• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Republicans against free Internet

TimCallahan

Philosopher
T
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
6,293
In response to the FCC's rule insuring Internet neutrality, i.e. that content cannot be controlled by IPC's, those who champion corporate rights over human rights have sponsored a joint resolution of disapproval that would reverse the FCC's ruling. There is a list of senators at [URL="http://www.savetheinternet.com/whiplist"/URL] who either support this measure - Senate Joint Resolution 6 - oppose it, or are as yet undecided. Of the 38 senators supporting SJ Res.6, every last one of them is a Republican.

I guess the party that wants to get government off our backs want to make it easier for business to climb on them.
 
The problem is that opponents of network neutrality have bought into the mantra that any government regulation is a bad thing and that denying network neutrality will preserve the internet as it now exists in the US, even though the exact opposite is true.
 
Upchurch said:
The problem is that opponents of network neutrality have bought into the mantra that any government regulation is a bad thing and that denying network neutrality will preserve the internet as it now exists in the US, even though the exact opposite is true.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think the best argument against Republicans is to tell them that without Net Neutrality they could be forced into media venues they don't prefer. For example: Time Warner used to be in the ISP business. They could easily have blocked their internet users from accessing FoxNews.

It took me about fifteen minutes to explain to my dad was Net Neutrality was good. Most of what he thought about it was completely wrong. Though once he understood that the ISP market was either a monopoly or duopoly at best he got it.
 
The lunatic right can't bear the thought of being exposed for the liars and miserymongers they are.

In this particular context, all else follows.
 
Net neutrality is to the right what the Citizens United ruling is to the left.

Neither side realizes that both promote more freedom, not less.
 
I noticed the level of debate in this thread is little more than slinging childlike memes like "lunatic", "liars", and "miserymongers" (nice!)
 
Upchurch said:
The problem is that opponents of network neutrality have bought into the mantra that any government regulation is a bad thing and that denying network neutrality will preserve the internet as it now exists in the US, even though the exact opposite is true.
Click to expand...

I like to ask the "government regulation is evil" people if they would like to have their surgery done by unlicensed doctors.
 
Beerina said:
I noticed the level of debate in this thread is little more than slinging childlike memes like "lunatic", "liars", and "miserymongers" (nice!)
Click to expand...

So, getting way from name-calling, what are your views on net neutrality?
 
WildCat said:
Net neutrality is to the right what the Citizens United ruling is to the left.

Neither side realizes that both promote more freedom, not less.
Click to expand...

And yet they easily oppose each other. You are not letting them put in a fast lane on the internet for those who want to pay for it, and money is speech so as a matter of free speech you need to be against net neutrality.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And yet they easily oppose each other. You are not letting them put in a fast lane on the internet for those who want to pay for it, and money is speech so as a matter of free speech you need to be against net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Concerning the hilited area: Is this a joke, or do you seriously equate free speech with money?
 
WildCat said:
Net neutrality is to the right what the Citizens United ruling is to the left.

Neither side realizes that both promote more freedom, not less.
Click to expand...

I am going to take a definition of freedom that I think is appropriate here...

..."the power to determine action without restraint. "


Net neutrality does not promote that. What it does is shift bargaining power from the owners of the software and hardware for the ISP to the customer. You feel that is a good thing.

That is not the same as freedom. The people responsible for the ISP are restrained in their ability to determine how to run their service. The customer is denied the opportunity to choose that.


Addendum: I won't accept any analogies to slavery or indentured servitude without a good argument. A world without net-neutrality does not permit the exchange of one's inalienable rights (and I only recognize negative rights).
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am going to take a definition of freedom that I think is appropriate here...

..."the power to determine action without restraint. "


Net neutrality does not promote that. What it does is shift bargaining power from the owners of the software and hardware for the ISP to the customer. You feel that is a good thing.

That is not the same as freedom. The people responsible for the ISP are restrained in their ability to determine how to run their service. The customer is denied the opportunity to choose that.
Click to expand...

It lets customers visit any website they choose, create web content that anyone can easily access, etc, etc. That seems to be a type of freedom. Otherwise they will be restrained by bandwidth issues. It also lets them have more freedom in choosing an internet provider, since they can look at all options rather than having to hope that there's one person that doesn't restrict access to what they want most.

It also allows businesses on the internet to compete fairly with each other, rather than having legalized bribery for better access. This is good for the economy since it lowers the cost of new players entering the web-based marketplace.

Boohoo for the ISPs restrained to run fair services that foster competition on the web and with internet providers. Boohoo for companies restricted by fair regulation. Let us all weep for them.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am going to take a definition of freedom that I think is appropriate here...

..."the power to determine action without restraint. "


Net neutrality does not promote that. What it does is shift bargaining power from the owners of the software and hardware for the ISP to the customer. You feel that is a good thing.

That is not the same as freedom. The people responsible for the ISP are restrained in their ability to determine how to run their service. The customer is denied the opportunity to choose that.


Addendum: I won't accept any analogies to slavery or indentured servitude without a good argument. A world without net-neutrality does not permit the exchange of one's inalienable rights (and I only recognize negative rights).
Click to expand...

Okay, then how about a free market being what we aim for? In a free market, shouldn't the customers have the ultimate say? If the ISPs decide content before the customer gets it, that's not a free market.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
And yet they easily oppose each other.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Microsoft has the same freedom of speech rights as another corporation, the New York Times.

Congress excepted media corporations from the campaign laws, because if you accept that the 1st Amendment applies only to individuals then freedom of the corporate press (and nearly all press is corporate, ewven in the internet age) exists only at the pleasure of Congress, which can abolish it at any time as it sees fit.

If you think it is absurd that Congress could regulate the editorial content of the New York Times, then you understand why the Citizens United ruling was correct. The astonishing thing is that 4 justices actually bought the argument that Congress can do such a thing.
 
TimCallahan said:
Concerning the hilited area: Is this a joke, or do you seriously equate free speech with money?
Click to expand...
"Speech equals money" is just the bumper sticker version of the principle that under the 1st Amendment anyone can buy all the advertising they wish. You can speak freely, but getting that message out is costly.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am going to take a definition of freedom that I think is appropriate here...

..."the power to determine action without restraint. "


Net neutrality does not promote that. What it does is shift bargaining power from the owners of the software and hardware for the ISP to the customer. You feel that is a good thing.

That is not the same as freedom. The people responsible for the ISP are restrained in their ability to determine how to run their service. The customer is denied the opportunity to choose that.


Addendum: I won't accept any analogies to slavery or indentured servitude without a good argument. A world without net-neutrality does not permit the exchange of one's inalienable rights (and I only recognize negative rights).
Click to expand...
The people who run ISPs should worry about providing internet service, instead of trying to become content providers. If they disagree let them build a network that doesn't require taxpayer-subsidized easements on public property.

If they want to be content providers they'll have to compete with all the others, rather than just shutting the others out of "their" network.

You don't like free market capitalism Bob?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom