The tea party takes a stance on Net Neutrality.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 6:04 PM GMT
    And guess what, they are against it!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/tea-party-net-neutrality-_n_681173.html

    Everyone make sure to educate friends and family on Net Neutrality!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 6:18 PM GMT
    Net neutrality is one of those complex issues that sometimes leads us into counter-intertuitive directions. I think it's an area fraught with potential unintended consequences.

    And frankly, I confess to being confused by much of it myself. I more or less know what I WANT, but I'm not sure of the means by which to obtain it.

    I WANT unfettered access to the Internet, and I DON'T want censorship or government eavesdropping. But then I read that if there isn't some kind of Internet traffic cops, some heavy broadband users will hog the resources and limit my access.

    But I fear that traffic cops can soon turn into detectives, and even tyrants, and that corporations will meanwhile be using the situation to find ways to squeeze more money out of me. That would hardly be fair, in my view, since the WWW and the Internet are one of the few examples of technology brought about by a popular movement of the people, not by corporate R&D. The WWW was invented by academicians & wonks, not by corporate investment.

    Hell, I was using the US government's ARPANET before it became the Internet. I see the Internet as the people's movement, and while corporations have a right to use it, and help to advance it, and make their own profit from it, I oppose them being claim jumpers to the basic property itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 6:30 PM GMT
    I'll admit that I'm a little confused about the actual issues involved in this. I'm not sure where I stand on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 9:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI agree with them.

    Keep the FCC (and the Federal government) out of the internet.

    They'll just try to strangle it with regulations.

    "[a] coalition that included 35 Tea Party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification."



    Of course, you do.

    I, too, have to admit that I know what I want but am also not sure how to get it. But if there are not regulations, it iwll be very easy for corporations to hijack the Internet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 9:25 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidAnd guess what, they are against it!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/tea-party-net-neutrality-_n_681173.html

    Everyone make sure to educate friends and family on Net Neutrality!


    Maybe you should educate yourself first. Do you know anything about the group pushing for "Net Neturality" ? Do you know anything about it's founder? Maybe you should find out about "Free Press" and it's founder Robert McChesney before you tell us about education.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 9:31 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidAnd guess what, they are against it!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/tea-party-net-neutrality-_n_681173.html

    Everyone make sure to educate friends and family on Net Neutrality!


    Maybe you should educate yourself first. Do you know anything about the group pushing for "Net Neturality" ? Do you know anything about it's founder? Maybe you should find out about "Free Press" and it's founder Robert McChesney before you tell us about education.


    Well, beyond the simple fact that people you don't like can support causes you do and it means nothing, what is it about McChesney that bothers you so much?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 9:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI agree with them.

    Keep the FCC (and the Federal government) out of the internet.

    They'll just try to strangle it with regulations.



    "baaaaah" say the corporatist sheeple. "baaaaaa".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 9:37 PM GMT
    Big Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do.

    Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country.

    They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism).

    Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    MeOhMy saidBig Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do.

    Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country.

    They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism).

    Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.


    Well said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:08 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    I, too, have to admit that I know what I want but am also not sure how to get it. But if there are not regulations, it iwll be very easy for corporations to hijack the Internet.

    Oh stop it.

    If corporations wanted to "hijack the internet" they would have done so long, long ago.


    Oh honey. Do keep up.

    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ESPN-360-ISP-Model-Spreads-To-HBO-Olympics-106949
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:10 PM GMT
    gregography said
    shybuffguy said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidAnd guess what, they are against it!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/tea-party-net-neutrality-_n_681173.html

    Everyone make sure to educate friends and family on Net Neutrality!


    Maybe you should educate yourself first. Do you know anything about the group pushing for "Net Neturality" ? Do you know anything about it's founder? Maybe you should find out about "Free Press" and it's founder Robert McChesney before you tell us about education.


    Well, beyond the simple fact that people you don't like can support causes you do and it means nothing, what is it about McChesney that bothers you so much?


    Maybe the fact that he's a Marxist and created a group called "Free Press" that has nothing to do with a free press, but rather is about exerting controll over various media in an attempt to controll freedom.

    "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

    "There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."


    His own words, not mine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:10 PM GMT
    MeOhMy saidBig Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do.

    Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country.

    They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism).

    Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.


    Ok.... so what are you saying? In the context of people saying that the government should pass laws to keep the internet open and accessible?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:13 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    gregography said
    shybuffguy said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidAnd guess what, they are against it!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/tea-party-net-neutrality-_n_681173.html

    Everyone make sure to educate friends and family on Net Neutrality!


    Maybe you should educate yourself first. Do you know anything about the group pushing for "Net Neturality" ? Do you know anything about it's founder? Maybe you should find out about "Free Press" and it's founder Robert McChesney before you tell us about education.


    Well, beyond the simple fact that people you don't like can support causes you do and it means nothing, what is it about McChesney that bothers you so much?


    Maybe the fact that he's a Marxist and created a group called "Free Press" that has nothing to do with a free press, but rather is about exerting controll over various media in an attempt to controll freedom.

    "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

    "There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."


    His own words, not mine.


    Sure. I agree that stuff is out there.

    What do they say about net neutrality, and what of what they say do you disagree with?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI agree with them.

    Keep the FCC (and the Federal government) out of the internet.

    They'll just try to strangle it with regulations.

    "[a] coalition that included 35 Tea Party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification."



    I wonder how much $$$ in kickbacks Verizon and Comcast among others gave to the Tea Party organizations for their letters icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:38 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidAnd guess what, they are against it!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/tea-party-net-neutrality-_n_681173.html

    Everyone make sure to educate friends and family on Net Neutrality!


    Ha! This coming from the group that touts small government and limited spending.

    There are hundreds of sites out there that explain Net Neutrality, its pros and cons, etc.

    Essentially, some argue that continued deregulation of the Web (aka Net Neutraility) has outgrown its usefulness, especially now that wireless carriers have partnered with the likes of Google and Yahoo. If the Web is not regulated, we're looking at a potential Wild West scenario similar to the recent fiasco on Wall Street. It obviously won't have the same impact on consumers that the sub-prime mess did, but what it will do is allow co's like Google and Verizon to raise rates for broadband (imagine the revenue Google stands to make if they can continue to make their own rules), block competing sites and peer-to-peer networks, give preferential treatment to advertisers and media partners, etc. It essentially turns the Web into one big advertisement with the highest quality of service going to those co's capable of paying for the privilege. In other words, by not regulating the Web, co's like Google will be able to create their own form of regulation. And guess what: Google isn't looking out for any of us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:50 PM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    southbeach1500 saidI agree with them.

    Keep the FCC (and the Federal government) out of the internet.

    They'll just try to strangle it with regulations.

    "[a] coalition that included 35 Tea Party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification."



    I wonder how much $$$ in kickbacks Verizon and Comcast among others gave to the Tea Party organizations for their letters icon_biggrin.gif


    I'm guessing about as many dollars as they had to give these


    74 House Democrats Oppose FCC’s Internet Takeover

    The Obama administration turned to the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a public utility because it cannot pass its proposed Internet regulation through Congress in the legitimate policy process.


    The latest proof is an excellent letter put together by Democratic Congressman Gene Green on Texas. Green was joined by 73 other Democrats on the letter, in strong opposition to the FCC’s power grab.

    Here is the full letter:

    Dear Chairman Genachowski:

    We are writing to reinforce the strong bipartisan consensus among policymakers, industry participants, and analysts that the success of the broadband marketplace stems from policies that encourage competition, private investment, and legal certainty. The regulatory framework first adopted in 1998 by the Clinton Administration’s FCC has resulted in broadband industry infrastructure investment of approximately $60 billion per year. In the last decade, multiple providers and the hundreds of thousands of workers they employ have brought high speed connections to 95 percent of U.S. households where two-thirds of Americans now access the Internet through broadband at home.

    Still, much work remains to be done. According to the National Broadband Plan, 14 million Americans lack broadband access altogether, many underserved areas need more robust broadband facilities, and both wired and wireless broadband services require increasing speeds. As the Plan notes, that work will require as much as $350 billion in additional private investment. Generating those enormous sums from industry, and the good-paying jobs they produce, will require a continued commitment to the stable regulatory environment that has existed for the last dozen years.

