A loss for net neutrality

[Bob Juch]

The internet has now been taken over by the Federal Government. We've lost more freedom. Way to go America.
We had to wait until they took over to find out what they're going to do. Nothing was released about the details of what this means. Only Tom Wheeler knows. Oh Joy.
It's a matter of who you trust more to protect your interests, big government or big business?

You have more distrust of big government, and there are plenty of horror stories to prove your point:
Oakland Whistleblowers Say Veterans Being Denied Benefits

I'm more fearful of big companies like Comcast:
Another Comcast customer-service gaffe - this one vulgar and viral

Freedom, on the Internet or elsewhere, is an ideal that's rarely if ever achieved. The guys in power always try to take advantage of ordinary folk.

I will go with big business every time. At least there's recourse. There's no recourse when the Government is in charge.

What's your recourse with big business? The recourse when the government is in charge is called the ballot.

The FCC acceded to the will of the people. The decision means we, the people, own the Internet, not Comcast, Time Warner, etc. We paid for it with our taxes.

[Bob78164]

Imagine Rupert Murdoch buying Time Warner, the only broadband service I have access to. Suddenly breitbart loads at the speed of light, while huffpost loads at the speed of molasses. Not possible any more. --Bob

Imagine liberal billionaire George Soros and the Ford Foundation donating $196 million to the quest for net neutrality and sending some of their people to the White House.... Wait. According to the Washington Examiner, that's exactly what already has happened.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros ... le/2560702

And as a result, no one gets to act as a gatekeeper to my Internet experience. I'm okay with that.

How much do the Koch brothers plan to spend this cycle to buy the next President? Wouldn't it be cheaper for them if they could buy ISPs and simply refuse to load Democratic candidates' sites (or load them so slowly no one would wait for them)? --Bob

[BackInTex]

The healthcare industry wasn't broken . . . .

Like hell it wasn't. Millions of people have affordable health care now who didn't in the past. Lives have been saved. Families have avoided financial ruin. And every single "horror story" publicized by the right-wing doubt merchants proved flat-out false when examined in the light of day. People used to live in fear of losing their health coverage, and their family's health coverage, because they got crosswise with their boss or because they chose the wrong company (say, Enron) to work for. Not any more. --Bob

Wrong.

Millions (though I question those numbers) more now have someone else (you and I) subsidizing or fully paying for their healthcare. In other words, more Democratic voters at the government's teat.

Every story? You've vetted each one yourself? "Every" is a big word. Or are you relying on those like MtCowgirl to do your research?

[flockofseagulls104]

The internet has now been taken over by the Federal Government. We've lost more freedom. Way to go America.
We had to wait until they took over to find out what they're going to do. Nothing was released about the details of what this means. Only Tom Wheeler knows. Oh Joy.
It's a matter of who you trust more to protect your interests, big government or big business?

You have more distrust of big government, and there are plenty of horror stories to prove your point:
Oakland Whistleblowers Say Veterans Being Denied Benefits

I'm more fearful of big companies like Comcast:
Another Comcast customer-service gaffe - this one vulgar and viral

Freedom, on the Internet or elsewhere, is an ideal that's rarely if ever achieved. The guys in power always try to take advantage of ordinary folk.

I will go with big business every time. At least there's recourse. There's no recourse when the Government is in charge.

What's your recourse with big business? The recourse when the government is in charge is called the ballot.

The FCC acceded to the will of the people. The decision means we, the people, own the Internet, not Comcast, Time Warner, etc. We paid for it with our taxes.

I will respond to this post, even though it's from you.

The monstrosity that the Federal Government has become is not "WE THE PEOPLE" anymore. Yes, we have a ballot, but regardless of who (or whom) we vote in, there are thousands of nameless bureaucrats for each one of them that were never elected, that are beholden to no one, and have enormous power to affect our lives. And it doesn't matter who we elect or who we send home. This nation of bureaucrats will live on, and will protect their turf and grow. We have now given them control of one of the last things they hadn't gotten their greasy hands on. Without our even having a say in it. Where was my ballot?

