So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...

[Sactowndog]

And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.

Where did I say that?

Were you not asking the government to regulate the internet?

Are you really that obtuse. All the government is doing is saying providers can't regulate where you can go by varing the price.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.

The market will decide who actually gets the business.

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.

Until company A and B get together and collude to overcharge.

Damn plutocrats are determined to ruin our Republic, it's a shame.

 

[code1211]

And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.

Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something. If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.

What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?

 

[BoycottTheday]

You TeaParty haters are funny, you dont even know who to hate,

its like they are an anonymous enemy all around,

you dont know where to fire your vitrol,

and they keep coming, for you.

For your authoritarian mandates

your stupid unconstitutional laws

and unenforceable rules.

All you do will be for not

God willing.

 

[idb]

You TeaParty haters are funny, you dont even know who to hate,

its like they are an anonymous enemy all around,

you dont know where to fire your vitrol,

and they keep coming, for you.

For your authoritarian mandates

your stupid unconstitutional laws

and unenforceable rules.

All you do will be for not

God willing.

Sorry, you're wrong, they hate anything or anyone with any possible connection to government....especially the current administration.
It must be bad if it has a link to gummint - therefore any alternative must be good...idiots!!!

 

[BoycottTheday]

idiots eh? Welcome to ignore.

 

[idb]

idiots eh? Welcome to ignore.

Bugger!

 

[Sactowndog]

And you think government is a better alternative. Shows you what you know.

Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something. If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.

What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?

I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.

I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it. Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government. And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security". See the phone company actions under Bush. The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.

Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark. The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.

 

[chanel]

Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?

 

[RDD_1210]

Why fix a system that isn't broke? It is almost laughable that the OP would suggest that "getting rid of new neutraility' would be "taking away freedom" Taking away something proposed in the future? Am I in a time warp?

Right, leave it as is. Which means content can't be censored or manipulated. Not by government, not by private business. This is how it has been, this is what the FCC is advocating going forward. Whats your problem with that?

 

[Moonglow]

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.

The market will decide who actually gets the business.

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.

did you miss history and the Great Depression lesson?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.

The market will decide who actually gets the business.

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.

So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?

Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather, but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.

The FCC is currently protecting your right to visit any site you want.

I can see why you would hate that.

Visiting a certain site isn't a right, it's a service.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.

Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.

If an internet provider decides to set up a structure of charges that is objectionable, people will gravitate toward a less objectionable venue.

This is the free market. If MSM wants to make unreasonable charges, let them go the way of AM Radio.

The problem is these are public airways and public utlities.

 

[code1211]

Net Nuetrality has nothing to do with the government controlling something. If has to do with preventing corporate interests from controlling your access by charges on where you visit.

What entity enforces this prevention that you seek?

I am quite comfortable with the FCC proposing tiers for different types of content, I am completely uncomfortable with allowing providers to control access to types of content.

I checked the libertarian position and I am suprised by it. Individual freedom can be as quickly eroded by major corporations as by the government. And it isn't long before the major corporations can be coopted by the government in the pursuit of "national security". See the phone company actions under Bush. The Cato Institute has become so reflexively anti-government and pro-corporation they have lost site of the point which is to protect our individual freedoms.

Having open net nuetrality laws which are in the daylight and regulated by the FCC with all eyes upon them is far superior to corporate control which can be manipulated in the dark. The internet was a huge advancement in freedom of speech and allowing net nuetrality to be taken away so that corporations can make more cash is indefensible.

Are you like three years old?

Have you not witnessed the last 6 years of back room deals, WE have to pass it for YOU to know what's in it and Regulatory agencies unilaterally enforcing regulations based on nothing other than the agenda of the current administration?

My God! Don't you know that you are free to give up your freedoms but have no authority to take them back once forfeited?

"The Congress shall make no law" is the only gaurd we have to keep the government away from its goal of total control.

 

[RDD_1210]

Private business should be able to do what it wants within the law.

The market will decide who actually gets the business.

Example : Let's say internet company A says it is going to charge company Z $100.00 per hour of internet and internet company B says hey we will only charge you $10.00 per month for your internet, who do you think is going to get the business?

Government is not the answer, the market does a great job of keeping business in check not the government, the government favors big business, the market supports the best service at the best price.

So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?

Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather, but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.

The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[RDD_1210]

Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.

 

[Oddball]

Keeping the FCC away from the internet is a good thing.

Nice talking point. Care to elaborate? Of course not, because thats all you "know" about the topic.

Because the nice people on FOX told him so!

Wow!...Good thing you don't project your biases onto others, huh?

 

[Oddball]

Anyone who argues against Net Neutrality is not in favor of individual freedom. You are exposing yourself as being in favor of freedom for business to do anything they want, not for people to have freedom. Real patriotic of you. Be proud.

It's for the individual freedom of the providers of bandwidth to charge whatever they want, and let the marketplace shake out the rest.

What collectivist twirps like you are after amounts to rent control for the internet...And we all know how well rent control has (not) worked as advertised.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

So freedom of information is not important to you? Freedom to make a dollar trumps individuals rights to freedom of information. You realize you're a complete sell-out, right?

Since when is the internet a right? You have the right to all the information you can gather, but it's not the governments job to make sure you can get that information from your bedroom.

The bolded part is all you needed to say. The rest doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything. Thanks for proving my point.

Equating the internet with freedom of information is a pretty far stretch. What about the people who create and post those sites? Do you think you have a "right" to force them keep those sites up for your informational awareness, or maybe you'll sue them for infringing on "freedom of information" if they take it down? What about the domains that host the sites, will you force them to host sites against their will?