The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained

[RDD_1210]

This site is going to be pretty empty once Obama and the FCC start deleting all of your posts. What day will that be happening again?

 

[Flash]

How is government control of the internet working out for the North Koreans? How about the Chinese? It is working great in Cuba, isn't it? What could possibly go wrong with the government controlling the Internet?

 

[RDD_1210]

Will the government censorship of the internet happen before or after Obama takes all the guns and the death panels are implemented? I need to plan accordingly.

 

[Flash]

Will the government censorship of the internet happen before or after Obama takes all the guns and the death panels are implemented? I need to plan accordingly.

The Tea Party was asking themselves what would happen to their ability to participate in the American political system when Obama was elected and had control of the IRS and they soon found out, didn't they?

By the way, Obama isn't taking guns but the sonofabitch is taking away the ammo by decree. He tried taking away the guns after Sandy Hook but fortunately Congress wouldn't go along with it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Will the government censorship of the internet happen before or after Obama takes all the guns and the death panels are implemented? I need to plan accordingly.

The Tea Party was asking themselves what would happen to their ability to participate in the American political system when Obama was elected and had control of the IRS and they soon found out, didn't they?

By the way, Obama isn't taking guns but the sonofabitch is taking away the ammo by decree. He tried taking away the guns after Sandy Hook but fortunately Congress wouldn't go along with it.

No, Obama is definitely taking the guns! I was promised that.

 

[Flash]

No, Obama is definitely taking the guns! I was promised that.

Obama pushed for an assault weapons ban. He tried to take away the guns. Congress didn't go along with it or else it would have happen. Now the asshole is using the ATF to do his dirty work by rule making (sound familiar?) to ban .223 M-855 ammo.

You simply can't trust the government (bureaucrats elected by special interest groups, funded by lobbyists and motivated by political ideology) to ever do the right thing.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, Obama is definitely taking the guns! I was promised that.

Obama pushed for an assault weapons ban. He tried to take away the guns. Congress didn't go along with it or else it would have happen. Now the asshole is using the ATF to do his dirty work by rule making (sound familiar?) to ban .223 M-855 ammo.

You simply can't trust the government (bureaucrats elected by special interest groups, funded by lobbyists and motivated by political ideology) to ever do the right thing.

Ok so what about those death panels I was promised!?

 

[Flash]

No, Obama is definitely taking the guns! I was promised that.

Obama pushed for an assault weapons ban. He tried to take away the guns. Congress didn't go along with it or else it would have happen. Now the asshole is using the ATF to do his dirty work by rule making (sound familiar?) to ban .223 M-855 ammo.

You simply can't trust the government (bureaucrats elected by special interest groups, funded by lobbyists and motivated by political ideology) to ever do the right thing.

Ok so what about those death panels I was promised!?

The death panels are the government bureaucrats that decide what kinds of insurance reimbursement you will get for particular health problems depending upon your age.

Of course we have the VA death panel administrators that have been known to not treat patients because it may affect their bonuses.

Any more stupid questions?

 

[RDD_1210]

No, Obama is definitely taking the guns! I was promised that.

Obama pushed for an assault weapons ban. He tried to take away the guns. Congress didn't go along with it or else it would have happen. Now the asshole is using the ATF to do his dirty work by rule making (sound familiar?) to ban .223 M-855 ammo.

You simply can't trust the government (bureaucrats elected by special interest groups, funded by lobbyists and motivated by political ideology) to ever do the right thing.

Ok so what about those death panels I was promised!?

The death panels are the government bureaucrats that decide what kinds of insurance reimbursement you will get for particular health problems depending upon your age.

Of course we have the VA death panel administrators that have been known to not treat patients because it may affect their bonuses.

Any more stupid questions?

So there are no death panels and Obama isn't taking our guns. So why am I supposed to believe that the internet will be censored when you're batting .000 with your predictions?

 

[Flash]

No, Obama is definitely taking the guns! I was promised that.

Obama pushed for an assault weapons ban. He tried to take away the guns. Congress didn't go along with it or else it would have happen. Now the asshole is using the ATF to do his dirty work by rule making (sound familiar?) to ban .223 M-855 ammo.

You simply can't trust the government (bureaucrats elected by special interest groups, funded by lobbyists and motivated by political ideology) to ever do the right thing.

Ok so what about those death panels I was promised!?

The death panels are the government bureaucrats that decide what kinds of insurance reimbursement you will get for particular health problems depending upon your age.

Of course we have the VA death panel administrators that have been known to not treat patients because it may affect their bonuses.

Any more stupid questions?

So there are no death panels and Obama isn't taking our guns. So why am I supposed to believe that the internet will be censored when you're batting .000 with your predictions?

I listed two of them Do you have reading comprehension skills or not?

 

[daveman]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Oh, there's big money involved, all right -- but it's not coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Progressive icon George Soros:

Soros Ford Foundation shovel 196 million to net neutrality groups staff to White House WashingtonExaminer.com

And if George Soros wants it, it's bad for America.

Netflix and Ebay support net neutrality as well (duh, wonder why)

Do they make it bad for America as well?

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

Blind trust in government is not a good thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

It appears no one ever will.

 

[daveman]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

That's because the providers hadn't made their move yet.

You people have no common sense. The internet providers oppose net neutrality because it stands in the way of their squeezing more money out of you.

