All of these stories point to one solution- re-decentralize the Internet. Depending on either corporations or the government for a functioning Internet is a recipe for disaster.
Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
11–20 of 148 posts
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#12[deleted]
My reading of the article uncovered the following from John Boehner's speech:
"As far as I'm concerned, there is no compromise or middle ground when it comes to protecting our most basic freedoms."
I reckon this is the genesis of the headline.
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#13I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.
He's considering the basic freedoms of service providers to restrict access as they see fit - not the right of the consumers.
Oh, my God. I understand it perfectly now. I don't know whether to thank you for helping me get it, or damn you for making me die inside a little. (Either way you get an upvote)
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#14I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.
As a libertarian, I would interpret protecting "our most basic freedoms" meaning the right to freely enter into agreements with whichever service providers we choose. If a service provider chooses to limit bandwidth to certain sites I would be free to buy Internet service elsewhere. But, as a libertarian, I also recognize the fact that this will never work as long as government continues to regulate these services in any way. If government gives special favours to big providers there will never be an opportunity for small ISPs to compete.
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#15Summary:
Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then you're against net neutrality.
Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for net neutrality.
* Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wireless carriers, and kill switch legislation). This smells like traffic control to me.
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#16There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party to be extremely frightening.
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#17Summary: Do you want corporations to act as unregulated "traffic controllers"? Then you're against net neutrality. Do you want an accountable government agency with a lackluster track record for citizens' digital rights to act as a "traffic controller"? Then you're for net neutrality. * Before voting me down, look at the actions the federal government has already taken in regards to traffic control (ala exempting wir…
Then you aren't familiar with network neutrality, which has nothing to do with the FCC dictating what kind of traffic is and is not allowed or controlling traffic.
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#18I'm not sure how to post this without seeming like a troll, but... is this guy campaigning for or against net neutrality? I can't tell from the article. He wants to protect "our most basic freedoms", right? So... he wants net neutrality? But then he says "no taxpayer dollars [should be] used to fund these net neutrality rules." I'm sure I'm being either naive, stupid or both right now, but I'm honestly confused.
People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t... And here's a post refuting the "money" argument: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...
Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists.
This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#19Can someone tell me if net neutrality was to fail and big service providers did restrict access as they saw fit - what ways would there be around it without paying extra $ to line their pockets? VPN? Something else? (I don't know much about this stuff so sorry if this is a dumb question)
Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality
#20There are a number of disturbing aspects of this news, but I find the new "no discussion, no consideration, no compromise" attitude of the Republican party to be extremely frightening.
It works pretty well though. Every issue is framed as a decision whether the country as we know it will be destroyed.
Seems a lot of voters like this style.