Tea Party Groups Out AGAINST Net Neutrality

I find this net neutrality issue to be rather difficult to fully understand.

Does anyone know if such changes would cause a monopoly in the industry which would therefore cause the elimination of smaller telco's, ISP's, etc?



[edit on 16-8-2010 by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy]

if i took a dump in a taco bell wraper and called a taco , I promise you you better not eat it because its not a taco.

If the gov the folks running this gov are telling you this bill will create net neutrality, You can just about 100% guarantee its a censorship of your internet freedoms.It is illegal wiretapping,roaming wiretaps without warrants,permission to data mine your personal information in cyberspace and keep it on gov databases without your consent.

Did you not learn with the stimulius bill? It has stimulated nothing.

THe banking finance reform bill. You know the no more bail outs bill.
Guess what it is endless bailouts ENDLess Paid for by a bank tax that gets passed on to you through the banks. That is right you pay for the bailouts.
The fed also gets the power to take over regional banks who had no dealings in derivatives. Derivitives and failed morgage policies were the problem right? Now the fed can take over any company it wants.

Are you catching what im dropping here?

The bills are written by criminals. Read what you are signing and voting on and smell the taco before you eat. K?

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
I find this net neutrality issue to be rather difficult to fully understand.

Can anyone please tell me which of the two options (either pro or against net neutrality) would mean more competition between ISP's and Telecommunications companies? Would one option lead to further monopoly in the industry and eliminate smaller telco's and ISP's?

THANKS!!!!!

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy]

The best way I can describe it as the following :

Network Neutrality is the thinking that no law shall ever be passed restricting what sites one can and cannot go to. IE. The only approved amendtion to this is that all Sex Offenders and Convicted Child Molestor's are prohibited from partipating in the internet.

Your employer however does retain the authourity to dictate what you can and cannot do while you are on their clock, meaning since it's their server, computers, networks they can restrict and impose limitations on what you do while you are on thier clock. Every employer reserves the legal right and authourity to amend it's Employee Code Of Conduct however it sees fit. As you are there to work and to not surf the web. If your employer requires internet usage as your job description then it's allowable.

Those groups that are trying to shred it want to setup the internet the way your satelite and cable tv is designed. You buy a package that limits you to say, 50 or so sites with sites like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, ATS as being premium websites to the likes you pay extra for channels like HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax and any sports package pay per view items.

The way the interset and world wide web is setup now is the way it shall remain forever. One flat rate to your interet provider and you have access to the literately quadrillions of sites that there are now.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 16-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Thank you for the reply, it is very informative. So the net neutrality that Google and Verizon favor is basically an action to assure that everything will remain the same? Meaning that internet users will continue to roam wherever and however they wish without restriction? Is this assumption basicaly true? THANKS a lot!!!

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Thank you for the reply, it is very informative. So the net neutrality that Google and Verizon favor is basically an action to assure that everything will remain the same? Meaning that internet users will continue to roam wherever and however they wish without restriction? Is this assumption basicaly true? THANKS a lot!!!

The plan from Google and Verizon are drawing up now would limit what sites we can and cannot visit. The total opposite of Net Neutrality. This starts the slippery slope that will lead to places like Microsoft, Dell, Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Sony to track wherever you go on the web and report all findings back to the US Federal Govt. This is akin to a "Net Nanny". Mere postings of anything hypocritical of TPTB or The US Federal Govt itself could end up in the poster/user being detained and locked up all over a web post.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Once again your post was very informative, thank you very much.

So I gather that this "net neutrality" favored by Google and Verizon really isnt as pleasant-sounding to the ear as what it ACTUALLY really does stand for.

Hmmmm.

Originally posted by jdub297

What Google, Verizon and the Left-Liberal Democrats want is to LIMIT your ACCESS; regardless of the costs of your ISP services.

WRONG WRONG WRONG! Atleast on the "Left-Liberal Democrats part.....READ WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING

Two lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or impairing Web content from competitors. Representatives Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Chip Pickering, a Mississippi Republican, introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act last week. The bill says it is U.S. policy to "guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degredation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet."

Source

So what we have here is corporations wanting to profit from something they didnt create and control who sees what based on how much one pays? And with lack of regs to prevent corporations engaging in nefarious means to prevent competition as previously mentioned about the Comcast incident?

some people think coporate tyranny is better than federal tyranny?

but yea some reg is needed to prevent corporations from doing what civillians ( hackers ) get sent to jail for.

reply to post by ElijahWan


Google and Verizon may be trying to "privatize" the internet. But the bill in Congress is trying to keep access to it PUBLIC!

atleast....that is what I've gathered from my technology related sources.....

not to mention the ACTUAL BILL being proposed in congress.

markey.house.gov...

and I quote

18 ‘‘SEC. 12. BROADBAND POLICY. 19 ‘‘It is the policy of the United States— 20 ‘‘(1) to maintain the freedom to use for lawful 21 purposes broadband telecommunications networks, 22 including the Internet, without unreasonable inter23 ference from or discrimination by network operators, 24 as has been the policy and history of the Internet 25 and the basis of user expectations since its inception;

[edit on 8/16/10 by ElijahWan]

[edit on 8/16/10 by ElijahWan]

reply to post by ElijahWan


So then it appears that what Google and Verizon favor, is actually NOT what Congress supports.

I knew this was more complicated then it looked. *sigh*.

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
reply to post by ElijahWan

 

So then it appears that what Google and Verizon favor, is actually NOT what Congress supports.

I knew this was more complicated then it looked. *sigh*.

Something I have had to learn myself my friend. Never take what the Media tell you at face value....EVER...you just can't trust the motive..... I'd advise sticking to the internet when it comes to researching the "truth".

As I'm sure you've already heard multiple "MSM" sources that say "Congress" supports this or "Congress" supports that. It's all about manipulation....What they mean "IN TRUTH" is more likely to be "Representative such and such brought up this bill today in congress". As is the case in point here.

I've learned that UNTIL I read the proposed bill or bill myself.....I'll never TRULY know what is being "looked at" ect ect.

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
I find this net neutrality issue to be rather difficult to fully understand.

Does anyone know if such changes would cause a monopoly in the industry which would therefore cause the elimination of smaller telco's, ISP's, etc?
[edit on 16-8-2010 by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy]

It is really very simple if you think of the Internet as a pipeline.
ISPs like verizon, Comcast, Roadrunner(Time-Warner) and dozens of others are "pipeline" companies.

There are "inlets" to the pipeline. These are providers of things like Google, Amazon, pornstarsRus, and ITunes.

There are "outlets" on the pipeline. You and I, by paying the pipeline companies, get an outlet to our computers.

As things stand right now, there are no legal or regulatory restrictions on what goes into the pipeline, or who can have an outlet (except, in some places, for sex-offenders).

THIS is "net neutrality."

Sometimes, a pipeline company may try to push some of the stuff your way, or make it easier to get from your outlet. They are not being pipelines anymore, but are trying to control access to and availability of competing providers. That is unfair, and is a violation of your agreement with them. You can sue them for denying you fair access to competing providers. Some of the providers can sue them, too if they think they are not getting to you and I and others down the line.

Recently, some members of the Obama administration and Congress decided that the ONLY way to make sure that things remained "fair" is that if the Government gets to say what is fair, instead of you and me and the providers.

Google and Verizon thought that they might be able to create a system in the pipeline where Google could get extra service from Verizon in the wireless portions of the pipeline. Other pipeline companies and other providers could do the same. Some people, who had telephone lines or cables plugged into the pipeline would not be affected, but some would. Everyone in the wireless connections would be affected.

THIS is the Government version of "Net Neutrality."

See, they name something for the opposite of what it really means. Happens all the time.

In the 80's they created something called the "Employee's Rights and Income Security Act" because insurance companies were screwing with peoples retirement and disability benefits.

Sounds great, right?

Guess what it REALLY does: it says employees have NO rights to sue their bosses or the insutance for screwing up their disability until the ins. co. says they can; and even then, after about 5 years or so, ONLY for the benefits they should've gotten on day one! So now, insurers deny disability, wait 5 years, and if you're still there, MAYBE they'll pay, but never more than they should have in the first place.

Sad. Pathetic. A COMPLETE LIE.

Just like Government "Net Neutrality."

Tea Party movement groups HATE Government Net Neutrality, because they will screw it up just like they've done with disability, housing, health insurance, social security, education and labor.

Do you really want to give government MORE control over your life? Do you really trust government to "do the right thing," or the thing that benefits them?

Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

Oh, some people LIKE government providing their education, health care, housing and income. It makes things real simple instead of having to try hard, work and think for themselves.

Is that you? I know several people on this thread who DO want this.

You will need to decide for yourself if you are better at deciding these things for yourself, or if you would be better off letting Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi or any other politician, decide what is best for you.

Good luck.

I hope this helped.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by ElijahWan


Please think about what the bill says AND means before you jump to conclusions:

The bill says it is U.S. policy to "guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degredation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet."

[from the post where you screamed at me]

Now think about these: "it is US policy ... ."
"Policy" is nothing more than a statement of a real strong wish. You can't enforce a "policy," but you sure can change one in a heartbeat.

"To guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism ... ."
"Guard against?" How? Who gets to say how, and against whom?
"Unreasonable discriminatory favoritism ... ."
So, SOME discriminatory favoritism is OK, as long as it is "reasonable." Who says what is reasonable? What if it is not?

I can go on and on.

But for you to SCREAM about how "good" the government is going to be based only upon a bunch of worthless, crap, unenforceable promises, then you will get you deserve.

Too bad for the rest of us that the majority of Americans probably think like you do; and truly believe that "everything's going to be OK, we're from the government."

How sad.

deny ignorance

jw



[edit on 16-8-2010 by jdub297]

Originally posted by Messiah_Tooth_Fairy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Once again your post was very informative, thank you very much.

So I gather that this "net neutrality" favored by Google and Verizon really isnt as pleasant-sounding to the ear as what it ACTUALLY really does stand for.

Hmmmm.

Exactly, It's what id's : Homeles is saying, they want to privatize it and impose rules on it. They are trying to erase Network Neutrality.

The GOP and Dems are for Net Neutrality but those who pull both thier strings and TPTB in general are the ones trying to get it imposed.

The recent bill before The Congress blocks and stops that cold and makes the internet remain free for all.

This thread quickly delved into the heart of those for and against government and free-markets.

Those advocating free-markets just don't understand that some people have no choice in their ISP. I grew up in a tiny town with ONE service provider for phone and television. I now live in a mid-sized city with TWO ISP's and ONE cable company (one of the ISP's is the cable company).

The threat to net neutrality, that I see, is things like Comcast making deals with websites and restricting access to their competitors. Access to the internet is unregulated, just throw in some fine print and you're safe to restrict access!

Anyone remember AOL? It seemed as though the only way to get to ANYTHING on the web was to go through their website first. Imagine if all your content was restricted to websites that had made a deal with AOL first.

However, the other side of the argument is more 'unneeded' government regulation. This belief that if there are no laws, everything will work out for the best...eventually.

It's an unwinnable argument when a someone says, "We're trying to do ABC." While someone else replies, "I think you're really trying to do XYZ!"

"I'm trying to cross the street..."
"You're trying to rob the bank!"

Leave them to their irrationality. Keep the intertubes open. No to throttelling, no to restricting, no to greedy capitalists 'promising' they'll keep everything fair!