That is the liberal narrative.
You think prices are expensive. Just wait...Government regulations do one of two things. Increase prices or result in a lesser product.
The government has no business sticking it's nose into a problem that doesn't exist.
This is nothing more than a political power grab. And it will end up costing us more to buy internet AND will limit content to what the powers in Washington deem appropriate.
The internet is the ultimate in free speech. To government, that's a problem.

Especially THIS government and their childish intolerance of criticism.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

It appears no one ever will.

Everyone will be able to read the regulations, as soon as they are finished being created.

 

[daveman]

None of those things are actually happening, though. You're posting like The2ndAmendment, getting riled up about purely hypothetical future scenarios.

1. Why would net neutrality "slow your internet down"?
2. What is it that you think the government is now going to tax?
3. What are these "new regulations" that you expect to cost so much in legal teams? (As a side note, are you under the impression that Comcast and Verizon don't already have legal teams?)

I'm not even going to respond to your feverish conspiracy theories about "the government's whims" regulating content and speech.

Come back to reality. We're discussing what's actually going on, not what could possibly go on at some point in the future.

I'll ask again: How exactly are you currently being adversely affected by "net neutrality"?

Speaking of purely hypothetical future scenarios, that's exactly why this piece of crap was written.

Oh, you don't have to believe me. But you probably ought to believe a couple of FCC commissioners:

The Obama administration and proponents of the FCC’s version of net neutrality may be ecstatic at the passing of regulations that make the Internet a public utility on Feb. 26th, but not all FCC members are so sunny in their outlook for the future.

TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the new regulations are far-reaching, largely unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills and to innovation in the industry.

Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.

Mike O’Rielly added, in a bit of humor that “there is a problem, and it’s the document we adopted [Feb. 26].” Neither of them were reticent in explaining exactly how and why the document was the problem. For one, the document was, as Commissioner Pai pointed out, written to solve a problem that wasn’t readily apparent. O’Rielly said the document is “guilt by imagination, trying to guess what will go wrong in the future”; instead of tackling a readily apparent and current issue, the FCC proposal is instead stumbling forward, trying to find future, hypothetical transgressions to retroactively justify its own regulations.

This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was going to centralize powers over what infrastructure was deployed and where through the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to “use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to do it’s dirty work.”​

 

[daveman]

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

It appears no one ever will.

Everyone will be able to read the regulations, as soon as they are finished being created.

Such childlike, naive trust. It's idiots like you that gave us two terms of SCOAMF.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

None of those things are actually happening, though. You're posting like The2ndAmendment, getting riled up about purely hypothetical future scenarios.

1. Why would net neutrality "slow your internet down"?
2. What is it that you think the government is now going to tax?
3. What are these "new regulations" that you expect to cost so much in legal teams? (As a side note, are you under the impression that Comcast and Verizon don't already have legal teams?)

I'm not even going to respond to your feverish conspiracy theories about "the government's whims" regulating content and speech.

Come back to reality. We're discussing what's actually going on, not what could possibly go on at some point in the future.

I'll ask again: How exactly are you currently being adversely affected by "net neutrality"?

Speaking of purely hypothetical future scenarios, that's exactly why this piece of crap was written.

Oh, you don't have to believe me. But you probably ought to believe a couple of FCC commissioners:

The Obama administration and proponents of the FCC’s version of net neutrality may be ecstatic at the passing of regulations that make the Internet a public utility on Feb. 26th, but not all FCC members are so sunny in their outlook for the future.

TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the new regulations are far-reaching, largely unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills and to innovation in the industry.

Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.

Mike O’Rielly added, in a bit of humor that “there is a problem, and it’s the document we adopted [Feb. 26].” Neither of them were reticent in explaining exactly how and why the document was the problem. For one, the document was, as Commissioner Pai pointed out, written to solve a problem that wasn’t readily apparent. O’Rielly said the document is “guilt by imagination, trying to guess what will go wrong in the future”; instead of tackling a readily apparent and current issue, the FCC proposal is instead stumbling forward, trying to find future, hypothetical transgressions to retroactively justify its own regulations.

This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was going to centralize powers over what infrastructure was deployed and where through the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to “use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to do it’s dirty work.”​

I don't disagree that it's a solution to a future problem.

But that doesn't change anything I posyed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

It appears no one ever will.

Everyone will be able to read the regulations, as soon as they are finished being created.

Such childlike, naive trust. It's idiots like you that gave us two terms of SCOAMF.

What is it that you think I'm "naively trusting"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

It appears no one ever will.

Everyone will be able to read the regulations, as soon as they are finished being created.

They already are. Just, uh, what were they voting on then? A new copy machine? The regulations are supposed to be published not soon after the vote itself.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Have you read the regulations?

No?

Of course you haven't. No one has.

It appears no one ever will.

Everyone will be able to read the regulations, as soon as they are finished being created.

They already are. Just, uh, what were they voting on then? A new copy machine? The regulations are supposed to be published not soon after the vote itself.

They voted on re-classifying the Internet as regulatable.

The regulations themselves have yet to be finished, and the fact that they have not been released is entirely within the the normal timeline of the release of regulations.

Think about it - the idea that the regulations won't be released is ludicrous. How could any companies be expected to follow secret rules?