    Because of this, we have serious concerns about the proposed new regulatory framework for broadband and the Internet. The expanded FCC jurisdiction over broadband that has been proposed and the manner in which it would be implemented are unprecedented and create regulatory uncertainty. The controversy surrounding that approach will likely serve as a distraction from what should be our Nation’s foremost communications priority: bringing broadband to every corner of America, getting every American online, and providing the high speed connections needed to realize the promises of telemedicine, distance learning, and other forms of consumer empowerment.

    The continued deployment and adoption of broadband, the growing importance of the Internet to our constituents, and the significant contributions this will make to our economy should be the FCC’s primary focus right now. The uncertainty this proposal creates will jeopardize jobs and deter needed investment for years to come. The significant regulatory impact of reclassifying broadband service is not something that should be taken lightly and should not be done without additional direction from Congress. We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and the jobs that come with it.

    Thank you for your attention to this letter, and we look forward to working with you in a constructive way to address these matters.

    Sincerely,

    Rep. Gene Green
    Rep. John Adler
    Rep. Jason Altmire
    Rep. Michael Arcuri
    Rep. Joe Baca
    Rep. John Barrow
    Rep. Tim Bishop
    Rep. Sanford Bishop
    Rep. Dan Boren
    Rep. Leonard Boswell
    Rep. Allen Boyd
    Rep. Robert Brady
    Rep. Bobby Bright
    Rep. Corrine Brown
    Rep. G.K. Butterfield
    Rep. Dennis Cardoza
    Rep. Russ Carnahan
    Rep. Christopher Carney
    Rep. Travis Childers
    Rep. Yvette Clarke
    Rep. William Lacy Clay
    Rep. Jim Costa
    Rep. Joe Crowley
    Rep. Henry Cuellar
    Rep. Elijah Cummings
    Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper
    Rep. Lincoln Davis
    Rep. Steve Driehaus
    Rep. Chaka Fattah
    Rep. Marcia Fudge
    Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
    Rep. Charles Gonzalez
    Rep. Al Green
    Rep. Debbie Halvorson
    Rep. Alcee Hastings
    Rep. Baron Hill
    Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
    Rep. Tim Holden
    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick
    Rep. Suzanne Kosmas
    Rep. Frank Kratovil
    Rep. Rick Larsen
    Rep. Dan Maffei
    Rep. Michael McMahon
    Rep. Gregory Meeks
    Rep. Charlie Melancon
    Rep. Walt Minnick
    Rep. Dennis Moore
    Rep. Scott Murphy
    Rep. Glenn Nye
    Rep. Solomon Ortiz
    Rep. Bill Owens
    Rep. Ed Pastor



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:56 PM GMT
    What ReppaT said.

    It' going to be regulated -either by corporations to their own profit... or by the government at a loss of some degree of privacy.

    Too many stakeholders with lots of power and $$$ for it to remain as the unregulated and un-monetized entity it was back in the days of 14.4k modems and Compuserve.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:57 PM GMT
    gregography said
    MeOhMy saidBig Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do.

    Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country.

    They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism).

    Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.


    Ok.... so what are you saying? In the context of people saying that the government should pass laws to keep the internet open and accessible?


    What part of this did you not get ?

    'Big Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do. '

    'Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country. '

    'They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism). '

    'Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.'

    Net Neutrality is not about keeping the internet open. It's about controlling the content on and use of the internet, and thereby controlling us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:01 PM GMT
    shybuffguyNet Neutrality is not about keeping the internet open. It's about controlling the content on and use of the internet, and thereby controlling us.


    Damned if you do, damned if you don't, if you ask me.

    Nobody in positions of power in DC... and very few lobbyists on either side of the debate are operating with pure motives.

    The left wants to control the net to promote its message just as much as the right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:04 PM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    shybuffguyNet Neutrality is not about keeping the internet open. It's about controlling the content on and use of the internet, and thereby controlling us.


    Damned if you do, damned if you don't, if you ask me.

    Nobody in positions of power in DC... and very few lobbyists on either side of the debate are operating with pure motives.

    The left wants to control the net to promote its message just as much as the right.


    That's interesting, cinsidering it isn't the right promoting net neutrality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:09 PM GMT
    I'm afraid I'm just deeply cynical when it comes to the intentions of big government and big business. icon_confused.gif

    That said, I suppose I should have been clearer, in that big business does not necessarily have to align to the right; it may just be expedient for them to do so for now in order to get their way (unfettered control of which content providers get access to their bandwidth)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:13 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    gregography said
    MeOhMy saidBig Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do.

    Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country.

    They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism).

    Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.


    Ok.... so what are you saying? In the context of people saying that the government should pass laws to keep the internet open and accessible?


    What part of this did you not get ?>


    The part you wrote.

    shybuffguy said'Big Corporations and Big Government should both FUCK OFF when it comes to the internet. It's too precious for either to exert authority and censorship over, and that is what BOTH would do and will do. '

    'Besides, there is really no point in talking about this as a government vs. corporate issue, as with the major Telecom companies, there is no differentiation between business and government. Just look at the surveillance apparatus, where the NSA runs major spy rooms monitoring all internet traffic and electronic traffic through secret rooms in AT&T buildings all over the country. '

    'They are corporatist in nature (as in, the merger of state and corporate power, otherwise known as fascism). '

    'Giving one the power over the other is irrelevant, they share and merge power over YOU. The Internet is too precious a source and venue of freedom.'

    Net Neutrality is not about keeping the internet open. It's about controlling the content on and use of the internet, and thereby controlling us.


    This is just nonsensical. Net neutrality is about keeping the internet open.

    Other than just repeating yourself, what about the concept of net neutrality is it that you think is about control? Is it simply paranoid right-wing cant about how anything the government regulates is part part of a marxist socialist facist communist plan to subvert our young?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:19 PM GMT
    A complex and difficult issue. But I think we can approach it from one of association:

    If the right-wing opposes net neutrality, then net neurality must benefit the people. And the defeat of net neutrality must benefit corporations. When you can't figure out a complex issue, then look at the agendas of the proponents & opponents of that issue.

    Anything the right supports is anti-people, and pro-corporation.

    Anything the left supports is pro-people and anti-corporation.

    A simplification, of course, and one could argue the few exceptions. But as a general rule quite true.

    I tend to favor solutions that are pro-people, and anti-corporation. Hence I am inclined to support net neutrality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:28 PM GMT
    Why does it seems like everybody thinks net neutrality is an American issue which requires the American government to either weigh in on or not weigh in on?

    This is way bigger than America. This is way bigger than Google, or Yahoo, or the next year, or the next 10 years.

    Net neutrality is a set of governing principles, not to be confused with "government" as in actively governing something.

    Net neutrality is more comparable to the universal declaration of human rights.

    This is something HUGE. Whether or not all of us together (governments, pressure groups, even the odd tea bagger that might actually understand what this is about) are gonna fuck this up in the next 5 years, it will have a huge impact on how free the free (western) world is going to be for the next generations.

    I'm sure it will be messed up one way or the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:39 PM GMT
    I don't think the issue is as confusing as others have suggested. It's ludicrous to say "keep the government out of the internet" when the internet historically is a product of government sponsored defense research [ARPANET], government funded research at CERN, and many other projects.

    This in fact represents the best kind of government spending: modest outlays have created vast industries including companies like Google [spun off research at Stanford] and many jobs; this spending has created whole new markets which free enterprise and entered to produce consumable goods and services. One can hardly think of a better example of the advantages of a mixed economy.

    Net Neutrality is not a new thing; it's the way the internet has always worked. And if you are one of those who fear that "heavy broadband users will hog the resources and limit my access", recollect that the internet has organically grown (in the number of people who use it) by a factor of at least 1,000,000 since it's construction, adopting new protocols like IP, IP6, TCP, HTTP as it grew. If there is a shortage of bandwidth in the future, I am certain that there will be a technological solution.

    Rather than have me explain anything further, I think if you genuinely cannot understand the issues involved, then perhaps it is best to defer to the experts. In this case, a relevant authority is none other than Time Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web and a strong advocate for net neutrality. Read what he has to say here on his blog.

    As for the Tea Party, their stance is quite bizarre. In this case, the "no government interference" stance ought to be in *favour* of net neutrality.
    The truly worrying part of this debate is how politicians have demonstrated their supreme technological illiteracy. Their stupidity lets us all down.