Welcome to your NEW Internet

[NewApp]

Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

Have you ever known of a federal regulation that hasn't resulted in new taxes? Things change easily. Ever read your telephone bill? I have Windstream telephone and internet at $49.95 for life. None of the fees and taxes are directly related to the internet itself . By the time taxes and fees are added in, it is $64.00+.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I'll take from your lack of an answer that you have no evidence that new taxes will be involved, just your inherent anti-govt bias. That's fine. Regardless, I have complete faith in the PR departments of these large ISPs to convince people like yourself that the inevitable rate increases that will surely come even notwithstanding these regulations are some sort of tax.

1. I didn't get a chance to answer as other posters voiced the same reasons I feel based on our experiences paying various and sundry taxes and fees for decades coupled with our lack of naïveté.
2. Anti-government bias? That's a hoot! I'm a government employee myself.
3. 99% of regulations eventually require corresponding fees to pay for their enforcement.

[Gonzo]

I'm a government employee myself.

Gold

[APPARJ]

Well, I just posted the John Oliver bit because it's a cute little encapsulation of the meat of the issue, but if it's not your speed, whatever. That's cool.

ISPs didn't build the internet. They don't own the network. They own portions of the infrastructure, and what they charge you for is the "last mile," so to speak. However, when they throttle external content (which happens), that's an issue.

Here is my problem with posting things like this video.

John Oliver is a pro-gov't liberal. He is also pro-net neutrality. He also is an entertainer with an entire video production and comedy writing staff at his disposal. He has the means to produce videos like this that are slanted in favor of his ideology that make a mockery of the ideas that oppose his own.

So posting this as a way to have some educate themselves without bias on this issue is disingenuous. Want someone to support the FCC regulating the internet? Show them this video and you'll get some low hanging fruit supporters.

And the author of the article you previously linked is an unbiased moderate huh? Things like not liking Oliver and claiming he's biased and has an opinion (who doesn't?) doesn't actually refute any of his arguments. All I'm hearing from the other side here is the same old "Government Bad!" chant.

What article did I link? I quoted what an FCC Commissioner said directly.

I believe there's a significant difference in writing an article or presenting opinions in a straight forward fashion and the type of slickly produced propaganda that rich, upper class entertainers like Oliver and Jon Stewart regularly spew in favor of government.

Also, you lose credibility when you dismiss people who have a genuine disdain for the state. It seems like to me you act like it's silly for people to be so dead set against it. Well, newsflash, centralized state power sucks, it's inefficient, it's corrupt, it's out of touch with the people and their everyday lives and those in power will do and say nearly anything to stay there (like "Bad ISPs are going to kill the internet! We can help you!")

Do I think it's absurd when people wave an American flag and say "Don't touch my paycheck or my medicare!"? Yes.

But I haven't read one post on here that claims we're in a free market and we're not. But as long as we pile regulations on top of each other and give central state powers MORE influence, the worse off we'll be. Period. End of story. It's not even debatable. If we were really in a free market, there would really be competition and the consumer would be much better off.

So go ahead and make jokes and be condescending towards people that don't want a powerful, federal government to have more of a place in our society, but you're wrong.

There are pros and cons on each side but I'll stay on the side that doesn't include power strong enough to eventually decide what content is acceptable on the web.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

Have you ever known of a federal regulation that hasn't resulted in new taxes? Things change easily. Ever read your telephone bill? I have Windstream telephone and internet at $49.95 for life. None of the fees and taxes are directly related to the internet itself . By the time taxes and fees are added in, it is $64.00+.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Some of those fees are not required by the gov' and just a way to add to the bottom line of the company, and the money stays right with the company.

[NewApp]

Take it to the politics board. If you think the status quo was working, you're crazy.

It just opens the way for new taxes, while now there are no direct taxes on the internet usage that I've noticed. But we will. Personally, I like the way the internet works as it now stands.

Please explain what this has to do with taxes. The regulations explicitly exempt ISPs from having to pay into the USF.

Have you ever known of a federal regulation that hasn't resulted in new taxes? Things change easily. Ever read your telephone bill? I have Windstream telephone and internet at $49.95 for life. None of the fees and taxes are directly related to the internet itself . By the time taxes and fees are added in, it is $64.00+.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Some of those fees are not required by the gov' and just a way to add to the bottom line of the company, and the money stays right with the company.

