I think you are still confused about what is being proposed. The only issue is whether your ISP can treat some internet traffic differently than others. No one is proposing that the government be given the power to censor any part of the internet. That has never been part of the discussion. I know the words "government" and "regulation" can instantly scare some people but this is one of those times where regulation really is a good thing!Originally Posted by Capt._Ron
No bu, I'm not confused at all. The FCC already regulates what is available on TV and radio. Do you really think this is going to be "light touch oversite" as some liberals are calling it? Take a look at what the FCC did to radio from 1969 to the mid 80's after the Red Lion case with the "Fairness campaign". They all but completely eliminated discussion of political topics and any criticism of the status quo.
I fully understand that this topic was brough up because a Large ISP was regulating the amount of bandwidth to certain applications. I wouldn't want this to happen to me but fortunately I have several options for internet service and if one doesn't provide the service I want I will go to another. My issue lies is that rarely does the government de-regulate anything (thank goodness they did for radio). The FCC may begin its regulation with the best intentions but the govenment is not in the habit of gaining power and then giving it back. I think this will end up being a way for the government to wring more money out of the ISP's.
I don't think the FCC are nearly as bad as you claim they are... if they were on top of their shit Glenn Beck and others of his ilk would have taken a permanent vacation from the airwaves some time ago. Granted I have my own grievances with the FCC but when these far right wingnuts are able to broadcast seditious rhetoric daily without the slightest fear of reprimand you can't really argue that they are heavy handed toward either side when it comes to regulation.
What do you think will happen to discussion of political topics when the internet is only open to those who pony up the extra $$$ for unrestricted access? Isn't the so called "tea party/Ron Paul Revolution/9-12 project Glenn Beck Tyte Yo/John Birch Society" movement supposed to be about grassroots and the power of the internet to organize? Remember that the ISP's will be working out deals with the so called "liberal media" that will effect what sites you can access.
I really don't understand why conservatives are against Net Neutrality... they always baselessly claim to be disenfranchised by the media and then when the people of America really are about to get disenfranchised, they are all in favor of it.
Do you feel the same about the left wing wackos out there on the radio too? How about MSNBC, should they be held accountable for their record during the Bush administration? Should the 'Fairness Doctrine' also be used when conservatives are in power? Use the oppressive power of govt to completely stamp out and kind of liberal speech? That is all that the 'Fairness Doctrine' is about, eliminating any type of opposition to a liberal agenda. Stamp out any semblance of truth in the quest to socialize this country?
You really are so far out in left field Mao couldnt even find you.
I think we were talking past each other a bit. I agree the FCC should not be able to censor the internet in any way but I am for net neutrality. Can't regulation be done in such a way that the FCC can enforce neutrality without being able to control content? If we actually had a true competitive market this might be a moot point but we don't so here we are.
That would be nice...a FCC the enforces neutrality without controlling content or a true competitive markey with many options for every consumer.
I think the debate comes down to a few major questions
1. Do you trust the government to regulate internet traffic without regulating content?
2. Should the market determine which content gets priority or should the government?
Option 1.) Open and unrestricted content for all. Pertty much maintaining the status quo we have now.
Option 2.) The only sites you get to access will be shopping sites or advertising, everything else will come at a premium. Whatever content can't find corporate sponsorship will disappear completely. In other words, Import Atlanta will become "Import Atlanta brought to you by Budwieser," and every time you click you'll get a popup add telling you how awesome Budweiser is.
1. Nope, but the ISPs have already proven they can't be trusted either. The word "regulate" here is misleading. That is like saying I don't want the government to remove all the speed limit signs on the road because I don't trust them to tell me how fast to drive. In this case regulating net neutrality is actually a protection of freedom for internet users.
2. Neither. Noone should determine priority. All content should be treated equally. Also what market? because right now there is no truly free market for internet services in most of the US.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
