Tell the FCC and Congress You Support Net Neutrality

[zoi]

SPEAK OUT NOW!!

We have already seen blatant moves towards making a two tier toll
road out of our wide open democratic internet, as when Comcast
started discriminating against particular users recently. And you
remember when the AT&T censored Pearl Jam's criticism of Bush, and
when Verizon censored NARAL's pro choice text messages. This is our
chance to speak out and make our voices heard to defend our free
internet.

The FCC has bowed to pressure and is investigating complaints that a
major internet service provider is selectively blocking traffic. We
need to let the FCC and Congress know that we are willing to defend
net neutrality from big corporate interests.

The FCC is asking for public comments. Let the FCC know that you
support true net neutrality, and you oppose any attempts by giant
telecoms to weaken or dismantle it.

Net Neutrality FCC Comments:
http://www.usalone.com/laesch/pnum786.php (anyone can use this link)

Facebook Version:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/a...p?qnum=pnum786 (to use
this you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)

[homeboyjase]

You want government intervention on the internet? Woo hoo...


If you don't like your ISP censoring the information that comes through their pipes, switch to another service provider.

[jumpyg1258]

I thought Net Neutrality would allow ISP's "neutrality" when it came to regulating the internet?

[Mini-Me]

The real problem is that we don't have any competition in the ISP market. Generally speaking, local governments LITERALLY give cable companies 15 year monopoly contracts based on whoever does the best wining and dining, and the same goes for phone companies.

In other words, the whole problem stems from government regulation and involvement (though in this case, it's not necessarily the federal government doing it)...if we had more ISP's to choose from, they'd have to bend over backwards to serve customers rather than their own selfish interests. If the existing ISP's in a free market all colluded to censor sites they don't like, etc., someone else would see a market opening for net-neutral service.

In other words, the answer is honest competition.

[Dustancostine]

Ron Paul voted AGAINST Net Neutrality because it actually gave the Federal government the ability to regulate the internet. He believes the Govt. has no right therefore even passing a law about it would be bad.

[eOs]

I am for net neutrality. You're putting a law on it to prevent big business from taking advantage of how they sell their bandwidth. Yes the government is interfering, but it's interfering in a good way.

[Chibioz]

i don't don't trust the government to make those laws, i would rather have no net neutrality laws. the internet is working just fine now. the evil government ruins everything it touches.

[RlxdN10sity]

I am for net neutrality. You're putting a law on it to prevent big business from taking advantage of how they sell their bandwidth. Yes the government is interfering, but it's interfering in a good way.

This line of thinking is shortsighted at best. The government always starts its regulations in a good way so that the public will support it. They sometimes will even engineer a problem, or let one occur without making attempts to avert it so the public will support the solution they already have in place but still need circumstances to justify and provide support for its implementation. The problem with the Federal Government intervening in the regulation of the internet even as you say "in a good way" is that it sets precedent for them to continue to regulate the internet as they see fit, as time goes by. The other angle that I think they are working on is the child predator angle. Oh, protect the children from the evil internet. And they will focus on regulation, filtering, and censoring technologies and some type of cyber police unit instead of the real problem which is, parents need to raise and educate their children about the hazards of the world and the internet. We must do our best to prevent the passing of Federal legislation that puts the government into the internet business, regardless of the circumstances that seems to justify it, or we will lose this last standing arena of free thought and speech as we know it today.

The problem is lack of competition. This stems from overegulation and local government. We need to act on this locally and provide an economic and regulatory climate that is friendly and inviting toward competition to encourage more ISP companies to come into being.

[Matt Collins]

NN would allow the government to regulate the Internet. That's a BAD THING.

Oh - and telco/utility monopolies should be eliminated too so that free market fair competition can flourish.

[HOLLYWOOD]

They regulate the FCC too! The government wrote the FCC rules and laws so they (CONGRESS) can bias the media to the candidate that is the party's choice, NOT THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE.

DEBATES are considered "ON the SPOT" political coverage, so the MSM can manipulate the amount of coverage to each candidate. In other words... the GOP part pays FOX and NBC $5 million dollars to exclude Ron Paul and second tire candidates and serve them up loaded, look made questions.

Government themselves have rigged it... just like their own PAY and BENEFITS

[Dave Pedersen]

Everything the government touches is worsened as a result. Ron Paul did good. The name "net neutrality" is deceiving.

[noztnac]

SPEAK OUT NOW!!

We have already seen blatant moves towards making a two tier toll
road out of our wide open democratic internet, as when Comcast
started discriminating against particular users recently. And you
remember when the AT&T censored Pearl Jam's criticism of Bush, and
when Verizon censored NARAL's pro choice text messages. This is our
chance to speak out and make our voices heard to defend our free
internet.

The FCC has bowed to pressure and is investigating complaints that a
major internet service provider is selectively blocking traffic. We
need to let the FCC and Congress know that we are willing to defend
net neutrality from big corporate interests.

The FCC is asking for public comments. Let the FCC know that you
support true net neutrality, and you oppose any attempts by giant
telecoms to weaken or dismantle it.

Net Neutrality FCC Comments:
http://www.usalone.com/laesch/pnum786.php (anyone can use this link)

Facebook Version:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/a...p?qnum=pnum786 (to use
this you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)

I was under the impression Ron Paul opposed net neutrality. Did I miss something?

[0zzy]

I'm sick and tired of people telling me that Net Neutrality is "bad". It's one issue I disagree with Paul, and it's something that shouldn't be a "nope, you're wrong!" I swear, you hate it when people tell you global warming is real and you are a fool for not thinking that way, you guys act the same with this.

