Why are Republicans against Net Neutrality?

[Senzo Tanaka]

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?

 

[VODZ]

You dont find it odd that only the FCC and the Obama administration are the only ones who know what makes up the 300 page bill? How can you be FOR something that you have never seen and that our government is keeping hidden from us? Does the internet really need government regulation and even more government monitoring?

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

On the eve of the vote, even liberal groups are dropping their support. It turns out that letting the gov't decided what the term "net neutrality" means was a bad idea.

Basically all the whining about " keeping the internet free" is back firing.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

http://https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

Posted just yesterday, straight from the champions of net neutrality...asking the FCC to stop the vote and rethink the plan.

 

[Lord of Lies]

"Liberty and freedom" does not mean the government should control everything.

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

 

[My Spot]

You dont find it odd that only the FCC and the Obama administration are the only ones who know what makes up the 300 page bill? How can you be FOR something that you have never seen and that our government is keeping hidden from us? Does the internet really need government regulation and even more government monitoring?

They have to pass it so we can find out what's in it.
...

 

[Dolomite]

Because George Soros put $196,000 in cash behind it. Net Neutrality proponents were able to use some of this money to infiltrate 5 of their people into key FCC & White House jobs.

When the Director of the FCC testifies before Congress... Oh wait - he said he's not going to do that.

 

[UpaLoompa]

http://https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

Posted just yesterday, straight from the champions of net neutrality...asking the FCC to stop the vote and rethink the plan.

That's a bit of a mischaracterization of what they've written. They agree with categorizing and regulating broadband as a telecommunication service. They disagree with a couple of important points about that regulation. These are not, however, strictly the same ones that the GOP disagrees with.

 

[Uchi Mata]

It's a complex issue. The GOP hates it partially because Obama supports it, but mostly because it's an instance of the government placing restrictions on how private firms can utilize their assets. Which it is. What that viewpoint ignores are all the rules in place regarding right of way and overbuilding that essentially grant broadband providers local monopolies (which are probably good rules in the sense that like water or electricity delivery internet delivery is a natural monopoly). So the providers want to be the only game in town due to natural monopolies and government protections, but then they want to charge variable rates for connection as if they have no characteristics of a utility. It's not much different than if people who used more power got charged a higher rate by the power company. So because the providers have both free market and utility like features, it's a hard question to answer how much they should be regulated. Not surprisingly opinions tend to break down along party lines.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

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

Liberty and Freedom*



*for the oligarchs

 

[Hog-train]

On the eve of the vote, even liberal groups are dropping their support. It turns out that letting the gov't decided what the term "net neutrality" means was a bad idea.

Basically all the whining about " keeping the internet free" is back firing.

Only a brainwashed f*cking idiot would be on the side of Comcast, Time Warner and the other ISP's on this issue - some of the worst companies in America lol

You are parroting talking points from conservative websites bought and paid for by the ISP's.

You don't understand what Net Neutrality is.

It's not NEW regulation. It has always existed FROM The BEGINNING and the FCC always enforced it.

That only changed at the beginning of this year (January 2014) when Verizon successfully sued saying the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate them.

They did this because they wanted a paid tiered system where they could blackmail companies to pay more for "faster" access.

In short, they were being greedy.

That is why the FCC is re-classifying them under Title 2 - so they can re-instate Net Neutrality.

Once again: NET NEUTRALITY IS NOT NEW REGULATION. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE NORM. It means no throttling, no discrimination, no censorship, by the government or the ISP's.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Once again: NET NEUTRALITY IS NOT NEW REGULATION. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE NORM. It means no throttling, no discrimination, no censorship, by the government or the ISP's.

No....that is what net neutrality means to you and some others. However, the current proposal does not cover any of the things you mentioned. Hence the reasoning behind a lot of the key groups who support"net neutrality" not supporting the vote tomorrow.

People like you are the reason why this shitty proposal will probably pass tomorrow.

 

[RafailNadull]

It's a complex issue. The GOP hates it partially because Obama supports it, but mostly because it's an instance of the government placing restrictions on how private firms can utilize their assets. Which it is. What that viewpoint ignores are all the rules in place regarding right of way and overbuilding that essentially grant broadband providers local monopolies (which are probably good rules in the sense that like water or electricity delivery internet delivery is a natural monopoly). So the providers want to be the only game in town due to natural monopolies and government protections, but then they want to charge variable rates for connection as if they have no characteristics of a utility. It's not much different than if people who used more power got charged a higher rate by the power company. So because the providers have both free market and utility like features, it's a hard question to answer how much they should be regulated. Not surprisingly opinions tend to break down along party lines.

