posted February 18, 2011 01:26 PM            

The FCC just got the answer from the US House of Representatives...Hell No! Keep your greasy, grubby, conniving paws off the Internet.

House passes amendment to block funds for net neutrality order
By Juliana Gruenwald - National Journal Published: 8:19 AM 02/18/2011

The House passed an amendment Thursday that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from using any funding to implement the network-neutrality order it approved in December.

The amendment, approved on a 244-181 vote, was offered by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to legislation that would fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/18/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order/

posted February 18, 2011 06:06 PM            

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.

—Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users

Link

posted February 19, 2011 09:59 AM            

So, they attempted a straight power grab without any authority whatsoever.

posted February 19, 2011 11:21 AM            

Oh wait, the O'Bomber FCC wants to do no such thing. What the O'Bomber FCC really wants is control over the Internet and regulation was the path of control they chose.

Happily, the Republican led House gave the O'Bomber FCC the biatch slap they deserved.

It's too bad the House didn't go further and cut the FCC budget in half as a reminder...and warning..to the O'Bomber FCC and the other long nosed busybody regulating meddlers to keep their long bony noses out of the private sector.

posted February 19, 2011 10:44 PM            

What O'Bomber's FCC really wants to do is control the Internet...and it's content..through regulation.

Once the precedent of regulation is established...then all Internet activity will be subject to the very same regulating authority.

No sale!

If you don't like what your Internet provider is doing...then change providers. Problem solved.

posted February 21, 2011 10:02 AM            

It is absolute irrationally to believe that every rule, every law, every regulation DOES NOT destroy freedom of choice to do..or not do...something.

posted February 21, 2011 06:31 PM            

And don't quote Jefferson to me. He hoped with all his heart that America wouldn't become what it did become. Jefferson believed that everything was liberty that didn't intrude upon another's, yet the only way to establish whether one person's liberty encroaches upon another's is by law.

posted February 22, 2011 11:18 AM            

I merely responded to your nonsense support for Net Neutrality regulation which you say would lead to "consumer's freedom".

We already have almost total freedom on the Internet acoustic...except that O'Bomber wants the authority to shut the Internet down at his command.

Net Neutrality is a government solution in search of a problem.

Randall has it right.

"The net has been doing just fine for many years without the need for government control."

posted February 22, 2011 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

Not much homework is involved to do a simple search, AG.

---

No kidding. That's why you shouldn't assume that other people aren't aware of what they're talking about.

quote:

---

The net has been doing just fine for many years without the need for government control.

---

This mistates/overstates the government's role in its own proposed policy.

quote:

---

Bravo on them for shooting down this oppressive measure.

---

That's writing dramatically when unnecessary. "Oppressive" is far too strong a word for a government agency seeking to preserve citizen's liberties.

Open-mindedness results in a different kind of post than the ones you've made here. An open-minded approach, at the very least, would acknowledge one side of the argument while addressing it's concerns from the oppositing position. Saying it's a problem that doesn't exist doesn't deal with the issue that it can exist, and more importantly doesn't make the argument for why it should.

If you were restricted from accessing this website by your ISP, you wouldn't think to yourself, "Oh, thank goodness the government doesn't have a policy on my internet service." No, you'd be ****** . You'd complain to your provider, and then you'd have to go find new service, which would have been completely unnecessary if a net neutrality policy were in place.

Or what if your ISP forced you to use its internet browser, and you had to deal with half a screen of ads anytime you surfed the internet [in addition to the ads already on the sites]? Yeah, you'd like that, too, right? And when you tried to go to Amazon.com, it instead routed you to it's own online store disallowing you access to amazon. When you tried to go to NetFlix, it automatically rerouted you to Blockbuster, because of a trade agreement.

What about when the ISP's set themselves up like cable companies offering you a wide selection of sites for the low cost of $100/month? Not total internet access, mind you. Just some. The premium stuff as decided by themselves.

In these cases, I'm certain you'd be glad for the government not guarantying certain liberties (i.e. being "oppressive").

posted February 22, 2011 12:57 PM            

quote:

---

Hey acoustic, I didn't make any judgments about whether any rules, laws or regulations were good, bad or indifferent.