Btw, I read the bill, it regulates internet businesses, not the internet. Some fear that that would somehow lead to government regulation of the internet, but at this point I would rather not have corporations saying where I can and can not go.

[Matt Collins]

Btw, I read the bill, it regulates internet businesses, not the internet. Some fear that that would somehow lead to government regulation of the internet, but at this point I would rather not have corporations saying where I can and can not go.

Please cite where in the Constitution that the federal government is given the power to regulate communications companies?

[Kludge]

I'm sick and tired of people telling me that Net Neutrality is "bad". It's one issue I disagree with Paul, and it's something that shouldn't be a "nope, you're wrong!" I swear, you hate it when people tell you global warming is real and you are a fool for not thinking that way, you guys act the same with this.

Btw, I read the bill, it regulates internet businesses, not the internet. Some fear that that would somehow lead to government regulation of the internet, but at this point I would rather not have corporations saying where I can and can not go.

It's government regulation of business. When you subscribe to their service, they determine what service is provided and at what quality, not the government.

Maybe a better analogy would be cable TV. They determine what channels you will and will not see based on how much you pay. Maybe the ISP wants you to pay $20/month for "limited" accesss or $50/month for their "unlimited" service. They should have the right to do that. If you don't like it, find another service, there's no monopoly on ISPs (... yet).

[Mini-Me]

I'm sick and tired of people telling me that Net Neutrality is "bad". It's one issue I disagree with Paul, and it's something that shouldn't be a "nope, you're wrong!" I swear, you hate it when people tell you global warming is real and you are a fool for not thinking that way, you guys act the same with this.

Btw, I read the bill, it regulates internet businesses, not the internet. Some fear that that would somehow lead to government regulation of the internet, but at this point I would rather not have corporations saying where I can and can not go.

Once again, the only reason these corporations even have the leverage to say where you can and cannot go is because they are literally given monopoly contracts by most local governments. By law, no competition is allowed. When there's no competition, of course companies will exploit their customers! However, you have to realize that regulations, especially at the federal level, are essentially written by the same companies they're meant to regulate. I used to be a huge proponent of net neutrality legislation myself, and I am still a firm believer in the principle of net neutrality, but the underlying problem is not underregulation - it's overregulation and monopoly contracts. What we really need is not regulation, but honest competition - and only that can shift the power balance back in the favor of consumers.

[JordanQ72]

The arguments presented here are so backwards in regards to being against net neutrality.

Claiming net neutrality is going to allow the government to regulate the internet is akin to claiming the first amendment lets government censor speech. It's specifically designed to protect your free speech, and this is legislation to protect your right to complete access to the internet.

You forget, but the internet was a government creation to begin with, in the interest of the public good, not corporate profits.

[Chibioz]

The way I see it, we have free speech on the internet, it is a structure that we the people can create and control. It is working now. There is no reason to let the government start regulating it. The arguments presented for net neutrality legislation is based off fear mongering. We need less regulation from the U.S. government, not more.

[dementedme]

we've been through this before.

net neutrality is BAD.

[AutoDas]

I'm sure it's been discussed how forcing telecoms to not price use of their cables is not the best way to become "neutral," but I think Comcast using Sandvine to stop bittorrent seeding should be investigated. No one has the right to peek into your packets that are being sent, it's invasion of privacy and you wouldn't like it if someone invaded your home and took back their stuff that you bought from them. Proponents seem of Net Neutrality seem to forget that their government gave these companies tax money to build an infrastructure so you deserve what you get. Comcast and these other companies are made into monopolies by the government so you want the same government to get even more involved.

[Unspun]

http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1662

[Zolah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

[integrity]

net neutrality = more government = bad.

then soon they will have a new tax to fund their regulation of their
'property" you know the govt is looking for a way to own the internets....

[Zyphlin]

Net Neutrality, in our current system, is the quickest and more likely solution to this problem.

The greater solution would be to remove government restrictions that allow the Telecomm's their monopoly, thus keeping it from being a "free" market, which is the reason this problem is present in the first place.

The sad fact is, that's a LOT less likely to happen than Net Neutrality is.

[ARealConservative]

SPEAK OUT NOW!!

We have already seen blatant moves towards making a two tier toll
road out of our wide open democratic internet, as when Comcast
started discriminating against particular users recently. And you
remember when the AT&T censored Pearl Jam's criticism of Bush, and
when Verizon censored NARAL's pro choice text messages. This is our
chance to speak out and make our voices heard to defend our free
internet.

The FCC has bowed to pressure and is investigating complaints that a
major internet service provider is selectively blocking traffic. We
need to let the FCC and Congress know that we are willing to defend
net neutrality from big corporate interests.

The FCC is asking for public comments. Let the FCC know that you
support true net neutrality, and you oppose any attempts by giant
telecoms to weaken or dismantle it.

Net Neutrality FCC Comments:
http://www.usalone.com/laesch/pnum786.php (anyone can use this link)

Facebook Version:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/a...p?qnum=pnum786 (to use
this you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)

congrats - you have been duped.

[ARealConservative]

Net Neutrality, in our current system, is the quickest and more likely solution to this problem.

The greater solution would be to remove government restrictions that allow the Telecomm's their monopoly, thus keeping it from being a "free" market, which is the reason this problem is present in the first place.

The sad fact is, that's a LOT less likely to happen than Net Neutrality is.

Hi Zyphlin - I'm the now banned member of DebatePolitics.

Just be careful criticizing McCain over there - the supposedly libertarian moderator doesn't take too kindly to it.