Obama take over internet

marc

Lifetime Supporter
FCC has been directed by Obama to regulate the internet, bringing to bear new regulations, taxes, slowing of the net, and control of free speech. What next will your nut due next.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
And, Marc brings the heavy stupid. Ensuring net neutrality is NOT what you posted.

Turn off the Faux News, and good do some research, and come back when you have something founding in fact to say.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Thank goodness business has some check/balance in this country. Can you imagine what the world would be like if there was absolutely no regulation of critical services, and corporations were left to control themselves?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
You double down on the stupid and then want an apology. Uh, no.

Your "cite" is a BREITBART (if you think that is news you are hopeless) cite to one of the Republican commissioners on the FCC whining about something he hasn't seen yet.

The fact of the matter is that net neutrality is designed to insure that internet provides NOT discriminate in what you see on your browser based on content or source. A lot of places in the US only have one provider and if that happened....welll there Mr. Grapevine TX, how would you like it if the provider in your area only streamed Rachel Maddox and wouldn't let you go trolling on the Breitbart site?

In fact, since most right wing whackos these days claim to be Libertarians rather than Republicans, I would think that ensuring the free dissemination of information on the internet would be one hell of a Libertarian blowjob with a side of testicle tickling.

If this idea came from a Republican, you'd love it. Since it has the word "Obama" on it, you revert to irrational hate mode.
 

Steve

Supporter
Jeff,

1)Pai was appointed by Obama.
2)He has seen the plan. His concern was that the public won't get a chance to see the plan. He has seen it.
3)He has concerns about the unprecedented executive involvement in an independent agency. The agency is supposed to function in the public's interest, not further a political agenda.
4)He is concerned that increased government regulation of the internet that only regulates base ISP's but not the giants
5)He is concerned about the windfall for the trial lawyers, the tax increases (and how that might make it prohibitively expensive for ISP's to provide access to more rural areas of the country)

There are other concerns as well....but since the public isn't going to get a chance to look at it until it's passed and law (with executive interference in a purportedly independent agency) we won't have any chance to influence it, critique it etc 1st.

All legitimate concerns.

BTW, while you might disagree with Marc your abusive tone is inappropriate. You acuse Marc of "irrational hate" but the only hate expressed on this thread came from you.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Marc ignorantly calling the President a nut and claiming this is a "government take over of the internet" and some sort of assault on free speech -- when it is in fact the opposite -- is an abusive tone that is innappropriate, and constitutes irrational hate.

Your endorsement of it is the same.

The fact that group think on the right wing isn't offensive to YOU doesn't mean it isn't offensive to ME. You're blind to that but so it goes. Still doesn't change the fact that a lot of the crap that gets posted here you nod your head at, I find offensive.

You also need some learnin'. The FCC has partisan seats guaranteed to political party members. Pai is a REPUBLICAN appointed to the REPUBLICAN seat.

Your point 5 is a nonsequitur and has nothing to do with the issues.

2, 3 and 4 might - MIGHT -- be tangential issues. The core issue is whether ISP can restrict the transfer of information based on CONTENT. If you think they can, I can't wait until you get all Huffington Post, all the time beamed to your computer and nothing else.

You and Marc need to get educated before you discuss something that is way, way over your heads at this point.
 

Steve

Supporter
Jeff,

Marc did refer to the president as a nut.... but not you. Your assault is on Marc, there's the difference.

You can't know what the FCC rules call for and therefore you can't say Marc is wrong because the FCC won't let the public see it. The individual on the FCC who has seen the rules expressed concerns that appear legitimate (in time they may prove to not be but until then, they look concerning).

I haven't endorsed anything. Marc may be completely wrong, and you should certainly point out why you think it may be crap rather than just attack.

I don't need "lernin". Of course the FCC has partisan seats and Pai is a republican. He was appointed by Obama, though, and he's correct that the executive branch is not supposed to interfere with an independent committee. #5 is not a nonsequitur (although as a lawyer you may feel generating more trial business is a good thing). If ISP's find it prohibitively expensive to provide service to rural communities that's a real problem. You're correct on the core issue but it's not clear that the FCC will adequately address that (because we can't see it) while also letting a large nonISP like Google discriminate.

Your diatribe above, which puts a lot of words in my mouth and makes many assumptions, is another example of your hate expressing itself. You may be right, and presenting an intelligent rebuttal is welcome. Your hateful attacks masking as righteous indignation are not welcome.
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Jeff, I have listened to Rachel, and as a you think I am as right as you can get, you miss the point, just the fact that the US government is attempting to control IN ANY WAY the internet, will lead to political manipulation, limitation of free speech (left or right), and other political abuses (again left or right), and if you think this is a not a big deal you really miss the point. Any political/government control of the internet is an assault on your rights, even your right to call me names and my right to call Obama names. We have that right because of the Constitution that made sure that these rights would not be taken from us and a Supreme Court that is supposed to guarantee that that does not happen. Radio America came and went, why? Because of its inability to pay for itself or bring enough listeners to it. Rachel came from there and moved to other media forms because she was a popular figure. As for your apology I expect it because your first post did not recognize that I did research, and secured your information for you, and was an actual interview not a OPED that typically comes from the backsides of critics. You, as a democrat or liberal, not sure, are arguing the wrong issue, the political side. You miss the long term effects of what this will do. We will loose the Internet and its unique ability for doing just what we are doing. In the book "1984" Orwell writes "some are more equal than others." This is what will happen to the Internet, those that are controlling the Internet will start limiting speech in many ways, censorship, slowing down certain sites, and making its use limited to the point that we will have another communications venue come up and open a different channel to allow freedom of communication. Look at AOL and all those companies before that allowed bulletin boards. It is an evolution. I may come down to rogue intranets that will still allow us to communicate freely and without encumbrances. Jeff, your statements are possibly valid for the short term but you don't know the future either and your position on net neutral is wrong. It has been said that anything the government starts to control it fails miserably. Why? because so many powerful, greedy players inject their points into it and spirals out of control. Social Security, US Mail, IRS, Medical support, even school lunches have become a sad failure. Some are recent some have been propped up for so long it not funny.
Now in reading this is this a left or right leaning information. could go either way.
I just want a free speech America because to me that right gone is the end of America.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 70, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
And, Marc brings the heavy stupid. Ensuring net neutrality is NOT what you posted.

Turn off the Faux News, and good do some research, and come back when you have something founding in fact to say.
I'm surprised you can still see what he posts...I fixed that some time ago.

No wonder he's such a PITA! :D
Randy, I hope you don't see Jeff as the PITA....or perhaps that was tongue-in-cheek???

Cheers!

Doug
 
Top