Why are Republicans against Net Neutrality?

[UpaLoompa]

go troll somewhere else

Who is trolling? I said "sort", although I wouldn't be one bit surprised if that applied directly to you anyway.



As an aside, I do worry how the "illegal traffic" part will be applied. Some groups have suspected that it will be used to throttle torrent sites. I have never downloaded (?) something via torrents and recognize they are often (mostly?) used for copyright infringement but it is still an open door of concern.

 

[Rhood]

Has anyone ever stopped to think about how US broadband is inferior to the rest of the world?
Seriously! Our technology is way behind!
Compare our broadband speeds with Europe and you'll think we live in a 3rd world country.

 

[second sight]

Who is trolling? I said "sort", although I wouldn't be one bit surprised if that applied directly to you anyway.



As an aside, I do worry how the "illegal traffic" part will be applied. Some groups have suspected that it will be used to throttle torrent sites. I have never downloaded (?) something via torrents and recognize they are often (mostly?) used for copyright infringement but it is still an open door of concern.

this is the shit I'm talking about

The general-conduct rule reportedly has seven standards, one of which is the

 

[UpaLoompa]

this is the shit I'm talking about

Except it isn't.
That particular issue I mentioned and also brought up by the EFF is simply a possibility under the new listing. Under the old listing it was an actuality and had been done by ISPs.

 

[second sight]

I love how that is written in such a way that Verizon is implied as a liberal opponent of the ruling.
Article structure:
Liberal groups oppose this.
Name liberal group.
Name verizon.
Name liberal group (that agrees with the reclassification but disagrees with certain details).

Call it Obamanet for added shits-and-giggles.

Not very subtle.

we have to pass it to see whats in it doesn't have to be subtle, it's the same damn approach

 

[UpaLoompa]

Why is turducken purple in Tulsa?

Your posts are fucking gibberish.

 

[Hog-train]

this is the shit I'm talking about

The general-conduct rule reportedly has seven standards, one of which is the “effect on free expression.” Net neutrality was supposed to ban online discrimination based on content. Instead, it is empowering the FCC—the agency that for decades enforced the “Fairness Doctrine” and that last year proposed studying “bias” in newsrooms—to chill speech.

These are just scaremongering talking points you picked up from some conservative website funded by ISP's.

The FCC was always enforcing net neutrality for over a decade before this decision. It's not anything new.

They were forced to re-classify under Title 2 due to Verizon talking them to court- So if you want to blame someone- blame Verizon.

And there is zero indication that the FCC will start to censor speech on the internet- rather they explicitly stated they will not and that the internet will stay the same as it always has been.

It is the ISP's that wanted to change things, yet they've tricked you into thinking the government is taking the internet over. The FCC simply said "no you can't change it." The FCC wants the status quo- which is operating under the same Net Neutrality rules we've had for more than a decade.

 

[James Keith]

Seems like a lot of ISPs do indeed disagree.

By that logic it would seem you disagree also?

 

[James Keith]

I don't get it either.

I guess he's trying to say: no censorship is part of Net Neutrality. And since S. Korea has been known to censor things like pornography, they are not the shining example to compare to US internet. But my point is: how about all the other countries whose internet is better?

I presume the point is how you always get bad regulations along with the "good" when the govt gets their fingers in.

 

[Lee978]

Um, OK. So what? Is there some rule of nature that if we have fast internet and NN, we have to have less internet freedom?

Hog-train injects S. Korea into the discussion to imply that more government intervention would be a good thing in the US. I point out that while S. Korea may boast the fastest internet speeds in the world, S. Korean internet is also subject to frequent government surveillance and censorship yet you don't see how this may be a slight problem in a discussion about how there needs to be a rule in place to ensure that all communication over the internet is treated equally without censorship?

I don't get it either.

I guess he's trying to say: no censorship is part of Net Neutrality. And since S. Korea has been known to censor things like pornography, they are not the shining example to compare to US internet. But my point is: how about all the other countries whose internet is better?

