Passed, and they didn't even screw it up...I'm SHOCKED!!
They did it EXACTLY how it needed to be done.

On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to internet service providers.

No new regulations, just applying the same regulations for television and radio that have always been in effect.

No new taxes, no 500 pages of some BS congressional law, no pork, just making ISP's like any other medium.

Mark this day down, something was done right in 7 years of the Obama administration.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/ ... over_again

Rush on Net Neutrality

Aren't they taking something that was un-regulated and regulating it?

If so....... how can THAT be good news?

The only problem is they have no legal right to write the law, that is for congress to do, so yes they did screw up.

Your link don't work.

See....... it's starting already.

So it took them 300+ pages to apply established law to the internet? You sure about the "no new taxes/laws/etc"?

No new taxes is a temporary benefit to get it passed. There is nothing in history that hasn't gotten more regulated, more expensive and less efficient when the government got involved.

Here's what the Republican minority on the FCC said about it:

Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a "monumental shift" to "government control of the Internet."

Further, he accused the FCC of bending to the will of Obama, who last fall came out in favor of such a sweeping regulatory plan.

Pai said the FCC was reversing course from past positions for one reason: "President Obama told us to do so."

He warned of a litany of negative consequences, intended or not, from the net neutrality plan. He said it allows rate regulation -- and, ultimately, rates will go up and broadband service will slow.

Pai said that while the plan defers a decision on applying a service fee to Internet bills -- much like is applied to phone bills -- that surely will change.

"The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes," he said. "Read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It's just a matter of when."

Further, he pointed to slower Internet speeds in Europe, which largely treats the Internet as a public utility, in warning that the additional regulation will lead to less investment and slower speeds in the U.S. as well.

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," Pai said.

Fellow Republican member Michael O'Rielly called the plan a "monumental and unlawful power grab."

See it's that kind of thinking that just floors me. When you just cast a wide brush and say all regulation is bad, that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of capitalism.

The regulation was applied to ensure that 5 big companies cannot do anti-trust.

Regulation is what you do when the market refuses to work it out themselves. The ISP market refused to self regulate, so that's when government steps in.

It is clearly flawed legislation - it involves the .gov.

Gullible...

Can you say agenda???/


Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...ups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

From Matt Walsh via The Blade

Dear Foolish and Gullible Americans, Net Neutrality is Not Your Friend

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...icans-net-neutrality-is-not-your-friend/

They are the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. They have determined that a communication medium meets the definition of something that falls under an already existing law. They didn't write any law. Again, you guys have no idea what's going on other than what some talking head on the radio has told you.

Okay now that was funny right there!!!

I don't know what the 300 pages were, but there was no new law passed, just an application of a law that's been in effect since the 1930's.

Again- There was already laws in effect that regulate it. This was a massive power grab.

This socialist professor wack job even gets it. She has written quite a bit about it, but this is nice and simple.

Roslyn Layton from the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Studies at Aalborg Univ in fuggin' Denmark. A bastion of socialism. :

"Net neutrality sounds good, but it means different things to different people, making it easy for special interests to manipulate it for narrow political ends.

One definition of net neutrality is a user’s freedom to connect to any Internet content, application or service. This is uncontroversial, and Internet providers already agree to uphold this principle.

Using their own definitions, however, companies such as Netflix hijack the language of net neutrality to lobby for regulatory favors. They want the government to mandate that transit costs they pay for today become free. In the offline world, such a deal would mean that retailers could not negotiate agreements with their suppliers or even where products could be placed on shelves.

This campaign intensified when President Obama called for the Internet to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II would effectively give control of the Internet to the federal government, allowing it to monitor networks and set prices. For starters, expect a price increase of at least $150 per year due to new federal, state, and local fees on your Internet subscription.

Regulation proponents argue that without such rules your Internet provider would speed up or slow down websites. There have never been rules against this, but Internet providers don’t do it anyway. Simply put, the business opportunity to deliver an open Internet is far greater. Failing that, antitrust laws deter discriminatory behavior, already ensuring net neutrality. Of the billions of Internet experiences every day, there are only two minor net neutrality violations on record. They were resolved swiftly with existing rules.

