Tea Party Groups Out AGAINST Net Neutrality

800px-TeaPartyDC2009Sept12LOLFrom Huffington Post:

Following the release of Google and Verizon’s controversial proposal on managing Internet traffic, which comes less than a week after the FCC abandoned efforts at a hammering out a compromise, Tea Party groups have taken a strong stance on the issue of net neutrality.

Specifically, they’re against it. The head of one Tea Party organization says she is concerned that the policy would increase government regulation and power, calling net neutrality one of many “assaults on individual liberties.”

As The Hill reports, “[a] coalition that included 35 Tea Party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification.”…

[continues at Huffington Post]

25 Comments on "Tea Party Groups Out AGAINST Net Neutrality"

  1. Hadrian999 | Aug 13, 2010 at 1:23 pm |

    shocking, teaparty “libertarians” schilling for unrestrained corporatism

    • So yea google that censors for china wants our internet freedom. That is the biggest crock of … crud. People seriously have you not learned the bait and switch yet!! Learn from history or your doomed 2 repeat it. Seriously go read wake up its getting dangerous.

      • Hadrian999 | Aug 15, 2010 at 3:55 am |

        we get 2 choices it would seem, bad regulation or no regulation
        both seem to lead to an totally corporate run internet with independent sites put on ultra slow connections.
        neither the government or the telecoms are trustworthy enough to get their way unhindered…..we're doomed,
        quick somebody figure out the next communications network so we'll have a couple of years with that before
        that gets raped by the corporatocracy too.

  2. Net Neutrality is a socialist fairy tale promoted by those who don't understand economics.

    The world-wide-web and internet are — in most cases — PRIVATELY-OWNED NETWORKS OF COMPUTERS.

    When someone owns private property, they make the rules as to how the property is used. Otherwise, use of the private property is trespassing, theft or another violation of the law.

    If you disapprove of how a store conducts business, SHOP ELSEWHERE. Don't bitch because you can't buy a loaf of bread at Radio Shack. If enough people agree and take their business to a competitor, the company will either be FORCED to change or it'll go out of business. Vote

    If you don't approve of an ISP's policy, USE ANOTHER ISP. The company doesn't owe you special treatment.

    • Hadrian999 | Aug 13, 2010 at 1:46 pm |

      using an another isp is great……except when government backed monopolies offer only 1 choice

      • Breaking up monopolies is also a “socialist fairy tale” involving government exerting its deadly control over the divine right of property. Which is why de jure libertarianism (as defined in the U.S.) would be de facto plutocracy.

        • You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In many areas of the country, municipalities, for some ridiculous reason, have franchise agreements set up with cable operators preventing other companies with alternative methods of distribution, such as Verizon with FiOS, to come in and set up shop. What these Tea Baggers don't understand is that Net Neutrailty is a kind of regulated de-regulation. If written well, all it will do is give the FCC the power to ensure that ISPs are not blocking or favoring legal content no matter what the technology or modality of data transfer. It's like civil rights for data. Companies like Comcast want to segregate the data and we don't want them to. If you bother to read about the problem and look at the proposed solutions, you'd realize that it isn't the nanny state, innovation killing, censoring, craziness that Glenn Beck makes it out to be.

          • Connie Dobbs | Aug 18, 2010 at 9:09 am |

            It's quite the opposite, in fact. You know what the biggest innovation killer of all time is? a Monopoly. Proof – most Americans have never been to Atlantic City, but can name at least 2 streets in that town. Usually Boardwalk and Park Place.

    • Economics is a soft science.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Aug 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

        'Tis the way SOME people practice it. Vide supra.

        • I'd argue Your Mom's approaching it as a hard science, which is his primary error.

          • Connie Dobbs | Aug 18, 2010 at 9:10 am |

            How are you ranking the errors? I've seen worse errors perpetrated by him. Economics as a hard science would be maybe 6th or 7th on my scale.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Aug 13, 2010 at 2:13 pm |

      'Tis to laugh, “Your Mom”. You either:

      a.) Haven't read the proposal, because it is, in fact, designed to DEFEAT net neutrality, or

      b.) Don't have clue #1 about economics

      'Course, it's possible that both are true.

      But first let's look at the highlights of the actual proposal itself.

      The first thing that strikes me is the plan's point #4: Google and Verizon presume to want to “give” authority to regulate the internet. Bad way to launch a sales pitch, trying to sell the People something they already own. The FCC's authority to regulate is vested within the AMERICAN PEOPLE–not a handfull of self-selected plutocrats. Government OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People. Sound familiar? Should if you've ever taken Abraham Lincoln seriously.