No censorship is the backbone of net neutrality. Therefore, while S. Korea may boast the fastest internet speeds in the world, the fact that their government also surveills user content and completely shuts down other content eliminates it out of the running for the world's best internet. Not to mention "recent developments that include criminal prosecutions of users for online activities, a rising number of blocked websites and allegations that the national spy agency manipulated online discussions before last year’s presidential election."

Excuse me if I'm not as enthusiastic as you are about the S. Korean model where internet users could possibly land in jail for some stupid shit they said online.

Btw, how about all those other countries? As far as I'm concerned this is the first time in our discussion back and forth that you have even mentioned any other country besides S. Korea. So I hardly see how this is the point you were making all along.

Seems like a lot of ISPs do indeed disagree.

Who cares about what ISPs think? Consumers care way too much to let ISPs ruin the internet as evidenced by this whole discussion. I just hope that in their haste to protect the internet; consumers don't automatically assume the government can fix the problem. As others have noted this is a pretty complicated issue and if the government does need to be involved then we need to make sure the unintended consequences of their actions don't make matters worse. This is the overarching point I've been relaying in both net neutrality threads. However, because net neutrality seems to have become the liberal equivalent of "we have the right to bear arms," any logic and reason injected into the discussion gets skirted.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

http://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam

 

[Hog-train]

Btw, how about all those other countries? As far as I'm concerned this is the first time in our discussion back and forth that you have even mentioned any other country besides S. Korea. So I hardly see how this is the point you were making all along.

What are you talking about? You can't read. I gave you a list of all the countries that have better internet than the US in a previous post which you replied to.

Secondly, we were previously talking about how other countries have better internet, faster internet for less money than the US.

That's a fact. They have faster speeds at cheaper prices. And we're not only talking about Korea.

According to this list, the US ranks 26th in the world behind Singapore, S. Korea, Japan, Monaco, Romania, Sweden, Netherlands, Macau, Lithuania, Denmark, Latvia, and a bunch of other countries.

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

 

[Lee978]

My apologies I didn't see that post.

 

[matburn H]

The majority of republicans are old and don't know shit about the internet. Throw "free market" into the equation, mix in a little Obama. Got yourself some prime red meat gobment takeover type nonsense.

 

[Dolomite]

Anybody aware what kind of additional fees the FCC will be collecting as they transport us into internet nirvana?

(notice that I said 'fees', not 'taxes')

 

[James Keith]

Speaking of comparisons to other countries, interesting figures from the AEI article, linked in that above mises article:

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I'm probably already know the answer but why are Republicans so fervently against Net Neutrality?

Listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Right leaning websites, it's unbelievable hearing how out of touch and ignorant everyone is on the subject.

This morning, Glenn Beck was flipping out how it kills innovation and how porn sites shouldn't be treated equally to news or important sites. Meanwhile Rush seems against it purely because Obama is for it and thinks it's Obamacare for the internet.

For a party that is supposed to be about liberty and freedom, why are they always so opposed to what they supposedly support?

Because the bolded part is a crocked of shit. The Republican party is the party of telling you who you can have sex with, who you can marry, why you can't have an abortion, that you can't have your kids learn about evolution in school, and what god you can pray to in public.

 

[Lee978]

Speaking of comparisons to other countries, interesting figures from the AEI article, linked in that above mises article:

Interesting indeed. I hear a lot of individuals skeptical of net neutrality talk about the adverse effects it could have on investment but liberals love to assure us that we have nothing to worry about. Guess that's also a lie.

 

[Hog-train]

Interesting indeed. I hear a lot of individuals skeptical of net neutrality talk about the adverse effects it could have on investment but liberals love to assure us that we have nothing to worry about. Guess that's also a lie.

Contrary to popular belief- this isn't a partisan liberal vs conservative issue.

This is about the ISP's like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc (and the politician's they have bribed) vs. all the consumers and internet companies like Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.

Turns out almost EVERYONE hates their cable company.

A recent poll showed 83% of voters who self-identified as

 

[Lee978]

Hog-train, i completely agree that just about everyone hates their current ISP. I also agree that we need to do w.e will lead to higher competition and higher consumer satisfaction. What NN skeptics are afraid of (again as i pointed out before) are the unintended consequences of stricter regulations and all the data I've seen justifies NN skeptics concerns.