Net Neutrality Soundly Defeated in Midterm Elections
- Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:48pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
The disapproval of Democrats‘ signature health care overhaul and handling of the economy weren’t the only issues on voters‘ minds Tuesday when they cast their ballots in this year’s midterm elections.
Before the election, 95 House and Senate candidates pledged their support for “net neutrality” — a promise to stand “against any attempt by big corporations to control the internet and eliminate the internet’s level playing field … to protect Net Neutrality for the entire internet – wired and wireless – and make sure big corporations aren’t allowed to take control of free speech online.” But during Tuesday’s wave, all 95 Democrats were defeated. Was the midterm election cycle the final nail in the coffin for net neutrality?
CNN Money wonders:
The Federal Communications Commission tried to implement Net neutrality rules but got smacked down in April by a court ruling saying it did not have the authority to do so. As a result, it is preparing a proposal asking Congress to give it new authority to regulate broadband Internet service. …
The way the FCC is considering implementing the new regulations is vehemently opposed by cable and telecom companies, as well as many Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC had planned on bringing its proposal to a vote in September, but delayed it until after the election, given the opposition. Even a more relaxed compromise bill drafted by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., failed to gain enough traction to pass.
Republican lawmakers largely oppose the idea of Net neutrality. Though a majority of Democratic lawmakers support the issue — all of the 95 candidates that said they would support Net neutrality on the left-leaning Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s website were Democrats — they have been divided on whether to pass the FCC’s proposed legislation. …
The widespread Democratic losses made an already uphill battle even tougher. More than a dozen incumbent congressmen who had voted for a similar Net neutrality bill in 2006 were voted out of office on Tuesday, most notably Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., a 28-year House veteran. Now, experts say the FCC needs to regroup and weigh its options.
“Obviously, the election results mean the FCC has to go about it alone or work out some sort of deal,” said Ron Gruia, principal consultant at Frost & Sullivan. “That’s not an easy balancing act. With change in the composition of House, the momentum for legislative change and the likelihood of changing broadband to Title II is gone.”
So while the issue of net neutrality may not be completely dead, the people have spoken and the loudest support of the FCC’s plan may just come from large internet corporations like Google rather than from members of Congress.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 560 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 380 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 380 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 302 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (58)
bry
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 8:59pmGoogle and Verizon came up with a Net Neutrality proposal. They both agree with the principle on the net, but as yet, Verizon feels they need to make an exception regarding the cell phone base. Cells just do not have the same capacity as a PC or laptop. That leaves net neutraility almost impossible on cell phones.
Report Post »The FCC, always wanting to put it’s hand in the works, tried to take over. The courts say they have no authority. FCC doesn’t like that.
I say keep the courts and government out of it and leave it to the private sector.
BitterClingerInTexas
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 8:29pmI thought the FCC was supposed to be non partisan? Whoops there I go trying to think again when it comes to government.
In the words of a gamer, FCC, you just got OWNED. Go try that crap in Venezuela.
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 8:15pmThey have no right to literally commandeer the Internet portals….
Liberals attempt to say that the gov’t owns the internet because the NFSNET was originally funded by the govt. However by 1996 MCI out of its own pocket installed the very high speed backbone and subsequently companies like Global Crossing, Cable & Wireless and countless other private enterprises superceded past lines with even higher speed infrastures… the Internet of today is nothing of what it was in the 1980s through mid-90′s.
The “portal” providers, again – private companies come off of the backbones, and through their own private capital outlays brought that internet to localities and then branch them out further…
So you ask, well then if gov’t wants a fair internet for one and all, then why not do it itself, simple answer — Some idiot in gov’t proclaimed “all data is equal” — obviously a complete technology moron because a streaming hidef video feed is quite different from some rinky-dinky text email or a simple 100K HTML webpage… to support high bandwidth chewing applications, video, keep-alive connections and such, this requires a MASSIVE outlay of additional (AND COSTLY) supporting infrastructure to implement, so yeah… the companies are going to charge more from this premium content…
Also, companies pushed back in response to the huge upsurge in peer-to-peer file transfers like bittorrent and others, I mean common, those services are primarily used for pirating, transferring huge amounts of music, videos, copyrighted programs, etc… back and forth, again chewing up enormous bandwidth…
Its like saying, well MCI built a 2 lane highway, now its all jammed up because of the enormous about of P2P and video and other premium services, its not efficient, slow and combersome… so MCI builds an 8 lane mega hiway next to it, you just have to pay an extra “$X” amount to drive on the premium hiway, after all MCI put out all that money, expense and such and needs to recoup it, plus it needs to make a profit to hire more people and eventually have more money to build a future 32 lane super-ultra-mega-mondo hiway in the future….
So if the gov’t made ALL data the same, made MCI (just using the company for reference) only charge the same amount for ANY data, whether 1k of text or 1gb of DVD video, that puts Internet portals out of business (gee, kinda like the way the gov’t is trying to put healthcare provider out of business… hmmmm, I sense a pattern here…)
So the gov‘t wants to come in and literally cease and confiscate all of this privately owned infrastructure and dictate its usage and it will put these companies right out of business since they can’t get a return on their investment by having its lines clogged up with wide open bandwidth that people can and WILL abuse to no end… those companies will collapse and close…
So back to why the gov‘t just doesn’t set up FreeForAll.Net and let everyone just merrily pay $9.99 a month for as much bandwidth as you could possible use and abuse… because they would never be able to support the infrastructure demand, bandwidth will come to a screeching halt, people will be waiting in line next to Elmo complaining how they hate buffering, FreeForAll will become the abandoned dilapitated slum of the internet (kind like public housing…) and in the end, there wont be anymore highspeed internet because all of the private commercial providers will be gone and gov‘t internet will be a sorry sad failure and then we’ll all go back to using Tin Cans and String to talk with one another…. or maybe that was the plan all along??? You never know….
Report Post »KewlBigDan
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 7:15pmIm confused with NN as everyone else I guess. I DONT want the Gov’t regulating it. OMG.
Report Post »But then I dont want big corp controlling access speeds by buying up all the bandwidth. Imagine MSNBC buying huge access rights and all the blogger websites getting 56K speeds! UGH!
phitt
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 7:12pmHey Diller,
Report Post »Internet providers are a for profit business, that exists to make shareholders happy, a fact that you seem to have forgotten as you got all fat and happy. The FCC should not be in the business of regulating the delivery of content, and they darn sure better not be in the business of regulating speech.
This is where all this idiotic crap is leading, read Fox.
heavyduty
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:50pmThey will find a way to control it if they can, because if they can‘t control it then they can’t get total control over the ones that use it. So they have to find a way to control it unless the AMERICAN PEOPLE tell them hands off.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:39pmThe thing that worries me is giving the National Command Authority (President for those not connected to the military) the authority to shut down the net in case of a “national emergency”. Most people do not know just how much of the communications in this country move long haul over the “net”. Shut it down and most long distance voice, a lot of network TV and radio feeds as well as traffic between banks and brokerage houses would stop. Taking the Net down for even a short period would cripple the country as the majority of the backup satellite channels would be overloaded and fail.
How quickly would it be possible to return to the days before reliable electronic communication? The infrastructure needed for that was dismantled nearly 100 years ago. The possibilities are to scary to think about.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 5:39pmDo any of you people even no what net neutrality is? From some of your comments, it seems like you think it’s like some kind of net version of the fairness doctrine. It has nothing to do with regulating content; it’s about guaranteeing that any site you want to visit can be accessed equally quickly and easily. Without it, communication companies could slow to point that they effectively block any site with content that they or their sponsors don’t like.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:44pmI thought I knew some of what net neutrality was, but just to be sure, I went to “Net Neutrality Pros and Cons and looked again at the commentary I had seen–please see the commentary below:
Commentary: With ‘net neutrality’ rules, the FCC would smother a growing sector
By Karen Kerrigan
Monday, November 1, 2010
There is no shortage of opinion on who is to blame for our nation’s economic woes or the glacial progress of recovery. There are, however, steps Washington can take to protect the broadband marketplace — one sector of the economy that remains relatively innovative and healthy.
The Federal Communications Commission is poised to impose new rules on the Internet using an outdated regulatory regime originally designed for the monopoly telephone system of the 1930s. Fearful of the impact that such an intrusive system would have on jobs and investment, members of Congress from both sides of the political aisle want to rein in the FCC. Seventy-four House Democrats and 171 House Republicans are on record expressing their concern about the FCC’s plan to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and impose “net neutrality” rules on the industry.
Essentially, government regulations and bureaucrats would now direct how traffic over the broadband Internet flows rather than privately managed networks — they would also dictate what type of speeds, services and prices consumers should have (one size fits all) rather than let the market and innovators determine those things.
It would be wise for Congress to pass legislation that clearly defines what the FCC can or cannot do. Without congressional action, the FCC does appear ready to slap intrusive and job-killing regulations on broadband, which will negatively impact investment and innovation in this critical sector.
Access to broadband has been a transformative development for our members, which include small-business owners in communities across the United States. The array of tools made possible through the Internet and broadband have helped countless firms grow, innovate and become more competitive.
As Evelyn Nicely, president of Springfield-based Nicely Done Kitchens, says: “Small businesses such as ours depend on every tool we can use to succeed. Undoubtedly, our strongest ally in terms of client communication, marketing, and product specifications comes from the use of broadband and the Internet. It has given us the ability to compete with anyone, even the larger and better-funded players in our industry, through our Web site and its innovative tools, which enable us to effectively market our services to the public.”
Despite this success and the fact that the FCC has not proven market failure or consumer harm in the broadband marketplace, the net neutrality lobby appears determined to advance stifling regulations.
Net neutrality rules would give the FCC new powers to micromanage the operations and pricing and service levels of the privately owned and financed broadband networks that are the physical heart of the Internet. This is a strategy for chasing away the billions of dollars that broadband network operators (principally the telecom and cable companies) plan to invest in broadband infrastructure and new technology.
Thankfully, a bipartisan majority in Congress believes it‘s a terrible idea to let three unelected FCC officials decide the fate of America’s broadband networks and jeopardize jobs and economic recovery in the process. With the national unemployment rate at 9.6 percent and an economy that remains fragile, let’s hope Congress reengages in this debate to keep net neutrality regulations as far from small business as possible.
Karen Kerrigan is president and chief executive of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), a nonpartisan advocacy and research organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 6:51pmCHET HEMPSTEAD asks, “Do any of you people even no [know] what net neutrality is?”
Yes, some of us do, others do not. Net Neutrality in a nutshell is affording equal access at the same level of service and same price for everyone. This is both government interference in free enterprise and government interference in what content which can be accessed.
You might argue tiered pricing will still be available but this is untrue. A big company employs high speed fiber optic. A small company employs slower DSL copper telephone lines. Net Neutrality legally requires the smaller company to offer fiber optic access. This is not affordable for smaller companies just starting out. Smaller companies will fail through expense of stringing fiber optic or leasing fiber optic lines from a larger company.
Problem with stringing fiber optics is a limited number of lines can be strung from pole-to-pole or underground; physical constraint. This forces small companies to lease fiber optic lines from larger companies or go out of business.
Another problem derives from shared lines. The feds will step in and declare lines “public domain” forcing bigger companies to share their lines without choice. Through sharing lines, traffic on individual lines becomes much higher. This leads to censorship.
You might argue there will no censorship. This is untrue. To compensate for higher traffic load levels, such as videos and gaming, companies will give those services low priority on routing and traffic. Video sites and gaming sites will run slower. Eventually load levels will become so high, video and gaming sites will be dropped from services. This is censorship by economic need.
Reality is the feds are attempting to take over the internet through legislation. The feds intend to dictate how servers are operated, intend to dictate service levels and intend to dictate a pricing tier. This is nothing less than the feds “nationalizing” internet services. This is the way of despots and tyrants.
Federally mandated censorship will inherently be the next step.
Here is a real life example. I operate an internet service provider here at home, purlgurl.net which is our family server. I run our own web server, email server and dns server. Ours is not a “hosted” service, our machines are right here next to my right elbow. If Net Neutrality becomes law, then the feds have authority over our home server. I have to abide by federal regulations. The feds will have authority to walk right into our home to inspect and approve, or disapprove, our home server.
Should our family refuse to allow those fed boys to come into our home, the feds will go to our trunk line server and have us cutoff from the internet. Should we allow those fed boys into our home to look at our server and we do not meet federal regulations, the feds will have us cutoff from the internet.
This is, of course, socialist tyranny. Our freedom to run an internet service provider here at home will be taken away from us by federal law.
Get the picture? Socialist tyranny in control of the internet and in control of free enterprise, like China.
This is, of course, the vision of Obama and left liberals; rendering America into a two bit Banana Republic.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
broper
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 5:20pmObama already has the power to shut down the internet in case of an emergency, but it is important to keep the tenacles of government from gaining control of day to day operations. Now that the Dems have been spanked, do not relax, what Obama hoped to do with legislation he will now do with regulation. Keep your guard up. The liberals know now that the American people are aware of what is happening, and they also know they have two years remaining to cement a new social order. Let your Senators and your Member of Congress hear from you often! I you don‘t let them know that you’re expecting decision that support people and not parties – you can add your name to the list of who to blame if they end up cramming their liberal agenda down our collective throats.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:47pm* SCREAMS *
We cannot allow the feds to take over the internet, no, no, NO!
I would literally go crazy without my daily dose of internet pornography.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
El Paco
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:39pmI thought this was a good thing back in the day, but now I know better.
Ask a ninja had it wrong.
Report Post »SHOESHINEBOY
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:36pmFCC is another Liberal Arm of the Communist Democrat left..so, it, like the EPA must be down sized…
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:29pmHands off our internet!
Report Post »Fight for America
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:03pmThe money that was supposed to support Social Security wasn’t secured. OOPs the geniuses also failed to realize that there would be more and more people getting older as life expectancy increased. AP has an article out with a title that says “Analysis: Voters to President Obama: ‘Slow down’” – who writes this “carp”? That’s not what I heard the people saying – not locally and not countrywide. Why should the PEOPLE trust anyone with the airwaves or the Internet? This is another step to making us drones.
Report Post »Will NV
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:52pmWe still have the slimy administration trying to do the same thing.
Report Post »Eliminate all Czars.
MrButcher
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:23pmit’s over…..for now.
Net Neutrality will be reborn under some other name soon. keep an eye out and crush it when it arises.
but you don’t want “corporations” running the internet in a non-competitive way either.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 4:00pmcorporations don’t run the net either…… all they do is supply access for a fee what the government was attempting was control of the information, and who get access and how much. the wanted to gain control of the fees to “regulate” the fees, but their real target is the servers that these companies have that run the internet. but the internet is not in just one building, or at one company…………..it is everywhere . i have a server , and this law would have allowed the government access to it . it is an attempt to tax the internet, control availability, and control content BAD NEWS FOR EVERYONE…..EXCEPT THE GOVERNMENT OF COURSE
Report Post »mrmikejohnson
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:21pmThere’s no limit to the amount of power democrats will try to take over your life. In San Francisco today, they banned the Happy Meal. No joke. Rather than letting individual citizens decide what foods they put in their body, a small group of people decided to make the decision for all citizens. What’s next? A ban on cookies?
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:14pmthank God the attempt to control free speech on the internet has been resisted for now…………but mark my words they will keep trying
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:05pmThis issue is kind of beyond me to understand fully. However, the goverment should stay out and the free market should be allowed to go forward. I guess I don’t care enough about this issue. I could live without using the internet if I had to. I did it before there was an internet. Yep I remember the old days, before computers.
http://www.josephfawcettart.com western artist
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:39pmLook at it this way, the internet fairly well handles most international business exchanges of ordering and selling goods and services, payments for said orders/services, and the banking on the international level. Also several people depend on the usage of internet to handle the paying of bills, to purchase, and so forth…
Bottom line of it is this, control of the information on the information super highway.
Shut that down, and people are cut off both inside and out of most communications, funds, and news, then the government can do whatever the heck they wish to do.
Nothing comes in, nothing goes out.
In the old days of warfare, this went by the name of Blockade. In peace it was called Embargo.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on November 5, 2010 at 12:12am@snowleopard. I don’t think you understand net neutrality.
Net neutrality assures we all have access to all sites on the web with the same level if access.
WITHOUT net neutrality someone CAN decide what you see and what you dont.
It is a complicated issue but I think libertarians should be FOR a neutral net.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:01pmThe net needs to stay free of influence by the Fed. All they ever need to do is find something to fear and for our greater good they will shut it down. And when I say our greater good I, of course, mean theirs.
Silversmith
Report Post »KenInIL
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 5:12pmExactly. But how to we keep them from putting the infrastructure in place to control things? I think most of it is there waiting for someone to say “Do it !!”.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:01pmThe Progressive agenda boils down to this: People who work shouldn‘t be the only one’s entitled to their money.
They won’t stop, folks. Eternal vigilance. We HAVE to make Politics a priority in our lives.
Report Post »juggernaut
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:11pmPerfectly stated
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:00pmPeople oppose it because it‘s stated goal is bogus and it’s real goal is a government run propaganda machine for the socialist movement. It also includes a nifty new entitlement program that invents a new constitutional right to internet access and requires the government to subsidize free internet access.
It’s nothing more than the internet equivalent of the “fairness doctrine”.
Report Post »love the kids
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:57pmThis is a big victory, Who decides what is neutral or not. I believe this was just going to be another big tax on middleclass to give poor free internet access anyway. It never means what it is named.
Report Post »ILFarmer
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:10pmit’s worked well this long after it was created. what’s the saying… “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:55pmThey will find some way to control the internet before long, by hook or crook. Period
Report Post »http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm
Rowgue
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:09pmOne encouraging thing is that a court finally had the common sense to say that a government agency doesn’t have cart blanche to regulate as they see fit regardless of laws in place or the lack thereof.
For too long the government has been pulling this crap and it’s been both parties. They can’t get laws passed legitimately through congress, so instead they create an agency or a xxxx czar. These new agencies and czars pretend that they have the authority to envoke and enforce new regulations as they see fit without any constitutional process.
Report Post »john seven eighteen
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:11pmOf course they will, their Socialist Agenda dictates as much. Remember the Fairness Act? The liberal talk shows couldn’t attract any listeners so they wanted to pass a law where all radio stations would have to air both liberal and conservative talk shows. That sounds pretty fair, right? Riiiiggghhhttt!
Report Post »HKS
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:17pmAgree, get ready for a fight.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:34pm@HKS
Fight is already on, and the first feints have been done. The hard knock-down, no-holds brawl is now going to occur while all sides prepare to engage with blood in their eyes and bared nails ready. It is not going to be pretty.
@Rowgue
Hope you are indeed right and that common sense with true interest in justice is returning to the courts of the land. It will only take one activist judge to foul up everything. We have seen this in just the past couple of months with the dont ask dont tell (initial ruling), and the 9th court of appeals in regards to several matters of AZ voter laws.
Also do not forget we now have two radicals appointed by Warlord Obama-san to the Supreme Court.
Report Post »Diamondback
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 7:41pmThat‘s what I’ve been saying. We really need to SHINE THE LIGHT on the CZARS and what they‘re doing behind the scenes like Mark Lloyd at the FCC and Cass Sunstein the Regulatory CZAR and others that we probably don’t even know about.
The statement Obamao made on Stewart’s show that “we‘ve done things people don’t even know about” has really bothered me and pemeated my every waking moment (I don’t sleep very well these days with the knowledge that there ARE, IN FACT, numerous COMMUNIST OPERATIVES in the Obamao Administration working diligently to subvert our Constitution, liberties and Republic.
We need to INSIST that they be removed and if they aren’t, WE THE PEOPLE, should remove them by any means necessary. AND, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT TWO MORE YEARS!!!
Just sayin’
Report Post »ILFarmer
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:53pmoh thank God. If the government managed to get a foothold in controlling the internet in the US, it’d be over. As bad or worse than the Chinese control in that country.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 2:58pmGood! They need to keep their stinky fingers off of the internet.
Report Post »brownjug
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:06pmLarge government wants to control everything. Keep all government entities out of our business. This administration will not be able to get their hands on the internet through public debate. They must keep it out of public debate and ram it down our throats like everything else. To protect freedom, we must oppose all attempts to destroy freedom. Smaller government, please. This administration wants to destroy freedom.
Report Post »CALL ME SNAKE
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:26pmA battle is won, but the war will go one. Keep your eyes open. One can already say whatever they to on the internet, net neutrality is actually the opposite of that. It should be called “net neutering”.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:35pmWas there not legislation passed a few weeks ago that allows Obama to shut down the internet in case of an ‘emergency’ happens?
Report Post »RAISINGCONSERVATIVES
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:42pmWe need to make sure that the FCC is not allowed to do this. The House changing over was a start, but as the voters we need to stay vigilant.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590506,00.html
http://nointernettakeover.com/
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 3:46pmNet Neutrality sounds like the Federal Reserve. It is not Federal and there are no reserves, just IOU’s. Once they get ahold of the Net they will gain control to do state propoganda and charge you for it?
Report Post »Diamondback
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 7:37pmYou got that right Snake, since I‘ve gotten into the politics thing here lately I’ve come to realize that virtually every piece of legislation passed by our criminal Congress has a title that represents the exact opposite of what it really does. For instance, “The Patriot Act”! THE PATRIOT ACT are you KIDDING ME? It’s nothing close to patriotic unless you consider giving up rights, especially Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, for “a bit of temporary safety” (or more accurately ‘perceived’ safety) as being patriotic. That is an evil piece of legislation and is as deserving of repeal as the Obamaocare bill!
It’s way past time that members of Congress, PAST and present, that supported such egregious legislation against the liberty of Americans should be drug from their offices and, as a minimum, tarred, feathered and beaten with a bat for their crimes against the American people’s liberties!
Yes, I’m mad as hell!!!
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 8:32pm@ Beckofile, did you watch that Bill Stills “Money Master” ?? Just curious, I couldn’t remember if I posted it on your file once or saw you post it and watched the Documentary.. Maybe neither.. Regardless, I agree with you 100%, this sounds like the Fed’s. They have to hate the internet. THis has finally given the people a free voice, one that they can‘t filter where we can share idea’s… The Fed’s have dominated the Media since WWI, and even prior. The internet will be the fall of the Feds.
Report Post »@KEWLBIGDAN – Trust me, the private industry will make sure that we have a good product that is customer oriented, otherwise, somebody else will move in and offer a product to compete… If they kill broadband or dominate, some new technoogy will come up to crack the market…. The government and the Feds are always use fear to grab ahold of control of the people. Just as they stopped allowing happy meals to no longer be served with a cheesburger and fries because it is unhealthy to children, can you imagine what they are going to allow and not allow once they have governance over it ?? Yeah, I know you think if the government regulates it, the evil big bussiness, will monopolize it and control it, but what you are missing is the forces who control the politicians. Their agenda is one world government, one world currency, with all the power and money being in only a few hands.. That is scary and certainly one I would never want to be a part of….MSNBC and NBC are the FED’s… SO they will do exactly what you are afraid will happen if we give the government the power to regulate… I know it’s confusing, but if you watch “MOney Masters”, a 22 part Documentary on YouTube, you will understand… The guy who made them is Bill Still… I will post a link for you below..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YQxKc6Kf4U
jzs
Posted on November 4, 2010 at 11:08pmThe objections to net neutrality here clearly show every body here is “unclear on the concept” and simply go along with whatever you hear even, or especially when, you don’t understand the subject. Here’s a definition and a link to more information:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=3Ss&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:Net+neutrality&sa=X&ei=8HDTTNOGH4OBlAfw_fWoBQ&ved=0CBQQkAE
Right now we have net neutrality. You can access any site of the web: the good, the informative, the bad, ugly and awful. China and Iran, for example, have the opposite of net neutrality. In those countries your access to website is restricted to those they will you to see, and anything else you cannot access. They don’t have a First Amendment in those countries.
This proposed legislation is to prevent your service provider (AT&T, AOL, whomever) from restricting what you can see, in order to improve their profits. If the make a deal with Microsoft and their Bing search engine, they could prevent you from using Google. If they don’t like Glen Beck, they could prevent you from accessing this website, or charge you extra if you do.
Not having net neutrality allows the service companies to tell you what sites you can access, and then charge you extra if you want to visit those sites. If you support big business at whatever the price to you (which many here do), then cheer. Otherwise, ask yourself why someone can tell you what websites you can and can’t visit. Like China.
Report Post »rebel
Posted on November 5, 2010 at 6:16amboooo there goes keith olbermann writing for this blog!
Report Post »