---

You did:
It is absolute irrationally to believe that every rule, every law, every regulation DOES NOT destroy freedom of choice to do..or not do...something. - Jwhop

quote:

---

I merely responded to your nonsense support for Net Neutrality regulation which you say would lead to "consumer's freedom".

---

Only you haven't made even a tiny case for why it's "nonsense" as you say.

quote:

---

except that O'Bomber wants the authority to shut the Internet down at his command.

---

That is not what net neutrality is about. Don't confuse issues.

quote:

---

Net Neutrality is a government solution in search of a problem.

---

posted February 22, 2011 01:08 PM            

Hey acoustic, this was not a value judgment about rules, laws or regulations being good, bad or indifferent.

It was a judgment about your irrationality in believing that all three of the above..rules, laws and regulations don't limit freedom to do or not do...something.

You showed that irrationality when you said Net Neutrality regulations were for the purpose of protection of consumer freedom.

With regulation, comes control which always limits freedom of choice.

posted February 22, 2011 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"It is absolute irrationally to believe that every rule, every law, every regulation DOES NOT destroy freedom of choice to do..or not do...something. - Jwhop"

Hey acoustic, this was not a value judgment about rules, laws or regulations being good, bad or indifferent.

It was a judgment about your irrationality in believing that all three of the above..rules, laws and regulations don't limit freedom to do or not do...something.

You showed that irrationality when you said Net Neutrality regulations were for the purpose of protection of consumer freedom.

With regulation, comes control which always limits freedom of choice.

This is another fine mess you've gotten yourself into acoustic.

---

It depends on what the rule is and how it is being used by society.

Example:

Do any of you want No traffic laws? Come on, That would be crazy.

Some rules do keep you safe, The common sense rules.

Now, We do have other rules that are not so common.

Which ones do you mean exactly?

"This is another fine mess you've gotten yourself into acoustic"

Oh dear lord Lets go circle a drain, Just flush the toilet already.

Hey I know maybe "O'Bomber" will pass some human decency laws eh?

nah people would revolt right?

Note: on hindsight I feel compelled to say that it can only be achieved by the people themselves, I do not wanna give someone the wrong idea. sheesh.

Sooner or later your clock will start ticking, I hope.

posted February 22, 2011 02:46 PM            

I haven't shown an ounce of irrationality on the matter. The only people being irrational here are those that enjoy net neutrality whilst claiming to be against it. That's irrational.

Randall,

You have shown nothing but stubbornness, and that is the antithesis of open-mindedness. Show me where you showed that you considered the other side in any of your miniscule attempts at argument.

quote:

---

AG, you stated that our position is "illogical," which clearly showed that you didn't understand it.

---

This is typical Jwhop stuff, Randall: stating something without backing it up. I've continuously illustrated the lack of logic in the premise against net neutrality, and there have been no successful counters to what I've said.

quote:

---

You still don't understand, and your irrational stance on most issues seem to signify that you summarily reject anything which opposes your world schema

---

Don't project. That's you. Not me. You are the one that came here and claimed open-mindedness, and then proceeded not to show any evidence to support the claim. You said you did your homework, and that there are good reasons for taking your stance, and yet YOU didn't bring a single one of those arguments to the table to illustrate your comprehension of the subject matter. I was trying to be nice and delicate about your inability to convey your open-mindedness. You restated Jwhop's position. That's doesn't convey broadmindedness. You haven't even shown an openness to the arguments that would help your case. It doesn't get much more ridiculous than that.

Yes, you are in the Twilight Zone. You imagine things about me and you that are not true. You imagine that you're open, and you imagine that I'm merely stubborn, which I'm not. I'm stubborn only to the extent that my argument holds up, and thus far my argument holds up just fine.

posted February 22, 2011 04:10 PM            

Leave it in the peoples hands.

Any organization on the matter is in no way neutral because it seeks to "protect" or in another case to "remove" something from the internet

Any hands reaching into this "cookie jar" should be swatted with the strongest hickory stick we can find.

Leave it alone, All Sides.

posted February 22, 2011 04:14 PM            

Why
Why
Why
Why
Why
Why