Funny you should write 'WE THE PEOPLE". As bad as the shadow government of bureaucrats is, what's worse is the disregard for the document that starts with those three words. The President is now going full force in creating his own set of laws by executive fiat, ignoring current law, deciding what laws to enforce, which not to enforce and just pretty much doing whatever the hell he wants. He's not even shy about it anymore. And our Congress is not doing anything about it. Power is being concentrated in the Executive Branch, and it is going unchecked. You fear Comcast? Comcast cannot harm you if you don't do business with them. Not true with the Federal Government. You should be afraid of the Federal Government. You should be very afraid.

In addition to being a useful idiot, you are very naive if you think the Federal Government represents the people anymore. As Bob numbers said: "The guys in power always try to take advantage of ordinary folk." The Federal Government has a million times more power than Comcast or Time Warner. And you are a fool if you think all the people there are any more noble than those that work at Comcast.

[silverscreenselect]

You fear Comcast? Comcast cannot harm you if you don't do business with them.

A lot of people in the Gulf of Mexico area didn't do business with BP. Guess what.

Your faith in the free market works reasonably well at flea markets where you've got dozens of vendors selling the same merchandise within a few feet of each other and you can move around easily from one to the next. It doesn't work so well in the real world where the major corporations amass power in their own segments.

You didn't seem to be expressing the same degree of fear when Bush was in the White House, even though he used "executive fiat" more than Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ever ... one-chart/

What's really interesting about this chart is that the three Republican presidents of the Roaring 20's (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) used executive orders more than twice as often as any other president since FDR.

[flockofseagulls104]

You fear Comcast? Comcast cannot harm you if you don't do business with them.

A lot of people in the Gulf of Mexico area didn't do business with BP. Guess what.

Your faith in the free market works reasonably well at flea markets where you've got dozens of vendors selling the same merchandise within a few feet of each other and you can move around easily from one to the next. It doesn't work so well in the real world where the major corporations amass power in their own segments.

You didn't seem to be expressing the same degree of fear when Bush was in the White House, even though he used "executive fiat" more than Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ever ... one-chart/

What's really interesting about this chart is that the three Republican presidents of the Roaring 20's (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) used executive orders more than twice as often as any other president since FDR.

Thanks for those talking points.

[silverscreenselect]

Thanks for those talking points.

Thanks for once again showing your openmindedness.

Every time I or one of the Bobs or any liberal brings up anything that contradicts you set belief structure, you give us the line about being part of the Obama/liberal media establishment mindset. Then you tell me that I don't know what you or any conservative is thinking. You're right; I don't. But I do know that you always trot out the exact same for want of a better word talking points that I find on any right wing blog and you quote them as if they are gospel and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary. So, it sure looks to me as if you're doing nothing but blindly trot out the party line.

It's easy when you've got someone like Rush or Sean or the Koch Brothers or Rupert Murdoch's minions there to do your thinking for you.

[Bob Juch]

You fear Comcast? Comcast cannot harm you if you don't do business with them.

A lot of people in the Gulf of Mexico area didn't do business with BP. Guess what.

Your faith in the free market works reasonably well at flea markets where you've got dozens of vendors selling the same merchandise within a few feet of each other and you can move around easily from one to the next. It doesn't work so well in the real world where the major corporations amass power in their own segments.

You didn't seem to be expressing the same degree of fear when Bush was in the White House, even though he used "executive fiat" more than Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ever ... one-chart/

What's really interesting about this chart is that the three Republican presidents of the Roaring 20's (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) used executive orders more than twice as often as any other president since FDR.

And for vetoes, who's the only president to have vetoed fewer bills than Obama?

Spoiler

James Garfield, who vetoed no bills in the six months before he was assassinated beats Obama's three (so far).

[flockofseagulls104]

Thanks for those talking points.

Thanks for once again showing your openmindedness.

Every time I or one of the Bobs or any liberal brings up anything that contradicts you set belief structure, you give us the line about being part of the Obama/liberal media establishment mindset. Then you tell me that I don't know what you or any conservative is thinking. You're right; I don't. But I do know that you always trot out the exact same for want of a better word talking points that I find on any right wing blog and you quote them as if they are gospel and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary. So, it sure looks to me as if you're doing nothing but blindly trot out the party line.