      Also in point #4 is the suggestion that policy be enforced on a “case-by-case” basis. Whaaaa? That certainly IS in the interest of the MegaCorps, but NOT of the People–or even that subset of the people pleased to call themselves “internet entrepreneurs”. I mean, how is it even conceivable that it should be efficient for small folks with thin wallets to pursue onerous court cases against behemoths the likes of Google and Verizon, who have multibillion dollar war chests and a bench of lawyers ten miles deep? Hardly consistent with the principles of Net Neutrality. More in keeping, in fact, with the agenda of the litigation lawyer lobby. My guess is that John Edwards drafted that bit.

      Moving on: The rib-tickling point #5. Google and Verizon propose to establish a variable internet access pricing strategy to “foster innovation”. Come again? Making pricing MORE rather than LESS complex will reduce the uncertainties that are the primary barrier to innovation? That is just completely at odds not only with the definition of Net Neutrality, but also Econ 101. In fact, it smacks more than a little of “Separate but Equal”.

      But fer my money, that most hillarious bit has to be point #6, where Google and Verizon claims that the wireless internet access business is very competitive. Oh, I think the Antitrust Division of the DOJ would beg to differ here! The most recent available analysis shows that the whole fr*ckin' internet industry has an HHI score of well over 2,000–where enforcement guidelines have consistently maintained that any score over 1,800 is UNACCEPTABLY CONCENTRATED. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract

      So, all in all, “Your Mom”, I'd like to make a few of suggestions:

      1. You should actually read the things you comment about

      2. You should actually study a little economics if you want to discuss them, and

      3. If you actually do have an economics degree, immediately started checking your files for the receipt: You'll never get a refund without one.

    • Connie Dobbs | Aug 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

      LOL you lose at monopoly all the time, I bet. Also, you lose at life. And at your knowledge of network topology (and based upon your “use another isp comment”, stuck in 1995 – say “hi” to Ace of Base for me). I'm glad to see you support …. well, nothing. You'd be the biggest fucking brainless follower I've ever seen if it weren't for the fact that every other follower of these people parrot their shit exactly the same way. You're a fucking ZOMBIE. Zombie Parrot. Caw caw! Polly wants BRAINS! and no liberals.

    • A Bad Joke | Aug 13, 2010 at 10:10 pm |

      Starting to think this guy is a troll.

    • Hadrian999 | Aug 15, 2010 at 11:41 am |

      that's a simplistic view of property ownership, things like zoning laws and environmental rules still apply
      to private property, the same goes for owners of things like water services, but that's probably communist oppression.

  3. Connie Dobbs | Aug 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

    I wonder what the b-tards think about this?

  4. It seems the baggers don't quite get the concept of Net Neutrality. That doesn't stop their faux outrage. They're mindlessly responding to the Fixed Noise corporate dog whistle from their masters.

  5. Yea…if you define 'individual liberty' as the ability of corporations to use a tax funded network of cables that was built with money we already paid and then charge us varying rates upon our usage while limiting access only to the highest payers…then yea…go team Tea! Protect that Freedom! Keep on pimpin for the elite masters! Whooohooo!

    Fucking morons. I'm beyond eloquence for this situation. I've been sick for a couple days so I'll settle for vindictive sarcasm.

    • Hadrian999 | Aug 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm |

      you would think people who rant about the evil atheist commie red liberal takeover of all media(besides fox news and talk radio) would actually want a net neutrality bill of some kind.

  6. I take it all back. I have been forgetting to take my meds lately which makes it difficult for me to form cohesive thoughts. Apologies.

  7. I see they've lowered the stupid bar yet again….

    Teabagger: “Yes! Let's come out against internet freedom! … Because we're American patriots!”

    I swear, Jefferson and the rest must be spinning in their graves so fast now, the friction from all that is actually threatening to make them catch on FIRE.

  8. Farkpeople | Aug 15, 2010 at 3:19 am |

    I think a lot of you kiddies have no idea what your talking about. First lets define net neutrality ..it is the fcc or corporations taking control of the internet thus controlling the bandwidth. They are openly talking about taxing alternative news and just denying other sites access. The TEA party is fighting for your freedom and if you don't believe me research “Version Google deal”. They want the regulation and the administration wont push it yet so they went ahead and took the first step too throttle connections.

    • Connie Dobbs | Aug 18, 2010 at 9:05 am |

      I googled “version google deal” and got hardcore donkey porn with your face superimposed over the donkey's ass. Was there a better keyword to use?

      On the other hand, I do believe that we, as a society, have royally fucked up the opportunities that the internet offers. If google and version (whoever THAT is) decide that they're going to control the pipes, at least we don't have to put up with stupid shit from idiots like you anymore. Kill the internet, please.

  9. Connie Dobbs | Aug 18, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

    How are you ranking the errors? I’ve seen worse errors perpetrated by him. Economics as a hard science would be maybe 6th or 7th on my scale.

Comments are closed.