You said it right when you said "some."

[97grad]

What article did I link? I quoted what an FCC Commissioner said directly.

Apologies. Looking back through the thread, it wasn't you that posted it.

I believe there's a significant difference in writing an article or presenting opinions in a straight forward fashion and the type of slickly produced propaganda that rich, upper class entertainers like Oliver and Jon Stewart regularly spew in favor of government.

Okay....but surely you realize the difference between opinion and propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. Right?

Also, you lose credibility when you dismiss people who have a genuine disdain for the state. It seems like to me you act like it's silly for people to be so dead set against it. Well, newsflash, centralized state power sucks, it's inefficient, it's corrupt, it's out of touch with the people and their everyday lives and those in power will do and say nearly anything to stay there (like "Bad ISPs are going to kill the internet! We can help you!")

I haven't dismissed anyone because they have a disdain for the state. I have dismissed those that are either unwilling or unable to articulate the reasons they have for opposing THIS SPECIFIC regulation. The logic goes something like this:

Government is Bad.
Government passes Net-Neutrality.
Therefore, Net-Neutrality is bad.

There are pros and cons on each side but I'll stay on the side that doesn't include power strong enough to eventually decide what content is acceptable on the web.

If you seriously think Net-Neutrality has a single thing to do with what content is acceptable on the web, then I'm sorry but you're simply misinformed.

Edit: I'm really not interested in having a proxy debate about the role/nature of government via net-neutrality. But I guess nowadays some want to reduce all debates to that.

[APPARJ]

Okay....but surely you realize the difference between opinion and propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. Right?

No. The difference is the presentation. If John Oliver said "I am pro-net neutrality because of X, Y and Z. I believe very strongly in this because of A, B and C..." then that is hardly propaganda. But the way he presents his ideology is hardly an expression of a simple opinion. The federal gov't isn't behind it but that doesn't mean it's not propaganda. It's John Oliver attempting to win his audience over to his point of view and he's actually very good at it. I'm not always against John Oliver, either. Example, his bit on the prison system brought forward some very salient points. But he even wrote a song for puppets to promote his stance. That's hardly an opinion.

It doesn't have to be the Cold War for it to be propaganda.

I haven't dismissed anyone because they have a disdain for the state. I have dismissed those that are either unwilling or unable to articulate the reasons they have for opposing THIS SPECIFIC regulation. The logic goes something like this:

Government is Bad.
Government passes Net-Neutrality.
Therefore, Net-Neutrality is bad.

So while the "right" thing to do is to research and understand what new laws and regulations really do to impact us before criticizing... that line of logic is not far off.

Gov't is interested in sustaining and increasing power. When this happens, the individual likely suffers. Maybe not right away, but surely down the road.

Let's not pretend that the gov't is hit or miss on writing policy that really helps empower or strengthen the individual. We are still subsidizing oil companies, after all.

There are pros and cons on each side but I'll stay on the side that doesn't include power strong enough to eventually decide what content is acceptable on the web.

If you seriously think Net-Neutrality has a single thing to do with what content is acceptable on the web, then I'm sorry but you're simply misinformed.

The issue being presented today has nothing to do with censorship. So. Duh.

But if you cared to read more carefully, I said I'll pick the side that isn't strong enough to EVENTUALLY to decide what content is acceptable on the web.

Now, if you seriously think that the same gov't that has been collecting all of our personal data since 2006 without our knowledge isn't capable of one day deciding who and what content is okay to post then you are in denial.

Here's a quote from likely 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 1998 in regards to censorship on the web:

"There are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function. What does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says?"

I'm sure if that quote surfaces before the election, we will be informed of her "evolving" views.

[97grad]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. But with regard to your last point, I submit that there's no real difference between a government deciding what can and can't be on the web and a group of mega-corps deciding what you can access and how much you'll pay, other than that you and I have a small say in how the former is run.

[HeffnerIV]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. But with regard to your last point, I submit that there's no real difference between a government deciding what can and can't be on the web and a group of mega-corps deciding what you can access and how much you'll pay, other than that you and I have a small say in how the former is run.

The difference is force. Corporations can't force you to buy their product- Government can (healthcare)

[bcoach]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. But with regard to your last point, I submit that there's no real difference between a government deciding what can and can't be on the web and a group of mega-corps deciding what you can access and how much you'll pay, other than that you and I have a small say in how the former is run.

I wish that last sentence were true.

[Saint3333]

Hard to argue either way when they won't release the regulation.

[TheMoody1]

Hard to argue either way when they won't release the regulation.

You have to pass the regulation in order to know what is in it.

[WVAPPeer]

A little off topic - I will tell you guys I bitched about the government when I was young, when I was middle-aged, hell, when I was old - But now that I am ancient I can honestly say I'm not sure we could make it without Social Security and Medicare - Our government does some things right ---

[NewApp]

A little off topic - I will tell you guys I bitched about the government when I was young, when I was middle-aged, hell, when I was old - But now that I am ancient I can honestly say I'm not sure we could make it without Social Security and Medicare - Our government does some things right ---

Two out of a zillion's not bad.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

A little off topic - I will tell you guys I bitched about the government when I was young, when I was middle-aged, hell, when I was old - But now that I am ancient I can honestly say I'm not sure we could make it without Social Security and Medicare - Our government does some things right ---

Two out of a zillion's not bad.

Were you not a public employee? Were you that sorry of an employee that you can't make the decision to hire you three out of a zillion. Personally, I know enough public employees that have been hired at various levels of government I would say it is more like a few at least thousand out of a zillion. And that is just those I know and have known over the years in some sort of face to face personal relationship of some manner.

[appst89]

A little off topic - I will tell you guys I bitched about the government when I was young, when I was middle-aged, hell, when I was old - But now that I am ancient I can honestly say I'm not sure we could make it without Social Security and Medicare - Our government does some things right ---

Two out of a zillion's not bad.

Were you not a public employee? Were you that sorry of an employee that you can't make the decision to hire you three out of a zillion. Personally, I know enough public employees that have been hired at various levels of government I would say it is more like a few at least thousand out of a zillion. And that is just those I know and have known over the years in some sort of face to face personal relationship of some manner.

I don't believe he was talking about people. He was talking about the numbers of things the government does well; social security and medicare being, in his opinion, two things they do well out of a zillion things they do.

[NewApp]

A little off topic - I will tell you guys I bitched about the government when I was young, when I was middle-aged, hell, when I was old - But now that I am ancient I can honestly say I'm not sure we could make it without Social Security and Medicare - Our government does some things right ---

Two out of a zillion's not bad.

Were you not a public employee? Were you that sorry of an employee that you can't make the decision to hire you three out of a zillion. Personally, I know enough public employees that have been hired at various levels of government I would say it is more like a few at least thousand out of a zillion. And that is just those I know and have known over the years in some sort of face to face personal relationship of some manner.

I don't believe he was talking about people. He was talking about the numbers of things the government does well; social security and medicare being, in his opinion, two things they do well out of a zillion things they do.

I thought it was obvious. Thanks for saving me the time and key strokes.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

To use the word zillion, he must have meant EVERY decision made by every government employee since the founding of the country.

I am being a bit of a smart-a on this point but it does raise the point, why would someone that seems so anti-government have spent what I thought was a career in public employment?

[ASUPATCH]

Even if I didn't support net-neutrality, as I do. Anything that hurts Comcast or pisses them off is fine by me. Those complaining that the government can't do anything thing right should have to deal with ComCrap for a while. You would be begging for us to become a 100% government run country. Unfortunately like many of Americans if I want internet they are my only option. So much for free market competition. I also had to suffer through them throttling my connection for an entire football season of App State football on ESPN3 and them throttling my Netflix speeds. So if net-neutrality is what it takes to give them the middle finger, Ill have a second helping.

[AppinVA]

Even if I didn't support net-neutrality, as I do. Anything that hurts Comcast or pisses them off is fine by me. Those complaining that the government can't do anything thing right should have to deal with ComCrap for a while. You would be begging for us to become a 100% government run country. Unfortunately like many of Americans if I want internet they are my only option. So much for free market competition. I also had to suffer through them throttling my connection for an entire football season of App State football on ESPN3 and them throttling my Netflix speeds. So if net-neutrality is what it takes to give them the middle finger, Ill have a second helping.

Yeah, Comcast is horrible. Instead of going to the government, though, I went to Directv.