Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans: Net Neutrality is an attack on our "basic freedoms"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Republicans: Net Neutrality is an attack on our "basic freedoms"

    Holy hell is this guy a moron. And how is this not creepy? All this Jesus **** and politicians...



    Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
    By Nate Anderson | Last updated about 5 hours ago

    The recently installed Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), has no intention of finding any compromise on network neutrality. If he can't override the new rules, he will work to defund their enforcement. And if that doesn't work, he will continue railing against a "government takeover of the Internet" in speeches until something gets done.

    Boehner gave his first speech outside of Washington DC as Speaker of the House yesterday, appearing at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville Tennessee. The speech moved quickly from a discussion of that morning's sermon text (“No man can serve two masters”) to a discussion of God's love of humility to an assertion that America was founded on said humility and that this in turn led to the freedoms that Americans enjoy.

    Those freedoms are now “under attack by power structure in Washington populated with regulators who have never set foot inside a radio station or television studio." That's right—net neutrality is Boehner's top bogeyman, reminding us just how seriously Republicans take the issue.

    The Congressional fight over net neutrality looks set to be a brutal one. From the speech:

    The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades.

    At the end of the last Congress, some members of Congress sought a compromise on net neutrality that would give Washington temporary control of the Internet while we sort this all out.

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms.

    So our new majority in the House is committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight a government takeover of the Internet…

    We're also going to do what we can to see that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund these net neutrality rules.


    In the audience was Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the member of Congress who has already introduced legislation to strip the FCC of any net neutrality powers.

    Last December, Blackburn compared the FCC to “vampires” who want nothing more than to leap onto the backs of unsuspecting American businesses and sink their fangs deep into the sweet, sweet lifeblood.

    Among her charges, Blackburn claimed that the FCC was “effectively nationalizing the Web” with its new rules. Fortunately, the Republicans were wielding the garlic and a wooden stake.

    “Industry and creative content providers who were coerced into this deal by an over zealous FCC Chairman should take heart," she wrote. "Like the breaking of dawn, the new Congress will prove a swift antidote to the federal bloodsucker you found at your throat this Christmas."

    With Boehner and Blackburn leading the charge on net neutrality, possibilities for any sort of compromise agreement appear remote. The real battle will take place in the Senate, where Democrats maintain a majority, but are not all united behind network neutrality, despite President Obama's campaign promise to support the principle.
    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

  • #2
    Can you explain what net neutrality is to me? I want to know how my freedoms are being taken away.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gribbler View Post
      Can you explain what net neutrality is to me? I want to know how my freedoms are being taken away.
      It's primarily about preventing ISPs from blocking or inhibiting lawful content from being transmitted on their network. Without net neutrality, it is legal for, say, Cox to block or severely degrade Netflix traffic to force people to use their video on demand service instead.

      In December, the FCC voted on the following principals of Network Neutrality:
      1. Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;
      2. No Blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic. This prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;
      3. Level Playing Field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;
      4. Network Management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules don't forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;
      5. Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;
      6. Vigilance: The order creates an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.[67


      The fundamental concept behind network neutrality is the internet remains a free and open place. That's why it's pretty ****ing hilarious the GOP, which is merely bowing to corporate interests, is trying to spin this as an attack on basic freedoms. Without network neutrality, the ISPs could freely censor whatever they wanted.
      "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
      Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

      Comment


      • #4
        I want to see a Republican on this forum try to defend this.

        HC, maybe?

        Comment


        • #5
          Where does the FCC get the authority to enter into this arena after a court ruling last year that stripped it of the authority to regulate the internet?
          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
            Where does the FCC get the authority to enter into this arena after a court ruling last year that stripped it of the authority to regulate the internet?
            DD, the entire point is they are trying to legislate such that FCC can enforce net neutrality. The Republicans are against it, because preventing censorship on the internet is an egregious attack on our basic freedoms.
            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

            Comment


            • #7
              Actually the point is that Congress hasn't yet acted one way or the other as far as I know and a Court stripped the agency of the authority they had been claiming. So where does the authority come from now? I actually have no real opinion on the policy of net neutrality but this seems like an interesting legal question to me.
              I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
              For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                Actually the point is that Congress hasn't yet acted one way or the other as far as I know and a Court stripped the agency of the authority they had been claiming. So where does the authority come from now? I actually have no real opinion on the policy of net neutrality but this seems like an interesting legal question to me.
                What do you not comprehend?

                The FCC voted on the principles, but they are NOT enforceable right now because no such legislation has passed. The dems wish to pass it, the republicans do not.

                There is no interesting legal question here.
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Asher View Post
                  DD, the entire point is they are trying to legislate such that FCC can enforce net neutrality. The Republicans are against it, because preventing censorship on the internet is an egregious attack on our basic freedoms.
                  How spectacularly Orwellian.
                  And indeed there will be time To wonder, "Do I dare?" and, "Do I dare?". t s eliot

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Asher View Post
                    What do you not comprehend?
                    Well it seems odd to see someone file suit challenging 'non-enforceable principles': http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2011/01/21/verizon_net_neutrality_fcc
                    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                      Well it seems odd to see someone file suit challenging 'non-enforceable principles': http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2011/01/21/verizon_net_neutrality_fcc
                      Notice the tense in the subheader?

                      How will the internet giant fare when faced with the controversial new set of regulations?
                      The FCC's three Democrats voted to adopt the rules over the opposition of the agency's two Republicans just before Christmas. Republicans in Congress, who now control the House, have vowed to try to block the rules from taking effect. They argue that they amount to unnecessary regulation that will discourage phone and cable companies from investing in their networks.
                      They are NOT in effect, thus NOT enforced.
                      "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                      Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Asher View Post
                        It's primarily about preventing ISPs from blocking or inhibiting lawful content from being transmitted on their network. Without net neutrality, it is legal for, say, Cox to block or severely degrade Netflix traffic to force people to use their video on demand service instead.

                        In December, the FCC voted on the following principals of Network Neutrality:
                        1. Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;
                        2. No Blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic. This prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;
                        3. Level Playing Field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;
                        4. Network Management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules don't forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;
                        5. Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;
                        6. Vigilance: The order creates an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.[67


                        The fundamental concept behind network neutrality is the internet remains a free and open place. That's why it's pretty ****ing hilarious the GOP, which is merely bowing to corporate interests, is trying to spin this as an attack on basic freedoms. Without network neutrality, the ISPs could freely censor whatever they wanted.
                        Have there been instances of this happening?
                        No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I really don't think net neutrality is that big an issue because it's not really the isps we have to worry about. You just have to look at Egypt and China and other countries to see who the real threat to the internet is.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The aliens?
                            “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                            "Capitalism ho!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Come on guys not everything is about aliens. The "aliens" would be way too powerful to care about whatever we're doing on our archaic internet.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X