This is corkscrew "reasoning" to me; do they really want to put Verizon/Google in charge of the internet??? Isn't that directly AGAINT freedom of speech..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tea Party v. Net Neutrality

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Saturday, August 14, 2010 14:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 528
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


This is corkscrew "reasoning" to me; do they really want to put Verizon/Google in charge of the internet??? Isn't that directly AGAINT freedom of speech, which they're so in favor of?? How do they turn this into a government conspiracy?
Quote:

Following the release of Google and Verizon's controversial proposal on managing Internet traffic, which comes less than a week after the FCC abandoned efforts at a hammering out a compromise, Tea Party groups have taken a strong stance on the issue of net neutrality.

Specifically, they're against it. The head of one Tea Party organization says she is concerned that the policy would increase government regulation and power, calling net neutrality one of many "assaults on individual liberties."

Chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation Jamie Radtke told The Hill the tea party has been increasingly concerned with the issue of net neutrality. "It's starting to get onto the radar now," she said. "I think the clearest thing is it's an affront to free speech and free markets."

It seems to me turning it over to private enterprise is what would be an assault on individual liberty; they want to pay for the use of the internet, to two already-huge conglomerates. Wouldn't that make them a monopoly in some ways?? Oh, or is the Tea Party in favor of monopolies, as long as they're not GOVERNMENT monopolies?

Another who feels like I do:
Quote:

Why does the Tea Party hate Net Neutrality? “I think the clearest thing is it’s an affront to free speech and free markets.” Thus spoke Jaime Radtke, chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation. Net Neutrality is an affront to free speech? Did I wake up in Bizarro World?

I don’t see how defending the interests of Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast (and other ISPs, of course) does us, the consumers, any good whatsoever. Perhaps these people have never tried to download a World of Warcraft patch using BitTorrrent with an ISP that throttles traffic?

Whose free speech is impacted there? Is the ISP “free” to throttle that traffic for whatever reason it wants to invent? Is Blizzard “free” to make available vital patches via the Internet, and to expect that you’ll be able to download it without interference from your ISP? Are you “free” to download said patch, or do your wishes play not part in any of this?

I can almost see where the Tea Party is coming from with respect to seeing the FCC’s regulatory powers increase. The Tea Party is generally anti-regulation, which is fine, so coming out against another regulatory agency makes sense from that perspective.

But really, to expect the ISPs to do “right” by you is laughable. If it could, Comcast and the nation’s ISPs would offer 1 mbps (down, mind you) and call that SUPER FAST INTERNET, then charge you $100 per month for the privilege of using it.

Again, if you want to oppose Net Neutrality, fine, go ahead. You’re wrong, but such is your right. But to oppose Net Neutrality in order to defend the free speech of ISPs is pretty laughable.

The way I see it is more like
Quote:

Both parties announced, a few moments ago, the creation of a codified framework that they will submit to lawmakers in hopes of being enshrined into law. Many of the ideas are fairly benign, such as giving the FCC power to regulate the Internet a little more forcefully.

The framework includes seven main points: supporting the FCC’s openness guidelines; steps should be taken to prevent a so-called “tiered” Internet from arising on current Internet infrastructure; ISPs should be upfront to its customers how they handle their data (see Comcast’s constant struggle with BitTorrent traffic); making the FCC the sole arbiter when it comes to regulating the Internet; giving ISPs the power to offer “additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s FIOS TV) offered today”; the wholesale exemption of wireless broadband from any of these proposals or ideas; and to promote the idea that broadband access for all Americans is in the “national interest.”

Two of the five deserve a closer look: points five and six, those dealing with “additional, differentiated online services” and wireless broadband access.

To me, point five seems like carte blanche for the creation almost of a second Internet. The Internet you know and love, the one that has worked fairly well so far, will remain in palce, but ISPs will be allowed to offer “additional, differentiated online services” as they see fit.

So, you can subscribe to the ISP of your choice—provided you even have a choice, since it’s not unusual to see towns and cities with only one viable broadband provider—and be able to access the Internet as you do today. But, in addition to that, and destroying the very idea of an open Internet, ISPs will be able to offer, say, an “Internet Plus” option.

Imagine this pitch:

“Why settle for “just” the Internet when you can have Internet Plus? We’ve partnered with Company A and Company B to give you exclusive access to Web site 1 or Service 2? Sign up now today! Plus, experience lag-free gaming with our new GameZone+ feature!”

It’s the fracturing of the Internet before your very eyes.

And what about wireless broadband? You’ll notice that it was explicitly excluded from all of Google and Verizon’s noble talk of “empowering” consumers.

