House Republicans Vote to Eliminate Net Neutrality

Can anyone see an upside to this for you and I? Is there anything left that the Republicans haven't handed over to corporations? No, I think this was the only thing left.

By now you may have heard the news: Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to block the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality regulations.

As I’ve said before, these regulations weren’t nearly good enough to ensure that the Internet remains free and open. But they were a step in the right direction. And by voting to eliminate them, House Republicans declared their willingness to let big corporations control the Internet.

We know what this could mean for American consumers — less diversity of viewpoints, less access to independent content through services like Netflix, and higher prices for Internet service.

The good news is that the Senate still has a chance to stop this special interest power play. I’m working as hard as I can to build support for net neutrality in the Senate — but I’m not the only one talking to my colleagues. These corporations have lobbyists of their own, lots of them, and they’re descending upon Capitol Hill en masse.

The only way we’re going to save net neutrality is if ordinary Americans make their voices heard.

 

Now you're criticizing Repubs for voting against something that according to you "wasn't nearly good enough"? Odd.

 

Sorry, I must have cut off the signature. Those were not my words.

By now you may have heard the news: Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to block the FCC from enforcing its new net neutrality regulations.

As I’ve said before, these regulations weren’t nearly good enough to ensure that the Internet remains free and open. But they were a step in the right direction. And by voting to eliminate them, House Republicans declared their willingness to let big corporations control the Internet.

We know what this could mean for American consumers — less diversity of viewpoints, less access to independent content through services like Netflix, and higher prices for Internet service.

The good news is that the Senate still has a chance to stop this special interest power play. I’m working as hard as I can to build support for net neutrality in the Senate — but I’m not the only one talking to my colleagues. These corporations have lobbyists of their own, lots of them, and they’re descending upon Capitol Hill en masse.

The only way we’re going to save net neutrality is if ordinary Americans make their voices heard.

Al Franken

 

You have lost me Moen. Either you agree with your post and "you're criticizing Repubs for voting against something that according to you "wasn't nearly good enough", or you disagree with your post and why on earth would you post bs like that if you disagreed with it?

 

It will be clearer if you know more about the topic.

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), even blocking out competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality characterize its regulations as "a solution in search of a problem", arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. Despite this claim there has been a case where an Internet service provider intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. Still other companies have acted in contrast to these assertions of hands-off behavior and have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling.[9] Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, the other co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[10] Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.

 

Goody! Goody! Now try something I don't know.

What you did not answer in there was do you or do you not agree with your first post?

 

Why would I be FOR blocking the FCC's net neutralities regulations (as the Republican have done) given the questions I asked? Franken was saying that the regualtions were not all that strong in the first place but Republicans want to eliminate them completely.

My question remains.....How is this a good thing for you and I?

 

So now we are back to David's post in #2.

BTW, I can think of nothing economically that the government has put their fingers in that they have not messed up totally. Why on earth would I want them to put their fingers in something that is still working?

 

That is just narrative. I'm more interested in factual.

I'll give you one example of government efficiency. The U.S. Mint. Pays for itself and makes a profit.

 

Now you're "quoting" Stuart Smalley? If I'm not mistaken, this is the second time I have caught you trying to use a far left wing whackos words as your own. Interesting.

 

Read Coin World and find out just how efficient it really is.

 

Why don't you make your own argument instead of asking others to do it for you?

 

What?!?!?!?

 

The grand master plan behind all of this talk is really the left wing fringe desire to revive the Fairness Doctrine and control what & who is heard in the media.

 

Yes, and it's an insidious plan...

 

They could make a profit selling air too if they were the only place you could get it from.

But to the original topic....yes, that sucks.

 

Which is a great point. Why, in a capitalist society do we not extend the ideals of the very economic system the government supports to the government itself. In other words, if the government set aside a few profitable industries like the mint, defense manufacturing, and energy, that would completely fund or help fund the government, wouldn't all of our taxes be lower? Believe me, if government had to fund itself, we'd have some of the best business leaders the population could elect running it. Face it, the only reason government works poorly in many areas is because you have one party pulling it in one direction and then 4 to 8 years later all those priorities are lost when the next party takes power. There is just no consistent goal and what private industry could succeed under that model? Sure there would be issues to work out but imagine a society where you pay no taxes and we move forwards at an incredible rate.

 

My first thought, once I try to get past the basic concept of gov't taking over any industry, is that the government wouldn't know when to stop. Then where would we be?