Posted on 11/21/2017 8:31:39 AM PST by BusterDog
That seems to me complete bass ackwards. You think forcing ISPs to carry Netflix, Google, and Amazon content with its high data useage at the the same rates and priorities as FreeRepublic is a goodthing? You think making carriers play mother may I with the Fed is a good thing? Explain to me how net neutrality has helped conservative speech? Last I checked the FTC was enabling the FEC and restricting conservative speech.
Nope. Adding government beauracy, permits, fees, reviews, does not protect free speech or conservative speech. It does enable prog speech and government control. Just witness the move to crack down on supposed hate speech on the internet by the FTC. Who do you think that’s aimed at?
OTOH - w/o government diktats, Capitalism will provide a guiding hand.
Since that time, the bandwidth owners realized that Congress had to be paid for a particular set of favors and so they've paid. Now it's time for Congress to deliver what their paymasters paid for.
You can look at it any way you like, makes no never mind to me, but when you can't get to any site that disagrees with the democrat media machine don't pretend you had no idea how the elimination of neutrality would work out.
All true but this move is way beyond NN. That was the red herring the probe usd to regulate internet speech. This deregulation is also more than removing NN. The FTC was moving fast to crack down on speech. We were on the verge of having a new fairness doctrine. Not to mention NN have google, and social media a free ride.
I thought we wanted government control out of the internet.
Evidently not...
Bandwidth owners did not seek NN so congress and the FTC is not doing them any favors now. Google and Netflix and other Prog/Libs wanted NN which is just the chum used to bait us into a government controlled internet. No content provider has a “right” to be carried over a bandwidth provider. If you wish to invent that right via NN the accept that the government will also have “content cannot be carried” right as well.
Explain why any internet business should have to file a plan with the FTC for approval? NN was becoming the new fairness doctrine and we know how well that worked out for conservative speech.
Sorry. After rereading your reply I realized you may have been making the case for eliminating net neutrality. Your first paragraphs seem to make the case for doing so. Your conclusion just seems to me to be a little vague.
The only control the government has over the Internet is that all customers have to be treated equally. If you think that's too much "contro", fine.
Bandwidth providers should be free to refuse to route traffic to sites that disagree with the democrat/globalist agenda and by virtue of the fact that it would then fit a theoretical ideal you agree with it'll be much better.
This is the FreewhenitbenefitsmeRepublic. There is no overall logic on economic freedom on this site.
We need to go a step further and eliminate the local laws that enable monoplies in cities for ISPs. The flow of information regardless of physical infrastructure and the ownership of content is a free speech issue and should have no regulation.
So the Ed Rendell Demmicraps who run Comcast can muck-up your connection to OANN. No thank you.
So which do you think is more likely to happen? That Verizon will throttle FreeRepublic or that the FTC will regulate it as hate speech? If you want to put your faith in the FTC then FreeRepublic may not be a great place to
lobby for gibernwmt control.
Verizon is owned by its shareholders. They are the ones who should decide how to run their business. If they decide that they don’t wish to carry that traffic then that’s their right as owners of a privately owned business.
As I said, we’ll see how it plays out. If there problems, or when there are problems, if you are correct, they will be addressed.
I agree with your take on it.
Fine with me, most people who aren't sucking on the democrat media tit are brainwashed in some other way so maybe having to stay off their favorite echo chamber will wise them up.
>>>Verizon is owned by its shareholders. They are the ones who should decide how to run their business.
And the same could be said for AT&T, yet this same administration chose to go in the opposite direction with the Time Warner merger. Its puzzling that the administration does not have a consistent theory on regulation.
Google is not an ISP. Verizon is. I have never heard of Verizon throttling speech based on its content. Google has. The FTC would force ISP and Google to conform to their regulations. Any furs give way a government agency will regulate speech?
You don’t understand this at all and you are using poorly applied “free market” pop-economics without considering the real world consequences.
Net neutrality stops service providers from favoring some traffic over others. It’s like free speech for the internet.
Ending net neutrality is highly, highly likely to result in internet service providers blocking or restricting access to legal sites that don’t like, which will be right wing ones like FR. It opens up a Pandora’s box of tactics that can be used to suppress non-establishment approved speech online.
Without net neutrality, the entire internet as we know it changes. Potentially, it could make all internet access resemble a digital cable television on demand service where you can only choose from carefully selected content.
It’s discouraging how many older conservatives don’t have a clue about this.
Stop treating Trump like conservatives treated Dubya. Trump’s admin is not infallible. Politics is serious, it’s not sports. You don’t just mindlessly cheer for a team even when you aren’t paying attention to the game. You already admitted that you don’t understand the issue.
I have a clue. You are confused. Government laws are the opposite of freedom and a free market. Private individuals and companies, even ISPs, should not be compelled by government diktat on how to conduct their business. If a privately owned business wishes to not carry FreeRepublc then it is their right to do so. The gberjment should not be forcing others to partake in speech they do not WSU to engage in. No matter how offensive you find that.
Do not confuse constitutionally protected free speech with your own preferences about speech. The FTC forcing companies to carry speech is exactly what our constitution prohibits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.