It's easy when you've got someone like Rush or Sean or the Koch Brothers or Rupert Murdoch's minions there to do your thinking for you.

You are upset. I'm sorry. I thanked you for your talking points and that got your panties in a wad. I can tell because when you're upset and confused, you always bring up Rush Limbaugh. Let me be more patient with you and explain why your point that some other presidents have issued more executive orders than Obama is A STUPID ARGUMENT. (whoops, sorry)

A President can issue executive orders. Most if not all have done so. They can issue as many of them as they want. What is different with Obama's is that his executive orders CHANGE THE LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST. He has now done that several times. For an example, let's take his actions regarding illegal aliens. (uh oh, I think they are now calling them Americans-In-Waiting). He completely changed the law, in defiance and without Congressional consent or approval.

It's a pretty easy concept that seems to be difficult for you to understand. It's not the quantity of executive orders, its the content of them. Here's an example that you might understand, because in the example, conservatives are portrayed in a way that is familiar to you.

Fascist right-wing Nazi President Mikey will issue only TWO executive orders during his presidency for life:

1. All power is hereby rendered to the executive.

2. The Democrat Party is hereby a terrorist and criminal organization and all of its members and all of the people who have supported it shall hereby be hunted down with dogs and burned alive.

And here’s the beauty of this: President Mikey responds to the Democrats’ charge of fascism by pointing out that Barack Obama was actually 98.8 percent more fascist because he issued 167 orders to President Mikey’s two.

It’s amazing, isn’t it. I have just seized total dictatorial power and literally executed all of my political opposition, but according to Democrats’ current “reasoning,” I can’t be a fascist because Obama issued more executive orders than I did.

Now I hope you can understand this. Even Obama did, because he repeated publicly many times that he did not have the authority to do this. But that was only until something magical happened and he suddenly did have the power to do it.

[MinisterOfPropaganda]

Fascist right-wing Nazi President Mikey will issue only TWO executive orders during his presidency for life:

1. All power is hereby rendered to the executive.

2. The Democrat Party is hereby a terrorist and criminal organization and all of its members and all of the people who have supported it shall hereby be hunted down with dogs and burned alive.

As Minister of Propaganda, I'd just like to say...... heil Mikey!

And may I have an application, please?

[Bob Juch]

Fascist right-wing Nazi President Mikey will issue only TWO executive orders during his presidency for life:

1. All power is hereby rendered to the executive.

2. The Democrat Party is hereby a terrorist and criminal organization and all of its members and all of the people who have supported it shall hereby be hunted down with dogs and burned alive.

As Minister of Propaganda, I'd just like to say...... heil Mikey!

And may I have an application, please?

It's a good thing we have a Constitution that prevents such crap.

[BackInTex]

It's a good thing we have a Constitution that prevents such crap.

Its a little dusty, though. Hasn't been used much in the past 6 years.

[Bob78164]

In Europe, net neutrality has loopholes. This is what happens in Portugal.

Repealing net neutrality, as the FCC now plans to do, is terrible for small businesses and innovators, not to mention for consumers like us. It's great for entrenched companies though. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Here's a story about how the loss of net neutrality plays out in real life. Verizon's actions demonstrated that it's more interested in its own profits than in public safety. It throttled the data rates of a fire department while it was fighting one of California's wildfires, and it wouldn't lift the throttle until the department upgraded to a more expensive plan. Verizon claims that the refusal was a customer-service mistake, but it hasn't offered to refund the money for the more expensive plan.

As the petitioners challenging the FCC's action wrote, "The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in crediting industry promises to refrain from harmful practices, notwithstanding substantial record evidence showing that [broadband Internet service] providers have abused and will abuse their gatekeeper roles in ways that harm consumers and threaten public safety." Basically, the FCC decided they can trust ISPs even though their behavior has already demonstrated that they will abuse that trust. --Bob