Why are Republicans against Net Neutrality?

[Jack V Savage]

Actually, its more like they have significantly faster internet but it ranks significantly lower than the US in terms of internet freedom (see the numbers compiled by freedomhouse if you're looking for a source). Now this wouldn't be such a problem is NN proponents weren't so vehemently opposed to any sort of censorship. In fact, the foundation of NN principles is to ensure a free and open internet.

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?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm replying to Lee who claimed price controls by the government will destroy the internet. I replied that S. Korea did exactly that- institute price controls and last mile unbundling. and this resulted in increased competition and lower prices/better service for consumers.

I get that. I just don't get how South Korea's censorship policies have anything at all to do with the discussion (I understand that Lee introduced them).

 

[Hog-train]

I get that. I just don't get how South Korea's censorship policies have anything at all to do with the discussion (I understand that Lee introduced them).

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?

 

[Like A Bas]

a few leaks are coming out as to what is actually in the new regulations, it looks like search engines like google are going to start filtering their results based on what the deem most trustworthy sites and not allowing what they....the government deems misinformation

who could have guessed that the fairness doctrine would make it's way into the ruling

I heard this on the radio today as far as I know they still haven't released the top secret regulations

but hey if nobodies read them it much easier to keep putting shit in it

They have outlined the regulation and it's fairly straightforward. What spooky stuff do you think is in the technical details? The claim that content would be filtered because it's not "government approved" (rather than filtering content for being illegal, which is what the regulations will allow for) sounds like some ridiculous speculation.

 

[MeatheadMike]

but if this doesn't have regulations censoring content as well as other parts of the fairness doctrine in it I'll gladly eat my words

you guys that think this was a preserving the internet or even more laughable improving the internet are some gullible peeps

A primary reason people are advocating net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from censoring content (as well as throttling it), because there have already been instances of them doing that. I do not understand why you folks who are anti-NN want to give ISPs more power when they are already guilty of the things that you guys fear the government will supposedly do.

Obviously if the bill allows the govt to censor parts of the internet, proponents of net neutrality will not support that as it goes against the concept of NN itself.

 

[second sight]

They have outlined the regulation and it's fairly straightforward. What spooky stuff do you think is in the technical details? The claim that content would be filtered because it's not "government approved" (rather than filtering content for being illegal, which is what the regulations will allow for) sounds like some ridiculous speculation.

Republican FCC commissioner, Michael O

 

[UpaLoompa]

No one disagrees that the US needs better internet service.

Seems like a lot of ISPs do indeed disagree.

 

[Like A Bas]

Republican FCC commissioner, Michael O’Rielly, warned: “When you see this document, it’s worse than you imagine.” The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.

That's a political opponent saying something ominous. It's meaningless to me because every politician says that about every single bill or regulation they don't agree with. The only thing that comes close to substantial is they claim this will mean new taxes. But they don't hint at what those might be.

 

[second sight]

A primary reason people are advocating net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from censoring content (as well as throttling it), because there have already been instances of them doing that. I do not understand why you folks who are anti-NN want to give ISPs more power when they are already guilty of the things that you guys fear the government will supposedly do.

Obviously if the bill allows the govt to censor parts of the internet, proponents of net neutrality will not support that as it goes against the concept of NN itself.

I understand what you guys think is happening, what I don't understand is why you think the same people that spent a billion dollars for a websight that didn't work are somehow the savoir of the internet. Your optimism in trusting the government isn't shared by most, my pessimism is fueled by experience.

won't support it?
it will be too late for that and there's a zero percent chance that there are monstrous overreaches in the legislation

 

[My Spot]

It's the gov't who created these monopolies to begin with. Unintended consequences and all.

 

[second sight]

That's a political opponent saying something ominous. It's meaningless to me because every politician says that about every single bill or regulation they don't agree with. The only thing that comes close to substantial is they claim this will mean new taxes. But they don't hint at what those might be.

they aren't suppose to be politicians, he's one of only a handful of people to have had access to the legislation


he voted against the FCC granting themselves this new control, think about that, an FCC commissioner voting no to a power grab his office will be in charge of

 

[Like A Bas]

they aren't suppose to be politicians, he's one of only a handful of people to have had access to the legislation

he voted against the FCC granting themselves this new control, think about that, an FCC commissioner voting no to a power grab his office will be in charge of

I think business interests behind his statements are a lot more plausible than altruism. This is not to say that the other three aren't being paid off by Google though.

 

[BVG]

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?

Canada's does...we have been screwed royal by Rogers and Bell fucking us up the ass with shit service and over pricing.

 

[second sight]

I think business interests behind his statements are a lot more plausible than altruism. This is not to say that the other three aren't being paid off by Google though.

I guess we'll find out soon enough

google was specifically mentioned with new filters for searches to weed out what they/government deems not trustworthy. welcome to the new media matters version of the internet

 

[MeatheadMike]

I understand what you guys think is happening, what I don't understand is why you think the same people that spent a billion dollars for a websight that didn't work are somehow the savoir of the internet. Your optimism in trusting the government isn't shared by most, my pessimism is fueled by experience.

I do not blindly trust the govt, nor do I blindly fear it. Just saying if you are worried about the internet being censored... in terms of govt & ISPs, I'd concerned with doing something about the entity that actually has censored parts of the internet in the past.

 

[RedRocket44]

A primary reason people are advocating net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from censoring content (as well as throttling it), because there have already been instances of them doing that. I do not understand why you folks who are anti-NN want to give ISPs more power when they are already guilty of the things that you guys fear the government will supposedly do.

Obviously if the bill allows the govt to censor parts of the internet, proponents of net neutrality will not support that as it goes against the concept of NN itself.

Exactly. When you look at who's against NN it's primarly the corporations that own the ISPs. They simply want to be able to throttle speeds back for a service like netflix to the point that it would be unusable, then have netflix pay them to have unthrottled speeds so their customers actually have a working product. In the long run I wouldn't be surprised if they win out.

I know this example is a little different, but a few decades ago you payed a flat rate for electricity, now many places charge more during peak hours, and less during off hours.

More relevant, in the dialup days and early days of cable internet there was no data limit, you didn't have to pay for an unlimited GB package... you didn't have to track your usage and worry about overage charges. Granted files weren't nearly as big back then, but a good cable connection was also only rated at 1-2mpbs, compared to the 250+ of today. Many utilities / services have become pay per use when that's not how they were originally run. I know some ISPs in Canada (probably in the US too) tried to throttle speeds a few years ago on P2P services to try and cut back on piracy.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I do not blindly trust the govt, nor do I blindly fear it. Just saying if you are worried about the internet being censored... in terms of govt & ISPs, I'd concerned with doing something about the entity that actually has censored parts of the internet in the past.

He's the same sort of guy that fears Obama will take his guns and yet voted for Romney who actually did sign legislation taking guns.

 

[second sight]

Buyer’s remorse is already setting in for Google and other ‘net neutrality’ proponents.

By
L. Gordon Crovitz

March 1, 2015 6:33 p.m. ET

When Google’s Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama ’s demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for “net neutrality” learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.

Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.

The Progressive Policy Institute said: “There is nothing progressive about the FCC backsliding to common carrier rules dating back to the 1930s.” The Internet Society, a net-neutrality advocate, said: “We are concerned with the FCC’s decision to base new rules for the modern Internet on decades-old telephone regulations designed for a very different technological era.” Former Clinton official Larry Irving wrote in the Hill: “Most of today’s proponents of a utility model for the Internet either have forgotten or never knew the genesis of the ‘regulatory restraint’ model that helped spur and continues to support Internet expansion.”

Verizon poked fun at the FCC’s retrograde move by issuing a news release in Morse code and in an old-fashioned typewriter font, dated “February 26, 1934,” the year Congress passed the Communications Act to regulate the telephone monopoly—the law the FCC is now applying to the Internet.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which supports applying the 1934 law to the Internet, nonetheless objects to a new regulation giving the FCC open-ended power to regulate the Internet. “A ‘general conduct rule,’ applied on a case-by-case basis,” the EFF wrote, “may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of ‘harm’ (for those who can afford to engage in it).”

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.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler justified Obamanet by saying the Internet is “simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee.” He got it backward: Light-handed regulation made today’s Internet possible.

What if at the beginning of the Web, Washington had opted for Obamanet instead of the open Internet? Yellow Pages publishers could have invoked “harm” and “unjust and unreasonable” competition from online telephone directories. This could have strangled Alta Vista and Excite, the early leaders in search, and relegated Google to a Stanford student project. Newspapers could have lobbied against Craigslist for depriving them of classified advertising. Encyclopedia Britannica could have lobbied against Wikipedia.

Competitors could have objected to the “fast lane” that Amazon got from Sprint at the launch of the Kindle to ensure speedy e-book downloads. The FCC could have blocked Apple from integrating Internet access into the iPhone. Activists could have objected to AOL bundling access to The Wall Street Journal in its early dial-up service.

Among the first targets of the FCC’s “unjust and unreasonable” test are mobile-phone contracts that offer unlimited video or music. Netflix , the biggest lobbyist for utility regulation, could be regulated for how it uses encryption to deliver its content.

wallstreet journal

 

[second sight]

He's the same sort of guy that fears Obama will take his guns and yet voted for Romney who actually did sign legislation taking guns.

go troll somewhere else

 

[UpaLoompa]

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.