Great post.

 

[djacobox372]

It's a complex issue. The GOP hates it partially because Obama supports it, but mostly because it's an instance of the government placing restrictions on how private firms can utilize their assets. Which it is. What that viewpoint ignores are all the rules in place regarding right of way and overbuilding that essentially grant broadband providers local monopolies (which are probably good rules in the sense that like water or electricity delivery internet delivery is a natural monopoly). So the providers want to be the only game in town due to natural monopolies and government protections, but then they want to charge variable rates for connection as if they have no characteristics of a utility. It's not much different than if people who used more power got charged a higher rate by the power company. So because the providers have both free market and utility like features, it's a hard question to answer how much they should be regulated. Not surprisingly opinions tend to break down along party lines.

Actually that does happen, only in reverse. It's common for businesses that use a lot of power to negotiate a lower rate with the utility company.

But that's not a good analogy. A better one would be if the power company was allowed to make side deals with appliance manufactures for access to their electricity, or if the power company itself made appliances and charged you twice the rate for power used by competing appliances. That's the sort of thing that comcast is up to.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

You dont find it odd that only the FCC and the Obama administration are the only ones who know what makes up the 300 page bill? How can you be FOR something that you have never seen and that our government is keeping hidden from us? Does the internet really need government regulation and even more government monitoring?

Well the TS is for it because he still believes in obama and the dem rats.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Well the TS is for it because he still believes in obama and the dem rats.

I don't believe in either. I just support an open internet and the way it is now.

To change the internet to a tier based system or to prioritize traffic is absurd. Do you want Sherdog to load slower than say CNN just because they can afford to pay for faster access? Do you want to pay extra to access certain websites like Youtube?

I want to keep the internet the way it is now and while I agree on paper it looks like the government is trying to take over something else, the law is simply put in place to enforce the rules and prevent further legal issues from coming up.

That fact that we haven't seen the full legislation is indeed an issue but that's the same with every bill. There's no transparency and that's another issue entirely.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

We have shit line service in America and if we allow these monopolies to continue the price will go up while service goes way down.

 

[Hog-train]

No....that is what net neutrality means to you and some others. However, the current proposal does not cover any of the things you mentioned. Hence the reasoning behind a lot of the key groups who support"net neutrality" not supporting the vote tomorrow.

People like you are the reason why this shitty proposal will probably pass tomorrow.

Why don't you get specific and NAME things that it will change instead of some vague "No Government Regulation!!"

Name one specific thing in this proposal that you disagree with.

It's a complex issue. The GOP hates it partially because Obama supports it, but mostly because it's an instance of the government placing restrictions on how private firms can utilize their assets.

That's horseshit.

It's not a completely private asset. Those cable lines were HEAVILY Subsidized by the taxpayer and Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. still get massive tax breaks and subsidies EVERY single year.

In RETURN, they must abide by certain rules. One of which is to lay out broadband access to more rural areas. The ISP's agreed to do this and still have NOT held up their end of the bargain.

If those ISP's wanted to do what they want with their infrastructure, they should have paid for it all themselves 100%. But that's not what happened. They took huge subsidies and tax breaks and in return agreed to abide by certain rules (one of which was net neutrality)

But now they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Octavian]

Isn't the ultimate, super dangerous future implication to this the fact that an ISP could eventually just throttle your connection or charge you more for frequenting sites or engaging in activities that they don't like or support? For example, if you're on Sherdog a lot, maybe Comcast doesn't like MMA for whatever reason and uses its power to curb people's interests and activities and thus, you have trouble accessing the site regularly and/or pay a higher fee to access the site.

 

[Hog-train]

Isn't the ultimate, super dangerous future implication to this the fact that an ISP could eventually just throttle your connection or charge you more for frequenting sites or engaging in activities that they don't like or support? For example, if you're on Sherdog a lot, maybe Comcast doesn't like MMA for whatever reason and uses its power to curb people's interests and activities and thus, you have trouble accessing the site regularly and/or pay a higher fee to access the site.

The ISP's, if they got their way, will treat it just like cable.

"Oh we offer the basic internet with Youtube for $59.99 a month."

"We have basic internet with Youtube and Netflix for $69.99 a month."

Etc...

This is the kind of shit some of the conservatards are defending.