.

Yeah fuck the government and their laws. The 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments are all horrible things. The last thing we want to do is include Net Neutrality in there.

I put Net Neutrality on the same level as the 2nd Amendment. It's not a bad law, it's a good law that protects us. The fact ANYBODY is against it blows my mind.

Except net neutrality doesn't protect a Natural Right. Not a very good comparison, if you ask me.

[Selador]

I'm corfuzzelated.

I thought the government already controlled it. And that's why we have net neutrality.

The problem is in giving it over to private businesses to control. They would like to make every little sip of water, or breath of air, or byte of internet traffic, about THEIR profit.

[mmalleck]

What has the government done right?

When was the last time you were proud of a government run program or agency?

When has more regulation provided a solution to a problem?

Net Neutrality is a power grab, plain and simple.

[snozzberries]

explain to me - simple or complex - why and how government regulating the internet

This is where you don't see it right. You think it's the government regulating the internet and fucking it up. It's not. It's the opposite. It's the government NOT regulating the internet; it's the government preventing corporations from regulating and fucking up the internet.

We HAVE freedom of speech, we HAVE the right to keep and bear arms. The government ensures these rights. We HAVE a good and working internet. Net Neutrality will ensure these rights. It'll prevent the ISP's from fucking shit up.

[snozzberries]

I'm corfuzzelated.

I thought the government already controlled it. And that's why we have net neutrality.

The problem is in giving it over to private businesses to control. They would like to make every little sip of water, or breath of air, or byte of internet traffic, about THEIR profit.

EXACTLY

What has the government done right?

When was the last time you were proud of a government run program or agency?

When has more regulation provided a solution to a problem?

Net Neutrality is a power grab, plain and simple.

No it's NOT.

Jesus. Where do you guys get these ideas?

I swear, this is like Einstein arguing with a bunch of 3rd graders about how 2+2=4. Stop arguing. Listen. Learn. Say "thank you for teaching me." It's clear that there is no changing your opinions. It's just pissing me off.

Comcast used to get $100 a month from me, $50 for TV and $50 for internet. Then millions of people like me cancelled cable TV because it was such a rip off. Because they nickel and dime you for everything. Slide in bullshit fees. Sell shit in packages. Oh, sorry, that one channel you want is in that other package. Now they are losing customers because I canceled my TV and only pay for Internet. They won't stand for that. They want their $100 a month. So they are trying to fuck up the internet, to split it to pieces like cable TV, so they can bill you $100 for what you currently get for $50. You can pay for Sports internet, and Streaming internet, and Chat internet, and Guns internet. $30 a piece. That's the low price of $120 for your internet. Net Neutrality stops this. Net Neutrality is the vaccine to the plague that is the ISP conglomerate.

[snozzberries]

Holy shit as I was crawling into bed an analogy popped into my head. One you guys should understand. I'm gunna stay up late and write this out for you.

Imagine you have a favorite range you go to. Really, it's the only range you CAN go to. Because all the others were closed down, because the liberals went after them. They came after the ones in the city, they passed bullshit laws to force them out. Crap about needing a permit that's impossible to get.

But you've still got your 1 range, so you are happy. It's nice. Not too busy. You can shoot rifle, pistol, shotgun. 50 yard, 100 yard, 200 yard rifle. You can shoot all calibers, just no exploding targets. Sorry. Pistol range is great to. You pay your $15, and you go in and shoot any guns, and any distance. You realize what a blast it is, so you bring in more guns, different calibers, different bullet weights. You shoot all day long. Still, the range isn't too busy. Always room for more people. Everything is in good repair. The range makes enough money to survive.

Eventually the range decides they aren't making enough money. One day the range owners get greedy and decide they want even more money. They realize they are the only range you can go to. They have a monopoly. So they implement a new pricing plan. $10 per gun. Sure this work great for some people. They only bring their 1 rifle to the range. They save $5 per trip. But for 95% of everybody else, now it costs $20, or $30. Or more. Still, lots of room for everybody.

Then they decide that since the can of worms has been opened, to expand this innovative plans. They want to innovate some more. They start to charge per distance. $5 for the 50 yard, $5 for the 100 yard, $5 for the 200 yard. For pistols, same thing. $5 for 7 yards, $5 for 20 yards, $5 for 25 yards. Still, lots of room for everybody.

That's good, even more money. But time for more "innovation". Pay per caliber. Pay $5 for .22. $10 for .308. $20 for .50. It's only fair, right? You should pay for the services you are getting. Now it's costs you $150 to go to the range. You haven't gotten any additional service, you just pay more.

Net Neutrality says "No fucking up the rifle range." "$15 fee to have fun". The ISP cries out "OMG you are stifling our innovation!" There is no innovation here with regards to the rifle range, the only innovation lies in their billing plans and ways to fuck you over. When you vote for Net Neutrality, when you vote for Government Regulation, you are voting to keep shit as-is, and not fuck shit up. Do you want a $150 range fee?

THIS is an analogy that is factual.