Many Americans oppose Internet regulation. Recently, 60 tech companies and 100 American manufacturers –including IBM, Intel, and Black & Decker – warned that Title II regulation would harm the economy and reduce investment.

Americans, just 4 percent of the world’s population, enjoy a quarter of the world’s private investment in Internet infrastructure and drive one-third of the world’s Internet traffic. This investment delivers 5 percent of gross domestic product and employs 10 percent of America’s workforce, 11 million Americans. The unregulated Internet allows almost half of America’s employed to work from home and countless companies to grow. Fifteen of the world’s top 25 Internet companies are American.

With more high-speed wireless connections than any country, the US is the hotbed of mobile innovation. Do we need government regulations to preserve net neutrality? No. The Internet in America works extraordinarily well."

Go wipe your chin.

This is what you people don't get. No legislation was passed, there is no new law. The Internet is recognized as an information medium the same as radio and television...how is that wrong?

You fuuuuuucking idiot. When has that bunch of ass clowns regulating anything ever turned out well?

In the first damn place, I didn't say that ALL regulation is bad.

But....... it should ALWAYS be seen as a necessary evil, with emphasis on the "necessary", by right thinking people.

Do you know that guys like you are a dime a dozen? Ain't never been a shortage of those who consider themselves just a tad more intelligent than "the rest of us".

No wonder you get "floored" whenever you encounter common sense remarks.

GunGeek
If you think this is the end of it dream on, this was just the first move to totally control the communications amongst people.
All you need do is see history to know what is going on. Cheers NC

Black cock sucking runs deep in his family.

Which is what happens when "leadership" delegates authority to underlings that have no legitimate authority to complete a task. There are many examples of Congress doing this, including the EPA, HHS, etc.

"We'll just make a law that says other people can make law, that way we can't be blamed for it.".

Only problem...it doesn't work, and somehow, someday, the ones delegating authority that is their sole responsibilty will be held responsible. Maybe not as individuals, but a whole. It is a rule of nature.

You as much as said both parties suck.

And both parties control the regulation.

But the regulation is a good thing?


Exactly what kind of glue are you sniffing?

Seriously - I do not know how you get from one extreme to the other in the same breath without some methyl-ethyl-badshit being in the air....


And using this train of thought - you have no problems with the ATF playing BAN-THE-BULLET-BINGO?

There are two underlying reasons for this. 1) Tax revenue, they will start taxing the bandwidth you use. 2) They will eventually dictate what website are appropriate. They have been bending over backwards trying to stop conservative talk and communication. Think IRS! Aside from talk radio, the internet carries more conservative info than anywhere else. And not only that, they will control what NEWS gets distributed.

This will be the biggest power grab yet. CONTROL THE MASSES.

Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

I guess Soros and Ford foundation only care about "net neutrality". Right

Only saving grace for the moment is that there will be several years of lawsuits before anything is imposed. Maybe the stupid assed, dumbphuuucking millennials that wanted this will get a clue.

Obviously. That's where your problem starts.

Well I can discern one thing from another. Like I can discern that ATF's proposed ban is a bad thing, and recognize that net neutrality is a good thing. That's because I think for myself. I don't let Rush Limbaugh do the thinking for me.

I understand capitalism enough to know that when a market fails and becomes a monopoly, then something needs to be done. The major ISP's have 97% of the customers in America, and they are practicing anti-trust. What they are doing you can't do with radio or TV, and everyone here seems okay with that.

Riddle me this: If it is exactly the same as what exists, then why does it need to be regulated?

Answer: Because they have to control the internet before they can put controls on the internet. You sheep amaze me.

The Nazis didn't want to do anything to Jews. They just wanted to know where they were - nothing would change. They just needed to identify them.

The Feds don't want to take your guns- they just want to know where they are.

That is correct, no new legislation was passed.

It is "de facto" legislation applying ancient 1930s monopoly regulations to a current technology.

How is it bad? Go read what people actually in the industry are saying.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...lations-wont-protect-free-open-internet/

Go take an economics class and get an understanding of markets and capitalism, and then I'll bother talking to a mental midget like you. This notion that all regulation is bad is the height of ignorance.

Ok. I'll play.

Explain:
1. how it is a good thing

2. how you recognize that as such



Fcc was against it until Obama told them they were for it.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/+

I have noticed that any radio station, here, that has conservative talk shows as their primary thing, soon have other stations jammed on frequency's right by them, to make it hard pick them out at a distance. Lots of band width a few numbers away, but lots of stations in a small area, right near talk radio. Some stations that I listened to for years, I can not pick up now where I live. They are still on the air, but I can't receive them. miles

There is no new law, just application of an existing law. That does not include ANY new taxes.

That's not to say that congress won't try to do it in the future. The freaking democrats have been pissed off about not getting their taxes from the internet for 20 years, and they're not about to let that one die.

EVERY nation has been trying to regulate internet content since its inception; and it hasn't worked yet. China has spent billions and has failed for the most part.

I have no doubt the US will try, but this regulation doesn't give them any more or less legal standing to do so.

So regulating content is a separate issue.


And FYI, the biggest power grab EVER is NSA domestic spying.

The FCC was against it because the head of the FCC was a former ISP lobbyist.

It's a good thing because 5-6 massive ISP's cannot filter content or control bandwidth of this company over that company. The internet remains a level playing field.

No, I'd say the biggest power grabs ever were the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NFA, GCA '68, and NSA domestic spying (arguably under the first two), in that order. At least, within the last 100 years. Prior to that, well, there was that "little" power grab in 1861...

I'll be curious to see how long it takes before the Feds try to ban gun sales on their new toy.

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Tom Wheeler said on Feb. 4 that he backed Obama’s plan to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under the government agency’s Title II authority. FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said in a press release on Feb. 6 that the plan “marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet.” Even a liberal think tank predicted that these regulations could result in a new $156 fee for American households.

"The liberal Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) predicted that households could pay an additional $156 in fees to federal, state, and local governments if regulators reclassified the internet as a public utility in a report released December, 2014. Revenue from these fees would total $15 billion per year, according to PPI."

"Reclassifying the internet as a public utility to achieve net neutrality might also negatively impact broadband Internet service providers (ISPs). This move “could put as many as 174,000 broadband related jobs at risk by the end of this decade,” according to the conservative think-tank American Action Forum.

The regulation could reduce investments in ISPs by $45.4 billion by 2019, according to a report by the economic consulting firm Sonecon. The report was co-authored by Sonecon chairman Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, who said he was an economic advisor to every Democratic candidate since President Bill Clinton, including Obama."

http://www.mrc.org/articles/nets-barely-cover-obamas-internet-regulations

THIS

In fact Net Neutrality is a HUGE step in the right direction for capitalism and free speech.

You'd think conservatives would be all for those two things. I know I sure the hell am.

Damn, just damn.

You couldn't be more wrong or misguided. Mark this day down people as the day when "content" will begin to be controlled. Both here and on television.
Benito Obamalini has won another battle.

Which made the NSA domestic spying legal. Thank you sir.

And don't forget the NFA of '34.

Oh and the GCZ of '68. Little known fact...who do you think paid the lobbyist's for that? US gun manufacturers...that's just sad right there.

Sounds good. Until you understand that zero pushed for it and soros spent 190 million on it. Then it just all becomes worthless words.

Again, separate issue. They may in fact try to do that. But it's not because net neutrality suddenly gave them the ability.

I put the NFA in there, as third. You know who else was totally for the GCA '68? The NRA. Now, how much money has that made them over the years for fighting many of the regulations and rules that they helped put in place?

not reading the entire thread. but it is not constitutional just like most of what zero does. Should have been handled by Congress. Un-elected committee making law. I repeat unconstitutional.

What an idiot! There was 330 pages of legislation passed - much of it yet unclear or defined.
Follow the money here with GG - there is something else at play other than his ignorance.

Right, Kev.

Just another wonderful, freedom-enhancing agenda item from Obama.

Let's say all that is true; I'll just give you that one.

The alternative is to allow 5-6 big companies complete control of what goes over the internet. You also allow them to practice anti-trust; like they have been.

The type of anti-trust they have bee engaging in could cost this company hundreds of billions of dollars. It would be a huge hindrance to capitalism and free speech.

So which is the lesser of the two evils?

No but it will give them the ability to erase any dissenting arguments. It will give them the ability to control all content, thus making the internet and extension of the MSM.

So, prosecute them under an anti-trust suit and keep the additional .gov control and regulation out of it.

Another power grab, another set of taxes and fees, and more .gov control of what is said, how, where, when, and why we do NOT need.

There are laws in place to fix this one identified problem without what is being proposed.

Major ISPs, such as AT&T and Verizon, are expected to sue the agency over the rules.


In addition to lawsuit challenges to the FCC rules, three separate congressional investigations are also underway into attempts by the White House to influence the decision making of Thomas Wheeler, the FCC’s chairman.

The public has to wait until the order is published in the Federal Register before it can see the rules. Publication is expected to take days or even weeks.


They had to pass it so we could know whats in it

If obama and the left are super excited about this, how is the hair on the back of your neck NOT standing up?

First, every nation in the world has been trying that for over 30 years, how's it working for them.

Now let's say you're right. The government wants to control content...well, news flash; they've been doing it all along. This change has nothing to do with that. It doesn't further empower them to do so, nor does it further restrict them from doing so. That little piece of evil happening is just something you need to recognize is happening, and has been happening for a LONG time.

Do you remember how hard it was to find a copy of Edward Snowden's first internet speeches? That was two years before anyone even uttered the words net neutrality.

Separate issue my friend.

Its not the hair on his neck, but the tingle in his leg

Proposed edit. I don't trust any of them and when any of them are excited, my "spidey sense" goes nuts.

Understand that Anti-Trust is only part of the problem. And how long does it take to prosecute anti-trust? In the time it takes to prosecute they could do huge harm to capitalism over the internet.

We could have just broken up the ISP's and passed a regulation that said that an ISP cannot also provide content. I would have been okay with that. But we all know that wasn't going to happen, because neither the democrats or the republicans were even talking about it.

The argument about the flow and speed of data is not the issue - its the "strawman" that draws the unsuspecting in to agree with a false premise. If after 6 years anyone trusts this administrations real intent, well, I've got semi-truck load of M885 ammo for $1.

I enjoy a good common sense look into almost anything, but I can unconditionally say that allowing .gov one more aspect of control is total dumbphuckery at best.

The EPA and ATF started somewhere - this [bleep] doesn't happen over night.

sorry. None of its right; said without debate.

Menstrual cycle.

I'd trust that a lot more than a backroom, secret committee coming up with rules that govern all of us.

Imagine the garden hose contains bandwidth

Well generally I'd have to surrender to that point, and that's a good point.

It's not standing up because Obama and the liberals didn't pass a new law, it's an application of an existing law that has worked very well since 1934. So Obama didn't get is dirty fingers on a law.

I'm telling you, this could have happened in a way that was SO ugly. I'm really shocked they didn't seek a new law, because that would have been the prime opportunity for the democrats to make a big power and money grab, far beyond any new taxation that they may or may not get under this regulation.

Unconstitutional Kevin flipflop ...pure and simple.

There is no back room secret committe, you can read the 1934 Communications Act Title II law for yourself. Hell, we've lived it our whole lives.

http://consumerist.com/2015/02/24/these-2-charts-from-comcast-show-why-net-neutrality-is-vital/

I'm telling you guys, this was the best case scenario.

If we did nothing or accept what was proposed by the ISP's, then capitalism is gone on the internet, and so was free speech.

If we turned it over to congress, we probably would have got net neutrality, but it would have be with 10,000 pages of bullsheitt and pork.

This was the best deal we could have hoped for, and I'm shocked we even got this.

Dood, you're WAY better at this than I am. They won't listen to anything I say, even if it's right...and that's admittedly because I'm an arse-hole.

Who wanted to take the offramp? We haven't heard from those invisible entities.

What if you *wanted* to pay extra to get your Netflix movies faster?

you mean what if you wanted to exercise your right to spend your own money on the benefits of a private enterprise?

Please report for reconditioning....

Yeah, that.

Might as well give it up, Kevin. The anarchists here will never accept that any regulation is ever a good thing. They all seem set on overlooking the history of unbridled capitalism.

Anybody who thinks getting the government involved is going to help anything at any level....I have some ocean front property in AZ to sell you - cheap.

See what I mean?

Really? That's what you add to this conversation. Do you really think those entities haven't weighed in on this issue?

On 23 April 2014, in a press statement, the Federal Communications Commission announced their new proposed rules which would allow Broadband Internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, the "right to build special lanes" with faster connection speeds for companies, such as Netflix, Disney or Google, willing to pay a higher price.

See bold:

Now you don't think the FCC proposed that out of the kindness of their own heart do you? You don't think perhaps they had some lobbying efforts that could have prompted that?

THEY were the one's who prompted the whole issue. They wanted the ability to practice anti-trust legally.

Well if you think regulation is such a good thing why are you on 24hr when you would be much happier on Graybeard outdoors what with all his great regulation you would fit right in.

The point is, you shouldn't HAVE to. Everyone should already have the same speed. But the ISP's specifically degraded the speed of Netflix because they created competing services.

Furnish some links and then you'll be able to drop the rhetoric.

Oh I don't expect to win anything, I do this for fun. I just love to see these guy's heads explode when someone actually thinks for themselves. With a small few exceptions, these guys arguing the other side have never had an original thought in their lives. They only know what the talking head tell them. They are NO different from the liberals they constantly criticize. Little unthinking drones. Just how the two parties like their followers.

Flipflop doesn't understand the consequences of socialism. I'll bet he all for "The Affordable Healthcare" Act as well according to the line of reasoning he displays below.

Hardly. Rather you and a few appear to be ignoring the collective history of obama and soros. I fear the latter more than the former.

This is the crux of it, and the danger, as precedent. There have been other examples, but it is easy to appoint people, and have them approve your wishes without going through the processes normally required for a law to be passed. You may agree with it, or disagree with it, but it is not the process required by the Constitution to make law. Any other argument is just on the fine points...

If you like your internet....

Well if I do, you'll ignore them. But here you go.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_law#Proposed_2014_US_FCC_policy



http://consumerist.com/2014/09/10/t...fk-worse-than-comcasts-customer-service/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=APRIL+23+2014%2C+FCC+PROPOSES&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/12/technology/fcc-fast-lane/index.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25635116/fcc-proposes-fast-lane-internet

That's really funny.

Statements like that are the tip off that you don't even understand the issue.

No? Why couldn't we read the 300+ pages the committee ruled on beforehand?

You should fear both, and use your head to discern which is in play and when.

Or that he does.

Obama and Soros' support only erroded credibility for what was the right thing to do.

Set them aside for a minute and all your hate for them.

EVERY major tech company in the US was for this. The only one's who weren't were the ISP's who stood to make a killing off of what they proposed.

Same speed for the same low price. Each to his needs ect. Sound similar? miles

What does it matter? No new law was passed?

Look at China and how their Government rules the internet

So because Obama lied before, you refuse to even look into this issue. If Obama's for it, it must be bad and you're against it. That's the height of ignorance.

You're right.

The govt is here to help.

LMAO.

And I am sure that they are looking out for the good of the American people and not trying to find a way to maximize profits. Any time the Government does anything, I cringe. Gridlock in Congress is a good thing to me. You can't make bad laws when you are gridlocked. miles

It's the same DAMNED thing with the ATF and ammo Kevin!

Yet you have a problem with that, and not this!

What on earth does that even have to do with this. Why can't you people understand that NO NEW LAW WAS PASSED!!!

It's the same regulations we have all lived under our whole lives, just applied to the internet.

Why are you so willing to screw freedom of speech and open commerce on the internet?

Either it's unbridled hate just because Obama said he was for it. Or you clearly just don't understand the issue. I say it's both.

Here's some discernment 101. Follow the money and when soros doles out 190 million, it's not because he's a nice guy who loves capitalism and freedom so much. It's to further his goals of hurting America, suppressing rights, and ushering in more solid socialism. Same with zero. And when zero says this is good, most know it's bad. Tell me the last time he told the truth and saying "this time", doesn't count.

((It's 2027, a knock on the front door at 2:00 AM...))

"Citizen!! Please show me your Internet Log Book!! (kommissar briefly thumbs through the pages...)) So, it appears that you did not log 40 minutes of internet activity last night. That's a violation of the Internet Neutrality Act of 2015!! Our records indicate that you used an illegal Tor browser to engage in unregistered debate on a subversive forum! I'm confiscating your laptop, you will come with us for further questioning....."

Now you are starting to get it. Lie to me, and I don't ever trust you again. I might have dealings with you, but I don't trust you. miles

Well, no new law was passed, but a previously unregulated entity is now under the power of existing law. Kind of a back door way to throw it under existing regs by calling it something else. Shady. I am puzzled by your complete acceptance of this without knowing the content of the 330 pages. I would not trust this administration to claim the sky is blue. They do not write stuff for the fun of it.

I hope you enjoyed he Kool Aid.
You're gonna find the cost was way too much.

Well get off of the BATF's M885 legislation fight.

No new law was passed, there. It just wasn't interpreted favorably at the time.

Don't you f'n get it?

Yes. I'm going to keep my blood pressure low by not reading the rest of this thread.

And that makes it not the same thing that we have all lived under our whole lives. miles

Why do you think it's the same thing. The ONLY thing that the two issues have in common is regulation. And you could only make such a statement if you're just hard headed and think all regulation, no matter what it's for is bad. If you feel that way, why don't you live in Somalia?

Those two are COMPLETELY different issues.

One is very bad for freedom, and one is seeking to preserve freedom.

The ammo ban is bad, nothing but bad and it's complete BS.

The net thing is trying to preserve freedom of speech, and keep an open market free and open.

What you don't realize is that the internet was quickly becoming an un-free market, and freedom of speech was next.

I'm not trying to be rude, but when you make such a statement you clearly, fundamentally don't understand what was at stake.

It's a *de facto* new law.

Do I need to post the definition?

Okay - I'll play your game...

Tell me now that Rick has never stepped in to control the content on this site.

Before? When did he stop?

Okay I'm calling you on that. Not someone's opinion. Go to the Communications Act Title II of 1934, and SHOW ME where that law gives the government the right to do that.

Good point, he never stops lying.

Seldom, but, and wait for it........HE OWNS IT!

Okay that I get. So don't take Obama's word...or the word of any liberal. But do yourself a favor, don't take the word of some conservative talking head. THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Look into the issue and understand what is at stake, for yourself.

Guess you don't like speed limits on public roads either. Guess you don't like that you get to use the roads just like everyone else. Trucking companies would like to see you restricted to what they don't use. How about we establish fees and access according to who makes the most money for those who build the roads - starting with the one that goes right by your driveway?

Hey I just saw where the ACLU is for Net Neutrality.

So it's gotta be good for me. Right?

The 330 pages don't matter, they're not law. They could say that Satan himself (which means Obama) can come take a chit in my living room. But until it's law, it doesn't mean anything.

I don't have the patience to read the whole thread but isn't it largely private investment that build the internet? The ISPs have spent huge amounts of money running cable, fiber optics, putting in switching centers, etc. If you don't like their terms, offer a competing service. I can accept the government having some say over the airwaves since there is limited bandwith and I can buy that it belongs to public, but a piece of cable that Comcast ran from their switching center to my house on their own dime? I don't get it.

And I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that there is regulation and you like the regulation that is in place (as do I). Not all regulation is bad - as has been intimated by you and others.

He doesn't.

Tell me this, then, what could soro's motivations possibly be to shell out 190 million to get this done? Is he concerned about anti-trust? Is this the first thing he's spent that kind of money on without nefarious intent, primarily to limit freedom and usher in more socialism?

Just more evidence you just can't be bothered with thinking for yourself. You just see who's talking about it, and that makes up your mind. That's a sad state of affairs. I'll bet you wonder why America's so f-d up.

And they did this using public ROW and (forced) easements on private property. Guess there should be no restrictions on that, eh?

no surprise that lefties love 'net neutrality'.

As complicated at the issue is, ALL you need to know about it, in order to make an informed decision as to it's advisability, is who is for it, and who is against it.
With Kevin and obama on the same page, you KNOW that this is bad ju ju.

ends justify means is your answer in essentia.

Dangerous stance to take the next time war, Christianity, or anything else comes up.

But hey, every situation is different, and there is no way this FCC net neutrality business won't ultimately go against us.

Rock on....

Live the dream.

I'll be over here, not understanding....

No my man - I just know who the enemy is. The concept of critical thinking is not lost on me.

I have no idea what Soros is up to. And he's probably up to no good.

But here's the thing, I'm not going to screw free speech and capitalism over the internet on the off chance that Soros might be up to no good.

Again, no new law has been passed. So no one got any special considerations, no pork, no special deals.

Maybe Soros has stock in Netflix, or some other company that was being screwed by the ISP's. I really don't know.

All I do know is when I OBJECTIVELY look at the issue, net neutrality is the right thing to do.

Do I like that Soros and Obama were all for it, no I don't.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do. It's best for capitalism and it's best for free speech.

What I am saying and have said repeatedly, is that government regulation has often been demonstrated as bad, and when zero and soros are involved nothing good can come of it. At least not for freedom loving people.

The internet is the one of the last bastions of freedom in the world. Other countries control and limit that freedom because they hate it, but in America, at least until now, freedom on the internet still exists. To let soros and the traitor in the whitehouse have any influence at all in how the internet will work, is a day American's will regret forever.

And now they can & will tax it & control it at will, simply by doing what they do..........

Take a look at your phone bill & see how much tax you pay as a ratio of the cost for the actual service.......it's completely disgusting.

And the govt control brings absolutely NOTHING, NOTHING to the value of the service.

MM

You know Sam, I never took you for the kind of guy who would abdicate his right to think for himself.

I don't like Obama at all. I don't like Soros. I don't trust either one. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And despite their supoort, I objectively looked at it and realized it's the right thing to do.

There is no such thing as a 190 million off chance. The only interest zero and soros have in free speech and capitalism is the suppression and destruction of both. You cut off your nose to spite your face. There is nothing objective about that.

Hmmm.... A Gibson thread.

Haven't read a word but lemme guess? Obama's balls are being licked, and we're all stupid?




Travis

Succinct!

Can you show me in the 1934 Communications act where they can tax it. Or is that just the rumor you hear?

Do you really think you're not paying taxes on your internet content today?

So you'd just give the internet over to big ISP's who could then be given the ability to legally commit anti-trust, and arbitrarily decide who can have high speed and who couldn't. Or who couldn't be on the internet altogether? Because that's the alternative, that's the only alternative unless someone wants to talk about some other law.

And it's not government control, it's just regulatory rules. Rules that say you can't degrade someone's bandwidth if they're a competitor. You can't block content because it's competition.

It's now open to everyone on an even basis, just like radio and television.

Not when the hands are broke off

Okay let's use YOUR analogy. Because Obama's for it, I'll give the internet over to ISP's and allow them to determine who gets good bandwidth and who doesn't, and allow them to decide what can and cannot be on the internet.

There are already are restrictions in place.

Due to net neutrality I am now monitoring you

you should have posted
"even a stopped clock is right twice a day"

Carry on fellas

There already were laws and regulations in place.

He's drowning in a pool of koolaid.

Just curious, how many campfire members bothered to send the FCC a note during the comment period on net neutrality?

FYI, the FCC received 4 million comments from Americans on the issue of net neutrality. I know that sites like reddit had members push for sending in comments to rule the way they did, tech savvy young folks overwhelmingly like what the FCC did.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the BATFE receives just as many comments opposing the rule change on M885 ammo.

Thats what the FCC said. I know you aren't that gullible

I bet they overwhelmingly voted for obama as well.

And how were they working? They weren't. ISP's were censoring, and degrading bandwidth to extort money.

Companies who were in negotiations with these ISP's suddenly had big drops in bandwidth during negotiations, but when the contract was inked, suddenly their bandwidth increased.

Well, Obama did send reddit a personal thank you note on the issue of net neutrality. The "squeaky wheel gets greased".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-thanks-for-your-help-on-net-neutrality/

http://www.redditblog.com/2015/02/thank-you-reddit-your-efforts-led-to.html

It's not an analogy. It's a historical statement of fact.

As for your contentions regarding the evil ISP's, isn't that what free markets do, and let their actions be rewarded or punished by the marketplace? Get government involved and they will serve up agenda laden nonsense,create huge mindless bureaucracies, and tax the public for the opportunity to suppress them.

We're just talking past each other. Have a nice day and weekend.

Laughin' my ass off...

Where have we heard this before...............oh yea, "We have to pass it to see what's in it"

That worked out well didn't it?

Damn! you are the man Clark!

You too sir, hope it's not ballz-azz cold this weekend where you are. We have a system moving in tonight, kills my dirt bike riding for tomorrow.

What Gibson is REALLY saying is that WE, on our own, are not smart enough to see how stupid HE is.

Somebody else must have tipped us off.

7 below this morning. Supposed to be a balmy 34 tomorrow. That's Iowa for me.

No - it ain't a bastion of freedom. You've just been fooled into thinking it is.

Obviously - you completely missed my point. Sorry - no time to 'splain it to ya right now.

I did. I said I was against it.

Obama is an habitual liar yet you chose to believe him on net neutrality?

Net neutrality = Govt. Internet control and should be named as such, is an attack on the 1st amendment. The first thing done when we started Desert Storm? Knock out enemy communication.

The ATF = Govt gun control, an attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Both attacks on Rights Guaranteed by the US Constitution.

There are attacks on other amendments but I don't have to list them individually to an intellectual such as yourself.

g

Kev is really channeling his inner Marie Harf.

It's all "too nuanced" for us.

flipflop will stomp his feet and have his tantrum until someone agrees with him....it is going to be a long thread

As did I.

And you say no new laws were passed? WTF do you think this FCC Rule making is?

Unconstitutional by passing of the US Congress by unelected but appointed citizens.

now Kevin, you know, from our years of back and forth, that I like you, and respect you. HOWEVER, the intent of this change in FCC rules is so transparent, and so potentially detrimental to us all, that it is going to be a disaster.
Allowing the FCC to set it's own rules, and to potentially examine each and every single complaint will clog the halls of bureaucracy, allow for rampant abuse, and WILL BE USED FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
You are FAR too trusting of those in DC, those that have showed us over, and over, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, that they cannot be trusted.

How many rounds of ammunition will the FCC now need?

Excellent point sir.

Lay down your Arms...

Me too!

Why was the vote split along party lines?
3 dems for - 2 reps against. Coincidence?

I don't really know what that has to do with this. I do not like when the Feds step in and tell us what to do. It should be a state matter.



I pay for that use every time that I buy gas. Except for a few miles when I was in Texas and they sent me a bill. Worth the money to by pass Austin.



They don't pay their fair share in taxes to road wear, they should do that.



No road past by drive way. I live at the end of a gravel road, and up until just a few years ago, all the gravel on it was mostly paid for by me and my Dad. County occasionally paid for a little gravel, we had to pay for the hauling. Guess which one cost the most.



I have no idea what you mean with that. miles

I will tell you this just once.

These new rules are not what you believe them to be.

They will in time tax or get fees from anything done on the internet.
Once that is done they will use any excuse to keep anything they don't like/want on the web.

This is not a good thing.
You will believe one day but by then you will be to late.

Yup, pretty much sums it up.

Now that was fuggin' funny!

Who could be against net neutrality? It sounds so peaceful and mellow, man. Make love not trolls. And I for one can't wait for our new electronic overlords to enact another Universal Access Tax (Obamaphone funding) on the rich. Poor people have a right to broadband too.

GunGeek is very mixed up and wrong on this whole topic.

I just wanted to be on record, Kevin, that you are being played for a fool, and within your lifetime will regret your support.

When you turn out to be wrong, will you admit it in an open public forum such as this one?

Net neutrality just a pretty name for net control.

You'd never know the Republicans scored a significant victory last November. The Benito Obamalini is running thru them like "crap thru a goose".
Ole Jebster will pull us out of the stupor.

How does anyone not see this?

Oh hell I don't know........stupidity, drinking to much liberal koolaid, wearin' blinders so the truth is not seen, conveniently ignoring the facts..............

.

It was nice getting to know you guys.

Hello? Kevin?? Where ARE ya bud??? Still on the NN Kool-Aid?

Hmm. Mus' be in hiding - similar to Bob when I bring up T. Woods...

Just remember - If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period!

I brought that up only to be informed that I don't understand the situation.

The situation is .gov involvement. Ol' kev cain't get to that.