Next Level BS #20: Alex Jones Gets It Wrong on Net Neutrality

a reply to: ThichHeaded

You make my point for me in a way... What is being proposed, making the internet a Public Utility (which it actually is) would make it illegal for Concast (I intentionally call them "Con"cast BTW) to extort Netflix. Check it out, it's true...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than the Internet being left alone with the singular regulation being a one sentence law that states "ALL packets get treated equally no matter their point of origination".

Sadly, I think that yacht has sailed out of the harbor, once ANYONE gets a hand in the cookie jar they won't be able to take just one. It would be incredibly logical to write a law in one sentence but it won't be done.

So, we're left with the lesser of a million evils...

Outstanding episode. Really enjoyed it.

Jones does not let actual fact get in the way of his Doom Porn messages and its nice to see someone patiently break it down and explain where it is wrong.

Its about time people applied this kind of critical thinking and applied more factual thought/basis for their arguments instead of simply parroting what they hear from other people.

a reply to: theNLBS

Listen NLBS, the details don't matter, the fact is once the govt starts sticking their nose in our internet, it's not going to stop.
I won't even argue with you though because it's pointless. You will believe what you want to, and I'll believe what I want to.
Anything that Obama is promoting having to do with the internet, stinks to high heavens in my books. Nothing but trouble.

originally posted by: Socrato
once the govt starts sticking their nose in our internet, it's not going to stop..

The "government" already has their nose deep up the Internet's A$$. It's NEVER going to stop. And the FCC's proposed "hybrid solution" requires more new laws and potentially deeper involvement than the simplicity of reclassifying broadband providers as Title II common carriers.

Alex Jones goes into theatrics and is out to make money( like everybody) but that doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong or tin foil hat inspired. That old cliché is so old and tired now it should be retired since some believe that nothing is a conspiracy and say so constantly. And some of the most crackpot conspiracy theories are done to discredit the ones that just may have some( or a lot) of truth behind them.
I didn't think the narrator Joe guy came across any better or much different than old Alex. I'd put his credibility on about a 2 out of 10 scale. You can ridicule and try to debunk but you're tipping your hand about your own agenda and then your motives are suspect.
The fact is you really can't trust the government not to mess something up even if it isn't deliberate. And you can't trust Obama, period. Everything he does is suspect. He's not some criminal mastermind or the antichrist or even a communist plant. He's a doltish flunky stooge put in office to do the bidding of his masters, the puppet masters who want to own the world and everyone on it.
So what we have is that the FCC wants to control the internet, maybe just a little now but a lot more later, like everything else the government wants to do. The internet should be above regulation although users shouldn't be. And somebody wants to make more money out of more control of it, that much you can bet on. I wouldn't trust Comcast or Verizon not to have something in the works to expand their influence and profit with increased government control.
Google, Yahoo, they're all on the side of those who want to run everything already.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
The fact is you really can't trust the government not to mess something up even if it isn't deliberate.

Agreed… but…

Why aren't people able to see that the government is already involved and regulating the Internet and already allowing the corporations to mess up the Internet?

I'm honestly flabbergasted over that.

And you can't trust Obama, period.

Why aren't people able to see that this is not Obama's idea and has been proposed years ago by a different administration, and the entire content-side of the Internet industry?

I'm honestly flabbergasted over that one also.

So what we have is that the FCC wants to control the internet,

Why aren't people able to see that with the minimal FCC oversight/regulation now, the corporations are in control of the Internet to the detriment of content providers and consumers?

I'm honestly flabbergasted over that one also.

I wouldn't trust Comcast or Verizon not to have something in the works to expand their influence and profit with increased government control.

They are actively fighting against the Title II common carrier reclassification of broadband providers and will continue to toss millions of dollars into the fight. Verizon FIOS is already classified as a Title II Common Carrier in seven states (they used the provisions to install the fiber lines on the cheap) and have brought a lawsuit against the government to have that changed… even though they voluntarily self-classified in order to use telephone right-of-way without fees.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Why aren't people able to see...

I really think that M. Scott Peck nailed it in his Road Less Travelled book; at least, I think he nailed part of it.

People fall either on the side of having a "character disorder" or being neurotic. So when something bad that they don't understand happens to them, the "character disordered" types start looking around for the person or persons that are "doing it to them" and the neurotics just automatically assume that it's their fault and whatever it is, it's because they did something bad.

This problem with taking things personally and simultaneously not understanding WTF is going on with the technology is a deadly combo when then combined with the fact that Americans are infantile and think that the world appears spontaneously, in the moment, to please their every whim and was not actually designed and engineered 30 years ago.

Something like that. I think.

ETA: I'll take it a step further as well: Alex Jones is the perfect representative example of the American male that cannot, or for whatever reason will not step up to the plate and learn the new skills that are required to survive well on this new frontier that has been created by the interwebs.

Yeah, instead of getting educated on the matter, they grab harder for their guns!

Yes, that's right, instead of preparing themselves properly for the challenges presented by our networked world, which have nothing to do with guns, they throw on even louder, shinier t-shirts and rant like weird crypto-Christian death-metal T.V. evengelists.

That's sure to show that 'ol Net Neutrality who's boss.

These are tuff times, I tell ya.

a reply to: theNLBS

Good job Joe!!

Man, Alex has really walked off the damn map at this point hasn't he?!?!? Get that man some medication and fast.

This whole issue really comes down to two choices. One choice being Net Neutral and the other Corporate Rule. While I am concerned that the Gov. might try and pull a fast one on us, since they love doing that whenever they can, Net Neutrality is still the only real choice. To choose anything other than Net Neutrality is just suicide.

a reply to: theNLBS

I posted this in another related thread also. I don't claim to be an expert on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but these are some things that came to mind:

I think we can agree that AJ's mindset about the government is that they don't necessarily do anything that benefits the public. Given Obama's pathological lying, what is his hidden agenda here? On paper, classifying "the internet" under Title 2 sounds good, but what is up his sleeve for Title 2? Is there a piece of legislation that will get porked onto another bill that will change Title 2, below the radar? Will ISPs be required to obtain a broadcast license, since they are essentially "transmitting a signal" that falls under Title 2 control? Will content then be subject to censorship under Title 5? Can members of the public lodge complaints where the FCC has the authority to suspend/revoke licenses and levy fines?

Why should we suddenly trust the Obama administration on this ONE thing? I'm not sure we should, frankly. The government doesn't do anything unless there are dollar signs in their eyes, or their corporate masters' eyes.

I'll add this: You might argue that the FCC maintains a relatively hands-off policy with regard to TV/cable content, but who controls those entities? The same six companies that control all media, who espouse the same principles as the administration - except they don't control the internet. How would you squelch alternative media? Classify it under Title 2 so the FCC can control content. THAT could be the end game, IMO.

Good job on this video!

I have watched pretty much every episode Joe, and you kept your cool and were clear and precise and easy to understand. Also you simply let Alex's rant speak for itself, and pointed out his flawed arguments. Seriously well done.

I watched AJ way back in the day, and he opened up a few minds to serious corruption in this system. So I do have to give him credit for that. But SERIOUSLY this man is a lunatic now, just off his rocker crazy and spewing so much anger and hate. Anger and hate only breeds more of the same, so the message is lost to most. There's a mental issue involved I believe, but I'm only an expert at having an opinion.

Thanks again Joe! I look forward to your next video.

ETA: BTW thanks SkepticOverlord for pointing out this is pre-existing legislation, not created by Obama. This is likely just Obama getting on board with something that makes sense, and saving some face in light of his horrible track record and lousy approval ratings. I don't like the guy, but everything he does is not necessarily evil.

a reply to: theNLBS

Alex Jones = Wrong. No news.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
...
The fact is you really can't trust the government not to mess something up even if it isn't deliberate. And you can't trust Obama, period. Everything he does is suspect. He's not some criminal mastermind or the antichrist or even a communist plant. He's a doltish flunky stooge put in office to do the bidding of his masters, the puppet masters who want to own the world and everyone on it.
....

What you really need to look at is how the puppet show works: They get you thinking in terms of who, not in terms of what. Once they have you doing that, then all they need to do is get some monster, some terrorist leader to tell you 2+2=4 not 5 in order to get you believing that 2+2=5. (Because only a terrorist would say 2+2=4! Or that's what Obama says! Or whatever.)

That's what disturbs me about the anti-net neutrality posts here. I don't hear a single one talking about the what of it, I don't hear a single one of you explaining why network carriers like Verizon or Comcast should have the power to slow down or block websites they don't like, why they should not be required to treat all Internet traffic as the same - or neutrally - as they have up to this point. If you have an informed argument about how that would lead to a better Internet, I'd love to hear it, but all I'm hearing is "Obama says it so it must not be true!" Why not talk policy?

originally posted by: Hefficide
I posted this to another thread, but it is applicable here as well...

...........

Source

The Telecom giants are throwing their fortunes in to this and trying to buy the law. Oh and the article has a great bonus - it breaks down just how much each politician and official has been paid so far by the Telecoms.

Thanks for that...looking at the comprehensive list of payola doled out to those deciding on Net Neutrality...Maria Cantwell stood out. She is the only one not to get money from the Telecomms..

www.cantwell.senate.gov...

Nice to see at least one that is not for sale.

originally posted by: tridentblue
Why not talk policy?

Because that requires facts; not hyperbole, distortion, and parroted talking points.


Speaking of policy -- who can tell me what would happen to the economy if the massive number of "Long Tail" websites like ATS can't afford the fast lane?

Anyone?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Metaphorically put ( in a way that everyone can still understand ) Mom and Pop go out of business and Wal Mart takes over. Then Mom and Pop end up working as door greeters for the big blue giant rather than being owners of their own businesses.

Close?

originally posted by: Indigo5
www.cantwell.senate.gov...
Nice to see at least one that is not for sale.

According to OpenSecrets.org, these are her top-20 contributors.

a reply to: Hefficide

You hit the edge of the dart board. There would be a ripple-effect across the tech industry.

1) websites go out of business

2) their employees lose jobs

3) their design/technology freelancers lose paying gigs

4) their hosting companies lose customers

5) the hosting companies lose jobs

6) weaker hosting companies mean higher prices for hosting new websites, as demand goes down

7) barrier to entry for new online technology firms goes way up

8) the diversity of online content goes away

9) the diversity of well-paying jobs in online tech goes away

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: ThichHeaded
So, we're left with the lesser of a million evils...

Sounds like politics eh Springer...

Damn if we do, damned if we dont..

From what I understand VZ(For non US people Verizon) is considered a utility company and adheres to rules set by the telephone rules..
I find this interesting however why isn't Comcast because dont they sell phone lines also?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I see you like the word flabbergast..

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Verizon used the Title II classification when they installed FIOS in order to get a huge advantage by being able to use the telephone line right of way. Otherwise, it would be massively expensive.

But then they sued the government, and won the first round, to have their FIOS service unclassified as Title II.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Oh I see..

So they are in the same boat then as Concast then?