Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 233

Thread: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

  1. #91
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post


    I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. A city with 40,000 residents is not going to have the resources, experience, know-how, or weight to make a big cable company do anything.

    The ISPs would also crap a brick at the mere idea of negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, even if they got their way most of the time.

    Next...?

    There's no way it's going to work. So let's just skip it, and have the FCC do what it's supposed to do.
    The ISPs are already negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, for access to those markets, especially if they are also providing TV service.

    Objection noted, and recorded as irrelevant. The follow up is that these municipalities does in fact have quite a bit of leverage over the ISPs / CableCos. If the ISP or CableCo gets kicked out of that market, they've lost. Enough people complain to the municipality, that's exactly what'll happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    They're basically letting ICAAN do the work, and reserving the ability to step in if it's ever necessary.

    More importantly is that the government has been involved with regulating and managing the Internet since before day 1, and doing so does not necessarily result in "overreach."

    OK, but what does that have to do with the Fairness Doctrine or Net Neutrality?

    The Fairness Doctrine basically just meant that broadcasters had to set aside some time for political topics, much in the same way they were required to set aside some time for children's programming. It did not require any broadcasters to carry material by Air America.

    Please. It did as much to ensure conservative voices as it did liberal ones.

    When broadcasting was a scarce resource, it made more sense. Now that there are substantially more channels for discussion and distribution, it isn't really necessary anymore.

    Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

    Oh, and "equal mention" (i.e. Equal Time rule) is not the same thing as the FD, and also has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

    NN has nothing to do whatsoever with political content. Nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. All it's about is ensuring that ISPs act like utilities, and treat all the data that crosses their lines as equal.
    Right now, it doesn't anything to do with content. If the government gets involved, how long is that going to remain true? Since when does government intervention stay put at any level? It expands over time. It always does, and it always has. I can see it now, the government will mandate that NAMBLA's web pages take priority over every other web page, as they are a protected class.

    No, Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the Fairness doctrine, except that you are trusting the same government agency that came up with the Fairness Doctrine with your precious Net Neutrality. Frankly, they've not earned that trust, at least not from me.

    The development of the Internet was in fact funded by the government, research by the DoD / DARPA, but by and large, the government has kept it's fingers off of it, and that's probably why it's doing as well as it has been. I'd much rather keep it that way.

    Besides, the temporary traffic issue that causes all this concern has been resolved, as they all will be, because too much of a stand off that goes on too long will damage both businesses, and they know it.

    No, we really don't need the federal government, or a federal government agency involved in how an ISP handles it's network traffic. That's just ridiculous.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  2. #92
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    The ISPs are already negotiating with 10,000 municipalities...
    Yes, for things like right of way, not dealing with content providers or backend infrastructure. Oh, and that's only in municipalities they care to deal with; they haven't shown much interest in servicing rural communities. Except of course when compelled to and/or subsidized by, wait for it! state and federal governments. (And even they have a tough time compelling broadband providers to offer service in rural areas.)

    And how would this work, exactly? Would a small city be empowered to rip out fiber if Verizon throttled Facebook, or a small VOD provider? Are hundreds of municipalities going to police Verizon's FIOS network? What if a city decides that it doesn't want its residents to watch Internet porn? Or wants to censor a local news site that's critical of the municipality?


    Right now, it doesn't anything to do with content. If the government gets involved, how long is that going to remain true?
    Government has been involved, since before Day 1.

    They've been legislating the Internet and related technologies for years -- including child pornography, copyright violations, banking, gambling, illegal drug sales, the tax status of Bitcoin, privacy and so on. It hasn't resulted in them legislating the political viewpoints of any websites.

    And of course, if we take your position seriously, then it's only a matter of time before the FCC sets up the Great Firewall of the United States. Or perhaps you think that the public can stop government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies, but can't stop the government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies?


    Since when does government intervention stay put at any level?
    I listed a bunch of examples. The FCC also clearly is not on an inexorable path to widespread censorship. In fact, since you missed it, they were actually required to step back from policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Or perhaps, in your mind, that is somehow an increase of intervention...?

    We should also note that government isn't the only entity here that, as a matter of course, wants to expand and seize more power. Corporations do the exact same thing, and without government oversight they have no accountability, and little motivation to do anything other than maximize profits and their grip on vendors, providers and customers alike.

    No, government does not perpetually "overreach." What government does is add accountability, oversight and protection. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And it's pretty obvious that we cannot trust corporations any more or less than we can government.


    I can see it now, the government will mandate that NAMBLA's web pages take priority over every other web page, as they are a protected class.
    Thank you for the patently ridiculous, and hysterically hysterical, hypothetical scare tactic.

    And again, if this is your argument, then why isn't government control of media inevitable? Why would the FCC stop if the public pushed back against net neutrality? Won't they just come up with some other devious way to regulate our thoughts and keystrokes? Why aren't we already a totalitarian state with government control of all media? After all, the FCC has been in operation for 80 years.


    No, Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the Fairness doctrine, except that you are trusting the same government agency that came up with the Fairness Doctrine with your precious Net Neutrality. Frankly, they've not earned that trust, at least not from me.
    Odd, it sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption that "government is evil," without actually proving it -- as well as presuming that corporations are somehow benevolent and never abuse their influence or status.

    By the way, you also haven't actually shown (let alone proven) that the Fairness Doctrine was a horrible policy that brought about the Destruction of Democracy As We Know It.


    The development of the Internet was in fact funded by the government, research by the DoD / DARPA, but by and large, the government has kept it's fingers off of it....
    lol

    Yeah. Except for managing the basic infrastructure, legislating it on a regular basis, getting involved in national sales tax discussions....


    Besides, the temporary traffic issue that causes all this concern has been resolved....
    How? By Comcast strangling Netflix, until they gave in and ponied up who knows how much? By Comcast buying out Time Warner?

  3. #93
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,792

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down. On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

    What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

    Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete. The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.
    Its not about ISP's not wanting to expand capacity for Netflix... it's about Netflix being a competitor to their other sides of their businesses. Broadband ISPs are by far controlled by cable companies. They are not only ISP's but also content providers especially with regards to video (i.e. tv and movies). They want to kill net neutrality because they want to be able to throttle sites like Netflix while smoothly streaming their own video content.

    IMO the best regulation for the internet would be to put a massive broad line between a carrier and a provider. The carrier who brings the internet to your house physically can not be an ISP provider. Then the carrier would rent space on it's network to any provider which would give you, the customer, a zillion choices in ISP's and give massive rise to the ISP competition out there.

    Where we are at now is carriers are the ISP's and also content providers who are buying your congressmen's favor to cement the monopoly with the destruction of net neutrality. This regulation I'm speaking of would destroy that monopolization once and for all and give you some actual choice and the competition would drive down the prices.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  4. #94
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, for things like right of way, not dealing with content providers or backend infrastructure. Oh, and that's only in municipalities they care to deal with; they haven't shown much interest in servicing rural communities. Except of course when compelled to and/or subsidized by, wait for it! state and federal governments. (And even they have a tough time compelling broadband providers to offer service in rural areas.)

    And how would this work, exactly? Would a small city be empowered to rip out fiber if Verizon throttled Facebook, or a small VOD provider? Are hundreds of municipalities going to police Verizon's FIOS network? What if a city decides that it doesn't want its residents to watch Internet porn? Or wants to censor a local news site that's critical of the municipality?



    Government has been involved, since before Day 1.

    They've been legislating the Internet and related technologies for years -- including child pornography, copyright violations, banking, gambling, illegal drug sales, the tax status of Bitcoin, privacy and so on. It hasn't resulted in them legislating the political viewpoints of any websites.

    And of course, if we take your position seriously, then it's only a matter of time before the FCC sets up the Great Firewall of the United States. Or perhaps you think that the public can stop government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies, but can't stop the government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies?



    I listed a bunch of examples. The FCC also clearly is not on an inexorable path to widespread censorship. In fact, since you missed it, they were actually required to step back from policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Or perhaps, in your mind, that is somehow an increase of intervention...?

    We should also note that government isn't the only entity here that, as a matter of course, wants to expand and seize more power. Corporations do the exact same thing, and without government oversight they have no accountability, and little motivation to do anything other than maximize profits and their grip on vendors, providers and customers alike.

    No, government does not perpetually "overreach." What government does is add accountability, oversight and protection. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And it's pretty obvious that we cannot trust corporations any more or less than we can government.



    Thank you for the patently ridiculous, and hysterically hysterical, hypothetical scare tactic.

    And again, if this is your argument, then why isn't government control of media inevitable? Why would the FCC stop if the public pushed back against net neutrality? Won't they just come up with some other devious way to regulate our thoughts and keystrokes? Why aren't we already a totalitarian state with government control of all media? After all, the FCC has been in operation for 80 years.



    Odd, it sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption that "government is evil," without actually proving it -- as well as presuming that corporations are somehow benevolent and never abuse their influence or status.

    By the way, you also haven't actually shown (let alone proven) that the Fairness Doctrine was a horrible policy that brought about the Destruction of Democracy As We Know It.



    lol

    Yeah. Except for managing the basic infrastructure, legislating it on a regular basis, getting involved in national sales tax discussions....



    How? By Comcast strangling Netflix, until they gave in and ponied up who knows how much? By Comcast buying out Time Warner?
    So there's no instance where greater government involved isn't a good thing? is that it?

    I suppose that may be more the case if you trust government, if they don't call you stupid, if they don't lie to you to pass questionable legislation. Oh wait. We can't count on that anymore, can we? I believe your trust in government is misplaced.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  5. #95
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    So there's no instance where greater government involved isn't a good thing? is that it?

    I suppose that may be more the case if you trust government, if they don't call you stupid, if they don't lie to you to pass questionable legislation. Oh wait. We can't count on that anymore, can we? I believe your trust in government is misplaced.
    This poll doesn't deal with trust, but confidence is close.

    Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of U.S. Gov't

    Now this one deals with trust:

    Trust in Government | Gallup Historical Trends
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  6. #96
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, for things like right of way, not dealing with content providers or backend infrastructure. Oh, and that's only in municipalities they care to deal with; they haven't shown much interest in servicing rural communities. Except of course when compelled to and/or subsidized by, wait for it! state and federal governments. (And even they have a tough time compelling broadband providers to offer service in rural areas.)

    And how would this work, exactly? Would a small city be empowered to rip out fiber if Verizon throttled Facebook, or a small VOD provider? Are hundreds of municipalities going to police Verizon's FIOS network? What if a city decides that it doesn't want its residents to watch Internet porn? Or wants to censor a local news site that's critical of the municipality?



    Government has been involved, since before Day 1.

    They've been legislating the Internet and related technologies for years -- including child pornography, copyright violations, banking, gambling, illegal drug sales, the tax status of Bitcoin, privacy and so on. It hasn't resulted in them legislating the political viewpoints of any websites.
    The government funded the development of the Internet technologies, and then kept it's hands off it. They have just barely managed to get Internet based sales taxed, and not much further. All of the things that you mention are ancillary to the core issue here, which is the delivery, or lack there of, of content, which really is something that the government should keep out of, and let the private sector handle it. It's been doing pretty well so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    And of course, if we take your position seriously, then it's only a matter of time before the FCC sets up the Great Firewall of the United States. Or perhaps you think that the public can stop government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies, but can't stop the government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies?



    I listed a bunch of examples. The FCC also clearly is not on an inexorable path to widespread censorship. In fact, since you missed it, they were actually required to step back from policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Or perhaps, in your mind, that is somehow an increase of intervention...?

    We should also note that government isn't the only entity here that, as a matter of course, wants to expand and seize more power. Corporations do the exact same thing, and without government oversight they have no accountability, and little motivation to do anything other than maximize profits and their grip on vendors, providers and customers alike.

    No, government does not perpetually "overreach." What government does is add accountability, oversight and protection. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And it's pretty obvious that we cannot trust corporations any more or less than we can government.
    Well at least we can agree on that point, but between the two, let me choose between businesses I deal with. No such choice with government, so much more limited government's involvement the better, if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Thank you for the patently ridiculous, and hysterically hysterical, hypothetical scare tactic.

    And again, if this is your argument, then why isn't government control of media inevitable? Why would the FCC stop if the public pushed back against net neutrality? Won't they just come up with some other devious way to regulate our thoughts and keystrokes? Why aren't we already a totalitarian state with government control of all media? After all, the FCC has been in operation for 80 years.



    Odd, it sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption that "government is evil," without actually proving it -- as well as presuming that corporations are somehow benevolent and never abuse their influence or status.

    By the way, you also haven't actually shown (let alone proven) that the Fairness Doctrine was a horrible policy that brought about the Destruction of Democracy As We Know It.
    The fairness doctrine was pushing onto the market what the market didn't want, distorting the market. Something that the government shouldn't be doing, but yet does far, far, far too often on nearly every front and impacting every industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    lol

    Yeah. Except for managing the basic infrastructure, legislating it on a regular basis, getting involved in national sales tax discussions....



    How? By Comcast strangling Netflix, until they gave in and ponied up who knows how much? By Comcast buying out Time Warner?
    Until we know the details of the business deal that resolved the conflict we don't know anything, let along even IF someone strangled someone else or even if someone caved in or not. The end result was posted in the graph earlier, the content was delivered to the end users. Problem solved, and it didn't take government involvement. Must eat you up alive that it didn't.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  7. #97
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Its not about ISP's not wanting to expand capacity for Netflix... it's about Netflix being a competitor to their other sides of their businesses. Broadband ISPs are by far controlled by cable companies. They are not only ISP's but also content providers especially with regards to video (i.e. tv and movies). They want to kill net neutrality because they want to be able to throttle sites like Netflix while smoothly streaming their own video content.
    I know it is, and that alone should be illegal... it is in Europe. It is called anti-competitive behavior.

    IMO the best regulation for the internet would be to put a massive broad line between a carrier and a provider. The carrier who brings the internet to your house physically can not be an ISP provider. Then the carrier would rent space on it's network to any provider which would give you, the customer, a zillion choices in ISP's and give massive rise to the ISP competition out there.
    No the best way, would to split ISP from content providers (you actually use to have that rule as far as I remember), and put in place rules that force ISP providers to rent out capacity to anyone willing to buy it and set up a competing company. This is what we did in Europe, because that the whole infrastructure was paid by the tax payer in the first place. The old monopoly companies (AT&T in the US) were privatized and given 100 year maintenance contracts on the network and the job of expanding it. The infrastructure would still be "owned" by the state/people. This way we went from 1 company delivering phone services (and later internet) to dozens in under a decade. Competition is good, it has brought down prices considerably.. far far under what the average American pays and often for much more.
    PeteEU

  8. #98
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,891
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    Of course they will. The government will use taxes, fees and regulations to create the outcome they want all in the name of fairness as they see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    We don't know how they will regulate the internet. It is still up for debate and they haven't ruled. Everything here is a what if.
    If there is net neutrality, no one will be able to cuss on the internet until after 9pm local time because the govt is going to "control" the internet exactly the same way that they "control" our TV programming.

    Sorry I got so confused there guys.
    I ****ed up and read some stuff about this issue before it became political.
    I see now I was too dumb to figure out what to think on my own.
    Glad I woke up and saw the light.
    Thank God for politicians to explain technical ****.
    Where would we be without politicians to explain **** like computer networking, science and other technical **** like that?
    Politicians are all ****ing experts on this sort of technical ****.

    Previously, I had believed **** I read in technical sites and crap like that.
    But now that Boehner has explained that net neutrality would let the Islamo-atheistic socialists control my porn supply intarwebz I see that net neutrality os another government sponsored boogey man. Sheesh. Sometimes I am soooo dumb.
    I actually thought that companies with virtual monopolies could not be trusted.
    duh.

    Obviously they're trustable. How else would they have ended up with virtual monopolies?
    The only way to make money is through moral purity and sterling character.
    So, obviously the ISPs only want what is best for us.

    Like Pharoah's heart, I am obdurate sometimes.

    Thank God for the ****ing politicians who are here to help us see the light.


    or not w/e
    I may be wrong.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    So there's no instance where greater government involved isn't a good thing? is that it?
    I never said there is NO instance of overreach. In fact, I would say that the statements "government never overreaches" and "government always overreaches" are both incorrect. Nor am I recommending blind faith in government.

    My point is that we can rely on government to perform some types of regulation and oversight, and that we routinely benefit from such regulations.

    In addition, your assertion of an inexorable slippery slope doesn't make sense. If it were true, then why isn't the Internet already heavily censored? If the answer is "the people won't allow it," then why doesn't that same force apply to keeping regulations in check and functional?

    As such, I find it amusing that your answer to government overreach is... to put a different government organization (the municipalities) in charge of an interstate commerce issue like net neutrality.

    I also find it downright bizarre that you categorically refuse to trust government, let alone a specific branch that seems to have a pretty good record of not overreaching for 80 years, yet you do seem to blindly trust corporations -- who exhibit the same exact tendencies (including consolidation and control), are far less transparent, and are powerfully motivated to put profits over people.


    I suppose that may be more the case if you trust government, if they don't call you stupid, if they don't lie to you to pass questionable legislation. Oh wait. We can't count on that anymore, can we? I believe your trust in government is misplaced.
    So let me get this straight. Because one government bureaucrat insulted the voters, government can never be trusted? Because politicians occasionally lie -- as does every other human being on the planet -- we can't trust a government? Perhaps shouldn't have a government at all.

    The smart approach, as held by the founders of this nation, are that we shouldn't trust government, but we need it anyway. The best possible option given those constraints is just to keep an eye on government, and demand as much transparency as possible.

    In other words: You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're tossing out an important proposed legislation because of a hysterical fear that the government is going to do something that, per your own beliefs, it will inevitably do anyway.

    Do you see why that isn't a terribly persuasive claim...?

  10. #100
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    I never said there is NO instance of overreach. In fact, I would say that the statements "government never overreaches" and "government always overreaches" are both incorrect. Nor am I recommending blind faith in government.

    My point is that we can rely on government to perform some types of regulation and oversight, and that we routinely benefit from such regulations.

    In addition, your assertion of an inexorable slippery slope doesn't make sense. If it were true, then why isn't the Internet already heavily censored? If the answer is "the people won't allow it," then why doesn't that same force apply to keeping regulations in check and functional?

    As such, I find it amusing that your answer to government overreach is... to put a different government organization (the municipalities) in charge of an interstate commerce issue like net neutrality.

    I also find it downright bizarre that you categorically refuse to trust government, let alone a specific branch that seems to have a pretty good record of not overreaching for 80 years, yet you do seem to blindly trust corporations -- who exhibit the same exact tendencies (including consolidation and control), are far less transparent, and are powerfully motivated to put profits over people.



    So let me get this straight. Because one government bureaucrat insulted the voters, government can never be trusted? Because politicians occasionally lie -- as does every other human being on the planet -- we can't trust a government? Perhaps shouldn't have a government at all.

    The smart approach, as held by the founders of this nation, are that we shouldn't trust government, but we need it anyway. The best possible option given those constraints is just to keep an eye on government, and demand as much transparency as possible.

    In other words: You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're tossing out an important proposed legislation because of a hysterical fear that the government is going to do something that, per your own beliefs, it will inevitably do anyway.

    Do you see why that isn't a terribly persuasive claim...?
    we shouldn't trust government, but we need it anyway
    That is excellent!

Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •