Wonder if anyone's found anything to object to yet.


According to Time Magazine Republicans oppose Net Neutrality, but when it's explained to them (without the words net neutrality) they support it fairly overwhelmingly.

There's nothing wrong with net neutrality as it's written and proposed. The issue if any would be on its implementation and abuse by federal agencies. As it's not really in effect yet there's nothing to object to its a wait and see approach now.


Here's to hoping for once government doesn't abuse power and use regulations to pick winners and losers.

---

There's nothing wrong with net neutrality as it's written and proposed. The issue if any would be on its implementation and abuse by federal agencies. As it's not really in effect yet there's nothing to object to its a wait and see approach now.


Here's to hoping for once government doesn't abuse power and use regulations to pick winners and losers.

I gotta say I like your even keel reaction to this. The rest of the right would do America a service by following your lead.... I still wouldn't vote for you

---

Two suits challenge FCC’s net neutrality rules
 

Two lawsuits were filed this week challenging the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, under which Internet service providers will be regulated in the same manner as traditional telephone companies, which were adopted last month amid questions about the circumstances surrounding their consideration.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...latestnews

---

The lawsuits were expected. Wonder how long it will drag on for. 

---

Wow, who'dve thought we'd jump right to this? I mean, besides everyone...

 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...54b71b40ca

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Wow, who'dve thought we'd jump right to this? I mean, besides everyone...

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5aa2afc1-2616-439a-a7bf-1f54b71b40ca'>http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5aa2afc1-2616-439a-a7bf-1f54b71b40ca</a>

And that's why Federal control worries me so much already talk of censoring the web. I just don't understand why the left can't see censorship is inevitable with a federally controlled web.

---

And that's why Federal control worries me so much already talk of censoring the web. I just don't understand why the left can't see censorship is inevitable with a federally controlled web.

 

That has zero to do with net neutrality.  It isn't the first time that Feinstein advocated banning the anarchist's cookbook.  She's done it in the past several times.  And it's never happened.  


In fact in 2009, Feinstein tried to kill Net Neutrality.  


The spin masters of course are going to try to turn this into something about Net Neutrality.  When it's actually about the first amendment.  


What's being regulated in Net Neutrality is quite simple -- how companies treat internet traffic.  It has nothing to do with censorship of the internet.  SOPA/PIPA were internet censorship bills, and proponents of Net Neutrality were far and wide against them.  


Before it was PIPA, it was COICA, which was blocked.  Feinstein was also in favor of that.  This was long before the FCC ever proposed their Net Neutrality rules by the way.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

That has zero to do with net neutrality. It isn't the first time that Feinstein advocated banning the anarchist's cookbook. She's done it in the past several times. And it's never happened.


In fact in 2009, Feinstein tried to kill Net Neutrality.


The spin masters of course are going to try to turn this into something about Net Neutrality. When it's actually about the first amendment.


What's being regulated in Net Neutrality is quite simple -- how companies treat internet traffic. It has nothing to do with censorship of the internet. SOPA/PIPA were internet censorship bills, and proponents of Net Neutrality were far and wide against them.


Before it was PIPA, it was COICA, which was blocked. Feinstein was also in favor of that. This was long before the FCC ever proposed their Net Neutrality rules by the way.

But doesn't net neutrality give them full oversight of the internet? They might not do it under the umbrella of net neutrality but the legitimate concern is they would now have full authority over the internet since it's now categorized as a utility.


Feinstein isn't the only one wanting to censor information. I'm just uneasy giving them so much control over the flow of information.

---

But doesn't net neutrality give them full oversight of the internet? They might not do it under the umbrella of net neutrality but the legitimate concern is they would now have full authority over the internet since it's now categorized as a utility.


Feinstein isn't the only one wanting to censor information. I'm just uneasy giving them so much control over the flow of information.

 

No, it doesn't give them full oversight of the internet.  I thought we had explained this over and over again, but apparently not.

 

Many people want to censor information.  It has nothing to do with net neutrality.  They wanted to censor it before net neutrality ever came about, of course they'll want to censor it afterwards.  Net Neutrality doesn't give them that power.

 

What net neutrality does is prevent ISP's from blocking content, giving paid prioritization and it gives the FCC the power to investigate these complains.  Something that they didn't have before.  These rules are a compromise between over regulation and regulation with no teeth.  


Regulating for net neutrality protects small business without imposing demands on it.  It just preserves the regulatory scheme as it's been for the past decade or more.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

No, it doesn't give them full oversight of the internet. I thought we had explained this over and over again, but apparently not.


Many people want to censor information. It has nothing to do with net neutrality. They wanted to censor it before net neutrality ever came about, of course they'll want to censor it afterwards. Net Neutrality doesn't give them that power.


What net neutrality does is prevent ISP's from blocking content, giving paid prioritization and it gives the FCC the power to investigate these complains. Something that they didn't have before. These rules are a compromise between over regulation and regulation with no teeth.


Regulating for net neutrality protects small business without imposing demands on it. It just preserves the regulatory scheme as it's been for the past decade or more.

Liberals bad. If liberals are in favor of something it must be bad and even when it's so clearly good, like this, they must attempt to spin. It's bitter spitefulness based purely on the color they align with.

---

Wow, who'dve thought we'd jump right to this? I mean, besides everyone...

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5aa2afc1-2616-439a-a7bf-1f54b71b40ca'>http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5aa2afc1-2616-439a-a7bf-1f54b71b40ca</a>

You refuse to understand what net neutrality is. Still?

---

You refuse to understand what net neutrality is. Still?

 

I understand perfectly what the government does with regulation, it's the camel's nose in the tent. Always.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I understand perfectly what the government does with regulation, it's the camel's nose in the tent. Always.

When somebody uses the term "always" or "never", warning bells begin ringing in my ears

---

When somebody uses the term "always" or "never", warning bells begin ringing in my ears

If the answer is the same no matter the question, that's propaganda.


If your answer is the same no matter the question, you've been brainwashed.

---

When somebody uses the term "always" or "never", warning bells begin ringing in my ears

 

Does that always happen to you?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Does that always happen to you?

Yeah, doctors say it's from listening to loud music.


I say it's my spidey sense

---

I understand perfectly what the government does with regulation, it's the camel's nose in the tent. Always.

So yes you still refuse to understand what Net Neutrality is. 

---

When somebody uses the term "always" or "never", warning bells begin ringing in my ears

The sith are multiplying. 

---

Quick ya'll, tell me again how this has nothing to do with government expansion... :mellow:

 

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/art...-83250167/

 

"But when pressed on the issue at a House hearing last month, Wheeler would not guarantee that consumers will not end up contributing more to the fund."

 

Oh the untapped revenue streams!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Quick ya'll, tell me again how this has nothing to do with government expansion... :mellow:

 

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/art...-83250167/

 

"But when pressed on the issue at a House hearing last month, Wheeler would not guarantee that consumers will not end up contributing more to the fund."

 

Oh the untapped revenue streams!

Quick, tell me how you actually read the whole article and didn't just overact because you don't like anything a Dem does.  :thumbsup:

 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, argued that even if broadband firms are required to contribute, there are no plans to increase the annual size of the fund. That means the cost simply would be spread among more customers, and in many cases a new broadband fee would be offset by a lower fee on a consumer's phone bill.

---