Is it too far-fetched to imagine a scenario where your wireless provider dictates what Web sites you can and cannot visit, or what applications you can and cannot download? (AT&T is already notorious for constraining what Apps make it onto the Apple’s App Store.) Should the proposals make their way into way—and you can bet Google and Verizon will be spending millions of dollars buttering up Congress to get their way, which is just depressing when you think about it—there would be nothing to stop them from doing so.

It’s particularly egregious when you entertain the idea that the mobile Internet will be “the future” of Internet access.

Yeah, it was fun for a while, but this does seem to be the beginning of the end of the Internet as we know it.

I don't fully understand this issue, so can anyone help me understand why the Tea Partiers hate net neutrality so much?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:23 PM

SERGEANTX


A lot of people believe that the biggest reason the internet is currently a bastion for free speech is because governments haven't yet been able to control it. And they see Net Neutrality as a trojan horse to usher in just such control.

I don't know all that much about it either, but we could probably educate ourselves on, the internet!


The wikipedia page is probably a good place to start.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Funny, but government actually invented it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:14 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

The proposal does not currently protect everyone's equal access to the internet. It must be improved.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, see, I remember certain broadband providers getting a LOT of government money, grants, materials, support, and a very light hand on oversight to reduce red tape - under the explicit agreement they would SHARE those pipelines, an agreement they reneged on and thanks to a few political contributions, never got called on whatever.

After that particular debacle, the big media giants saying "no, we'll behave, really, trust us *chortle-chortle*, no, seriously, we really mean it this time...."

HELL no, not after all the bullshit they've pulled, don't even get me STARTED about Comcast - do you know they have to build their service centers here like bank vaults to protect the employees cause they are THAT HATED, due to exploitive monopoly business practices in part assisted by getting damn near free infrastructure on the taxpayers dime and then refusing to share as promised, plus acts of sabotage, bribery, and outright malice, particularly against Farmington.

Hell, when the mayor of Farmington told them to piss up a rope when the demanded a legally codified monopoly, they DEMANDED a recall vote in a full page ad in the local papers, along with vague threats, and when the population would not go along with it (fuck the democratic process, Comcast doesn't even pretend) they retaliated with "maintainence" outages that were really just withholding service THAT PEOPLE PAID FOR, out of sheer vindictiveness.

It got SO bad that people were simply dumping internet altogether, or going back to fucking DIALUP (which, thanks to lies and halfassery, is often more than a match for Comcasts vaunted top-tier service, since it's shared bandwidth and they oversell it, so unless you are by some miracle the only one alive, you will NEVER see the advertised bandwidth) rather than have to put up with Comcast and their bullshit - oh, and of COURSE they still got the bills for months and months even though they cancelled, a trick Comcast stole from AOL, also notorious for it.

In fact, they actually started turning around their customer service and hiring real techs instead of customer-pacification drones cause they were not only starting to lose money due to lack of business, monopoly or not, but because people started retaliating by sabotaging ANYTHING that belonged to Comcast whatsoever, not even anything organized, they're just hated THAT bad for their conduct.

And the spying, like the fucking Trojans TGSHELL.EXE and TGCMD.EXE where one calls the other and they send a copy of EVERYWHERE YOU HAVE BEEN ONLINE back to Comcast at 3:40am EST, all stealthy so you don't notice - and how their bloatware keeps a cache of all your address books and browsing history for months on your machine and shares open that directory with Comcast, mind you, we *CAUGHT* them doing this, mind you.
(Both are part of a package called Tioga intended for tech support use, but that was NOT what Comcast was using it for)
http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist_t.htm
http://www.betanews.com/article/Update-Comcast-Stops-Spying-on-Subscri
bers/1013585153


Mind you, there was never any follow up, everyone just took their word for it back in 2002, and it came back around in 2003, and in 2005...

This isn't the HALF of the dirt I got on em, just the publicly known stuff, seriously, they're slimy as hell in every way possible.

So you can IMAGINE what my response is to the entire concept of "Trust us, we'll be good, we promise..."

How many abuses, how many lies, ripoffs, broken deals, is it going to take before the public accepts that they CAN NOT BE TRUSTED ?

So, while I do mildly begrudge the tax dollars it'd cost to set up and pay them, I am certainly all for the idea of a Government regulator with a fucking proctoscope jammed up the colon of Comcast every second of every day, forever and ever, oh hell yes.

I figure we owe em that for TGSHELL alone, not to mention everything else, see how THEY like it - the same way we turn cameras on the badge bearing horde, it's long past time we turned all those regs and laws against the corpies and fucking strangled them with the damn things.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL