Forum Conservatives: Come here to defend the repeal of Net Neutrality

Let's hear it.  Why should ISPs be given the power to censor the internet?  

Please proceed, governors.

boards of FL wrote:Let's hear it.  Why should ISPs be given the power to censer the internet?  

Please proceed, governors.

Are there any Conservatives on this forum any more? Maybe a couple of low level glibertarians but that's all.

boards of FL wrote:Let's hear it.  Why should ISPs be given the power to censer the internet?  

Please proceed, governors.

Because...   CAPITALISM! Yeehaw, ride 'em, cowboy!

Laissez-faire Capitalism trumps democracy every time.

The pun was unintentional but, I realized as I wrote it, perfectly apropos. The end result of the fanatical obsession for deregulation is ALWAYS a distortion of markets. I got mine, up yours!

Because in todays atmosphere, conservatives want corporations to rule the world!

Those corporate tax cuts are PERMANENT.  

Who might benefit from that when out of office?  

We're being fleeced and the conservatards are either blind or complicit!

It is hard to expect a discussion of the issue when the sheep do not even understand the issue. This reversal, like the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, like the elimination of the estate tax, like the reduction to 20 percent corporate rate, like the attempt to lower the top rate.....further, clear signs that the new tax bill is meant for the rich, the brain dead believe that reversing the Obama era regulations, means less government, but fail to recognize the very issue.......it is simply a bridge too far, and I am beginning to think that Orwell nailed it.

Do a search. How many times do y'all want to discuss the same topic from scratch?

1776 times.

If folks do not address lies, the liars think if they can say the same nonsense again, it becomes truth. It is incumbent on people to simply challenge lies. The tax bill is NOT for the middle class. Net Neutrality does NOT mean more government. Vigilance.

The public comment process has been corrupted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/22/official-says-hes-been-stymied-by-the-fcc-in-investigation-of-fake-net-neutrality-foes/?undefined&utm_term=.c0a3b022320a&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Investigation of fake net neutrality foes has been stymied by the FCC, New York attorney general says

"The reports started trickling out in May, in the weeks after the Federal Communications Commission had begun soliciting public comments on a proposal to repeal net neutrality rules that govern the flow of information on the Internet.

A large number of messages lambasting the Obama-era regulation began appearing on the FCC's public forum with the same text. While it is not unusual for commenters to use form letters provided by activist groups, people began complaining they hadn't submitted the comments that carried their names and identifying information.

They were being impersonated.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman started to investigate after noticing many of these comments involved people in New York. There was an unexpected roadblock along the way: the FCC declined to cooperate with his office’s investigation, he said, rebuffing requests for logs and other records associated with the comments.

The disclosure the FCC had denied Schneiderman’s request was made in an open letter he wrote to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai this week.

Schneiderman wrote that the FCC's public comment process for the regulation change, which is required by law, “has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities.”..."

Telstar wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Let's hear it.  Why should ISPs be given the power to censer the internet?  

Please proceed, governors.

Are there any Conservatives on this forum any more? Maybe a couple of low level glibertarians but that's all.

Personally, I'm for net neutrality, but just to play devils advocate and give you the corporate libertarian answer ...

"Because the government doesn't own the internet."

EmeraldGhost wrote:
"Because the government doesn't own the internet."

The government doesn't own the stock market or private banks or electric utilities or scheduled commercial airlines but it is certainly in the public interest for the government, as representatives of the people, to regulate those enterprises.

Deus X wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:
"Because the government doesn't own the internet."

The government doesn't own the stock market or private banks or electric utilities or scheduled commercial airlines but it is certainly in the public interest for the government, as representatives of the people, to regulate those enterprises.

But what are the limits of government regulation?  Where does it end?   Are there no limits?

Is it always proper for the government to regulate free commerce whenever it benefits the many at the expense of the liberty of the few?

(just playing devils advocate here, mind you)

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Deus X wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:
"Because the government doesn't own the internet."

The government doesn't own the stock market or private banks or electric utilities or scheduled commercial airlines but it is certainly in the public interest for the government, as representatives of the people, to regulate those enterprises.

But what are the limits of government regulation?  Where does it end?   Are there no limits?

Is it always proper for the government to regulate free commerce whenever it benefits the many at the expense of the liberty of the few?

(just playing devils advocate here, mind you)

If you're referring to the "liberty" of the few to exploit the many, not yes, but hell, yes.

The FCC has just done away with the Lifeline credit...poof. Anyone who thinks that states with Republican governors will pick up the credit for their citizens, please stand on your head and shout "liberty".

Floridatexan wrote:

If you're referring to the "liberty" of the few to exploit the many, not yes, but hell, yes.

"exploit" ???  

Some might say by use of that word you are just using charged language to elicit an emotional response to the issue?  

Does a cable company "exploit" people when they charge extra for different channel or internet speed packages?  

Or do you assert there is some sort of constitutional or human right to 100% unimpeded internet access?

Floridatexan wrote:
The FCC has just done away with the Lifeline credit...poof.  Anyone who thinks that states with Republican governors will pick up the credit for their citizens, please stand on your head and shout "liberty".

Well, I certainly don't know everything there is to know about the "lifeline" program, I am no necessarily against that program ... but it's my understanding it's essentially a form of social welfare program.  Do you argue unrestricted internet access should be a social welfare program as well?  

Are there no limits on the "lifeline" program .... such as no international calls, limits on data, etc.  Or do beneficiaries of the "lifeline" program have to pay extra if they want those services?   Do you oppose those limitations as well?

The broadband issue is a ruse over a moot point. Technically will make current data restrictions into the telegraph. Look objectively at the last ten years... twenty years. The resolution should be in the courts between these ENORMOUS CORPORATIONS. Not the govt colluding to price set and establish control... in the classic fascist model. The huge corps will squeeze the market dry until only the majors exist... while they line the pockets of the corrupt career politicians... who in turn cede themselves the power to ensure the desired result. How many times do we have to see this before it's recognized?

Control is effective ownership.

Regardless of my personal opinion/preference on the immediate "net-neutrality" controversy, here's my prediction.

An increasing number of people in this country want taxpayer funded "free" internet, "free" college, "free" healthcare, "free" etc .... and (barring some sort of economic catastrophe) that's what they will increasingly vote for in the future, regardless of considerations of the limitations on the scope of Federal authority set forth in the US Constitution or of capitalist/free-market ideology.

(note I put "free" in quotation marks)

The internet already has so much advertising and is responsible for so much of our economy now, I'm not sure it shouldn't be free.

If you think about it, we're kinda nuts to pay so much for so many things that bombard us with so much advertising. They need us to be consuming this media so they can get their advertising to us... and they've got us so trained that we're paying for the privilege of being advertised-to. With the internet it's even crazier, because it's become the main place a lot of the population spends their money. It's like charging the public to get into the mall...

Anyway, doing away with net neutrality is one big step toward a plutocracy... which is what the Republican party has wanted for a long time now, anyway. They trick all us blue collar folks in the South with a bunch of stories that they're on our side, but they're laughing up their sleeves the whole time. That becomes evident if you actually look at the policies they pass. They're always for the super-wealthy and corporations, never for the middle or lower classes. They try to keep us dumb enough that we'll keep believing fairy tales. So far it's working for them, and I blame church-training for a lot of that. Once you get people believing horseshit like a talking snake, floating something like "trickle-down economics" past them is easy-peasy. People don't even have the logical and rational tools to reject bad ideas anymore, once they've been raised on absurdity.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

If you're referring to the "liberty" of the few to exploit the many, not yes, but hell, yes.

"exploit" ???  

Some might say by use of that word you are just using charged language to elicit an emotional response to the issue?  

Does a cable company "exploit" people when they charge extra for different channel or internet speed  packages?  

Or do you assert there is some sort of constitutional or human right to 100% unimpeded internet access?

Floridatexan wrote:
The FCC has just done away with the Lifeline credit...poof.  Anyone who thinks that states with Republican governors will pick up the credit for their citizens, please stand on your head and shout "liberty".

Well, I certainly don't know everything there is to know about the "lifeline" program, I am no necessarily against that program ... but it's my understanding it's essentially a form of social welfare program.  Do you argue unrestricted internet access should be a social welfare program as well?  

Are there no limits on the "lifeline" program .... such as no international calls, limits on data, etc.  Or do beneficiaries of the "lifeline" program have to pay extra if they want those services?   Do you oppose those limitations as well?

The Lifeline credit is a straight deduction from your phone and/or internet bill. You have to qualify based on age/income.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast

In an exclusive interview today just hours after announcing his plan to repeal "Net Neutrality" rules governing the actions of Internet-service providers (ISPs) and mobile carriers, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai has an in-your-face prediction for his critics: "Over the coming years, we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity," he said this afternoon. "Ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that's currently on the shelf—the people who don't have digital opportunity—will become participants in the digital economy."

Pai stressed that regulating the Internet under a Title II framework originally created in the 1930s had led to less investment in infrastructure and a slower rate of innovation. "Since the dawn of the commercial internet, ISPs have been investing as much as they can in networks in order to upgrade their facilities and to compete with each other," he says. "Outside of a recession we've never seen that sort of investment go down year over year. But we did in 2015, after these regulations were adopted." In a Wall Street Journal column published today, Pai says Title II was responsible for a nearly 6 percent decline in broadband network investment as ISPs saw compliance costs rise and the regulatory atmosphere become uncertain. In his interview with Reason, Pai stressed that the real losers under Net Neutrality were people living in rural areas and low-income Americans who were stuck on the bad end of "the digital divide."

Proponents of Net Neutrality maintain that rules that went into effect in 2015 are the only thing standing between rapacious businesses such as Comcast, Verizon (where Pai once worked), and Spectrum and an Internet choking on throttled traffic, expensive "fast lanes," and completely blocked sites that displease whatever corporate entity controls the last mile of fiber into your home or business. Pai says that is bunk and noted that today's proposed changes, which are expected to pass full FCC review in mid-December, return the Internet to the light-touch regulatory regime that governed it from the mid-1990s until 2015.

"It's telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings," says Pai, pointing toward actions initiated by his predecessor against "zero-rating" services such as T-Mobile's Binge program, which didn't count data used to stream Netflix, Spotify, and a host of other services against a customer's monthly data allowance. "To me it's just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data."

The FCC is not completely evacuating its oversight role. ISPs, he says, will need to be completely transparent with customers about all practices related to prioritizing traffic, data caps, and more. Pai believes that market competition for customers will prove far more effective in developing better and cheaper services than regulators deciding what is best for the sector. "In wireless," he says, "there's very intense competition—you have four national carriers and any number of regional carriers competing to provide 4G LTE, and a number of different services. In those marketplaces where there's not as much competition as we'd like to see, to me at least, the solution isn't to preemptively regulate as if it were a monopoly, as if we're dealing with 'Ma Bell,' but to promote more competition."

Pai says that one of the major mistakes of Net Neutrality is its pre-emptive nature. Rather than allowing different practices to develop and then having regulators intervene when problems or harms to customer arise, Net Neutrality is prescriptive and thus likely to serve the interests of existing companies in maintaining a status quo that's good for them. In terms of enforcement of anti-competitive practices, Pai says the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is better equipped to deal with problems. "The FTC can take action even in the absence of finding harm, consumer harm," he notes, "so even if consumers aren't harmed, if [FTC regulators] deem a particular business practice, any business practice to be unfair or deceptive, they have authority under Section 5 to take action against it. So that's a pretty powerful tool that they've used even in the last couple of years against telecom providers and others in the internet economy whom they believe are not protecting consumers."

In a wide-ranging conversation (listen below as a Reason Podcast), I asked Pai to lay down specific benchmarks by which consumers might judge whether repealing Net Neutrality rules isn't a mistake. He pointed to factors such as the number of fixed and mobile connections, the average costs and speeds of internet plans, and the volume of capital investment as indicators by which his policy could be held accountable.

He also stressed that the increasing shift from traditional ISPs to mobile wireless will benefit from a looser regulatory framework, including the opening up of spectrum that is either under-utilized, off-limits, or otherwise gathering dust. "We're entering a new era of technology known of 5G and that's going to involve massive amounts of investment in networks and spectrum. And that's the kind of thing that will be a big breakthrough for consumers on the wireless side." Referencing Benedict Evans, a partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Pai believes that "mobile is eating the world": "All of these services are migrating to wireless, and particularly in the future, whether we're talking about low-bandwidth applications, like monitoring yogurt trucks that drive across the countryside, or high bandwidth applications like Virtual Reality, a lot of this is going to be taking place over wireless."

From Beto O'Rourke (also running against Ted Cruz in TX):

Friends,

Today, the FCC will vote on whether to roll back net neutrality and end the free and open internet as we know it. This vote could undermine the very power of people on the internet -- where today everyone's ideas, opinions and creations are available to the world at common access.

Rolling back net neutrality would be very bad for democracy, for the arts, for innovation. I have taken direct action and am working to oppose this effort to undermine the internet by co-sponsoring the Save Net Neutrality Act. This bill would block the FCC's attempt to end our free and open internet.

Sign on right now as a citizen co-sponsor of HR 4585, the Save Net Neutrality Act. We've all got to do everything we can to make sure that we keep the internet accessible to all -- so join me in taking action today.

With smart friends and an open internet, I was able to help start a tech and media company in El Paso without having to "pay-for-play" to internet service providers. I know firsthand how devastating the end of net neutrality would be for small businesses. If the FCC votes down net neutrality, it will directly threaten the success and growth of 2.2 million small businesses who rely on an open and public internet -- and that's just in Texas.

Ted Cruz has actively worked to end net neutrality and is supporting the FCC's incredibly dangerous decision. And just this year, Senator Cruz voted to allow internet providers to share your web browsing history without your permission or consent. And there's no question why: Cruz has taken over $322,000 in contributions from the telecom industry.

Since we launched our campaign for U.S. Senate, I've been on the road listening to Texans in every part of the state, from rural communities to the big cities. I've seen that access to high-speed internet is a non-partisan issue that matters to just about everyone. That's why I'm fighting so hard to protect net neutrality.

Stand with me in support of a free and open internet for ALL. Add your name as a citizen co-sponsor of HR 4585, the Save Net Neutrality Act, today -- and let's show the FCC that we won't back down from this fight.

Thank you for fighting for net neutrality.

Sincerely,

Beto O'Rourke

A.G. Schneiderman Releases New Details On Investigation Into Fake Net Neutrality Comments

New Analysis Shows as Many as 2 Million Comments Stole Real Americans’ Identities; To Date, Over 5,000 People Have Filed Reports with the AG’s Office at ag.ny.gov/FakeComments

FCC is Scheduled to Vote on Net Neutrality Tomorrow, Based on Corrupted Public Comment Process

In New Letter, A.G. Schneiderman Urges Postponement of Vote, Tells FCC: “Moving forward with this vote would make a mockery of the notice and comment process… and reward those who perpetrated this fraud”

NEW YORK – Today, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman released new details of his office’s investigation into fake comments submitted during the net neutrality comment process, with a new analysis showing that two million of the comments stole real Americans’ identities.

“Millions of fake comments have corrupted the FCC public process – including two million that stole the identities of real people, a crime under New York law,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Yet the FCC is moving full steam ahead with a vote based on this corrupted process, while refusing to cooperate with an investigation. As we’ve told the FCC: moving forward with this vote would make a mockery of our public comment process and reward those who perpetrated this fraud to advance their own hidden agenda. The FCC must postpone this vote and work with us to get to the bottom of what happened.”

To date, over 5,000 people have filed reports with the Attorney General’s office regarding identities used to submit fake comments to the Federal Communications Commission on the repeal of net neutrality, on which the FCC is scheduled to vote tomorrow, December 14, 2017. People can check whether their identity was misused and report it to the Attorney General’s office at ag.ny.gov/FakeComments. Examples of the over 5,000 reports already submitted to the Attorney General’s office can be found below.

Attorney General Schneiderman’s latest analysis shows that as many as two million comments misused the identities of real Americans, including over 100,000 comments per state from New York, Florida, Texas, and California. A map can be found below, highlighting the number of fake comments submitted using stolen identities by state.

Despite widespread evidence that the public comment process was corrupted, the FCC’s General Counsel has said that the agency will not cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into the impersonation of New Yorkers, and that it will move forward with tomorrow’s scheduled vote.

In a new letter to the FCC, Attorney General Schneiderman directly rebuts the excuses for refusing to cooperate with an investigation of illegal conduct that could constitute, among other violations, criminal impersonation under New York law.

“Moving forward with this vote would make a mockery of the notice and comment process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act and reward those who perpetrated this fraud in service of their own hidden agenda,” Attorney General Schneiderman wrote. “None of the assertions in your letter justify the FCC’s refusal to share evidence of who committed these illegal acts.”

(map and examples of fake comments using stolen identities)

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-releases-new-details-investigation-fake-net-neutrality-comments

Here's where we are headed...

Did you experience that before 2015? You know... before net neutrality?

https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/the-fcc-just-voted-to-repeal-obama-era-n

Instead, the FCC will require ISPs to be transparent about their services, meaning that bandwidth throttling or other network management practices, which have sometimes been opaque to consumers, would have to be clearly labeled. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.

In a statement today, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee who voted in favor of undoing the Obama era rules, noted that the internet would still be subject to federal oversight, noting that prior to the Title II reclassification, the FTC brought numerous privacy actions against ISPs and that federal antitrust law would still apply to internet service. "We are not giving ISPs free reign to dictate your online experience," he said. "Our decision today includes powerful legal checks."

The shift in strategy is telling: Netflix favored net neutrality rules as a way to preserve a business advantage. As it has grown, it no longer needs that advantage. The debate over net neutrality was always, in part, a tug-of-war over regulatory advantage between tech industry giants. Today, the FCC took steps to stay out of the fight — and remain a neutral regulator over the net.

Mignon Clyburn
I dissent. I dissent from this fiercely-spun, legally-lightweight, consumer-harming, corporateenabling Destroying Internet Freedom Order.
I dissent, because I am among the millions who is outraged. Outraged, because the FCC pulls its own teeth, abdicating responsibility to protect the nation’s broadband consumers. Why are we witnessing such an unprecedented groundswell of public support, for keeping the 2015 net neutrality protections in place? Because the public can plainly see, that a soon-to-be-toothless FCC, is handing the keys to the Internet – the Internet, one of the most remarkable, empowering, enabling inventions of our lifetime – over to a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations. And if past is prologue, those very same broadband internet service providers, that the majority says you should trust to do right by you, will put profits and shareholder returns above, what is best for you.

https://www.wired.com/story/read-fcc-net-neutrality-dissent/?mbid=nl_121417_daily_intro