You can also just switch ISP's NOW. Just like you can switch healthcare providers NOW. The fact of the matter is, there is MORE CHOICE in the FREE MARKET than there ever could be when THE GOVERNMENT makes choices for us.
Net Neutrality is the old backwoods 'Democrat' dogma of:
This video is misleading. Net neutrality is not giving government the power to filter the internet, it is giving government the power to enforce that NO ONE, not even them, filters it.
Although I don't want the government to control the Internet, I doubt ISPs will "care enough about their users" to subscribe to an independent organization. If they did "care enough," net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue.
thanks for the video, i didnt really know what that net neutrality stuff was all about... indeed the government SHOULDNT be allowed to control the internet
Why aren't private organisations monitoring ISP's prevalent all ready? How would such organisations be funded? And what's to prevent them from being paid off by ISP's to allow their behaviour?
I think that creates more problems than it solves... Also, instead of refusing to allow the government to regulate this on the basis that the regulation could become corrupt and use it as a censorship ploy, shouldn't we instead focus on exposing corruption in the government?
First off, let me say I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. But there are a couple things wrong with this example.
1. Monopolies are at work in ISPs. Most people only have access to 2 or 3 hi-speed internet providers. If all 3 decide to block a site, there is no competition to switch to in-protest.
2. Net Neutrality is a defense against lobbying Common Carrier networks (IE local phone & data companies) who are not being paid, even though their network makes the internet possible. What about them?
This argument isn't compelling. First, there is no real competition for most internet customers in the US, where local duopolies rule. Second, the regulations only require that ISPs maintain standard neutral connection policies, there is no further oversight. Third, the internet was created by government institutions, opened to consumers by government law, and commercialized by government chartered corporations. It is a fantasy to think that there is no government regulation on the internet.
Now I have to wonder whether or not an independent group would be able to (or want to) keep access to a site that's unpopular. In an ideal world, people will understand that freedom of speech is something everyone should have. But even if we did have that, who's to say the next generation won't think that they should repress certain voices on the fringe, and that they won't draw their own lines? I'm not for the bill, but this needs to be addressed.
Hello? Quit buying into what the lobbyists are saying. Open up a book on the present and discover that they are so prevelant, that they can even get a genious like you to quote them verbatum. Good grief. And you might want to read David Cay Johnson's "Free Lunch" before you formulate your final opinions on the butcher Reagan and all the glories he brought us. I'll be a nickel you like Reagan and Hate Dubya. If they switched spots in history, you'd swith who you love 'n hate.
Unfortunately, you know nothing of truly free-market philosophy. Free market means that lobbyists have NO reason to lobby, because the government doesn't have any POWER to give the wealthy lobbyists even MORE wealth.
What you modern liberals want to do is make government LARGER to counter business, but business always finds a way to use government to its ADVANTAGE. So, now, you've effectively made business LARGER.
Listen, true free markets won't exist until people like Ron Paul acknowledge that "letting the states decide" is not a cosmic cure all, as they are the biggest problems with regards to subsidizing big business and ruining the dream of truly free markets. They put states up against each other, make them compete to see who can supress the workers the most, and then who ever does wins. I'm not a big "liberal" as you say, might want to ck some of my vids before you throw labels around.
I'm not exactly sure how this independent group is supposed to have the power to keep net neutrality, or even inform others if an ISP decides to block their websites as well if they can't get any airtime or newspaper slots. Also, what if the independent group is in favor of certain things, and rejects others? And what if the majority supports them? What happens to the rest of the people that cannot access what they'd like?
what a load of crap. I am tired of this Ron Paul conspiracy theory bullshit. The whole point of Net Neutrality legislation is to make sure that all websites can be accessed equally, and to not have the ISP's block access to certain sites that havent paid them money. The government is not seeking to be the gatekeeper to internet content. Thanks for fooling 1300 people with your kooky libertarian crap masquerading as fact. Ron Paul is an ignorant cock and so are his supporters.
you, right there with that comment scares the living shit out of me. you're not educated about the federal reserve i bet, and you've never listened to our forefathers. please, before saying, conspiracy blah blah. open your eyes up and educate yourself from ALL sides of the spectrum. the radio was first just regulated so traffic with the waves was controlled. now, 95 percent of what's on the air is not only closely censored, but is owned by corporations.
I have educated myself and have come to the conclusion that Libertarianism is ridiculous. You're the one who needs to educate yourself. Stop subscribing to the close minded Libertarian principle of Government=Bad, and stop thinking that the founding fathers support Ron Paul and everything he believes in. You should also educate yourself about technology because you don't seem too know very much (or fully understand my post). Try coming up with opinions on your own, without the help of ron paul
i'm not saying anything about libertarianism. government can be good, in a perfect society. however, the abuses of power go unseen behind the scenes, and here you are telling me i'm wrong to question? sorry i don't support an America that allows for a private bank to control the issuance of our currency. jefferson said the corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property. sorry i don't support bullshit fucking wars, and these corporations that feed us bs.
ok, asides from libertarianism, which i don't understand why anyone would think is ridiculous, how can you deny the, idk, possible harm of big corporations, and central banks that control the issuance of our currency? how is he an ignorant dick? you say ur educated, prove it by telling me factual reasons why he is ignorant. how do i also know so little about technology? the television feeds us. the internet is different in that it allows us to make choices.don't risk that freedom we have.
Dhbuddha. You proved why NN has to be OPEN and free. The monopolistic control over the airwaves is an example of legistration won by large corporations to control the radio. Today, large corporations want to control the internet.
What you are talking about with the federal reserve is a totally different topic.
Also, I completely understand the concern for government regulation becoming the same thing we're trying to prevent with net neutrality, but how can that fear be justified when all net neutrality has to be is a lightweight bill explaining requirements for ISP business, specifically that packets cannot be blocked, filtered or deterred based on content, source, or destination?
What happens when the ISP blocking google happens to be a major backbone, like Sprint or UUNET? Savvy consumers and independent organizations, like in your example, simply don't matter. Sure, switch from Verizon to the ISP endorsed by the hypothetical independent group; your connection to google *still* has to travel through said backbones. The ISP's you buy service from, in turn buy their service from other ISPs. This is an infrastructure and system where "free market" just doesn't work.
lets see... why are people pushing this NN thing? oh- FEAR! just like they sold us on the Patriot act, NN is here to protect you! NO THANKS, as Ben Franklin said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Like many Ron Paul supporters' arguments, this one depends on the pre-existence of a perfect libertarian universe. Where's the broadband competition? I don't see it. Without it, groups of neutral net watchdogs would have no power. Partly implemented libertarian policies = fascistic playgrounds. And what if the uneducated masses WANT a Disneyfied internet? Do we roll over and let Verizon give it to them? The internet has come so far, and I don't want to see it go under.
The FCC is the government's censorship wing. The government has already attempted to censor the internet, and with regulation nationalizing the internet's anatomy, it would be that much easier to pass legislation to do the same thing that has happened with television and radio over the last century.
Also with a "People Made group" the problem with that is we do not have very many choices with ISP in an area. You can get DSL with one ISP (though others resell the same thing) and you can get cable with one company. Dial-up is an option that you can diverse but those dialup servers have their internet connection running through someone.
I don't completely agree. Yes I agree with NN but I do not think the government would control everything. There has been net neutrality laws since the creation of the internet and the FCC (backed by large ISP's) decided they do not need to renew the law since they supposedly have enough power. The government already had the control and they did not go to the extent you are afraid off.
Give the government an inch and they'll take 10 miles. Everyone should know by now that many the government will take the simplest of regulations as a precedent to go hog wild on our lives. There're plenty of politicians out there who what to regulate CONTENT the same way the FCC regulates the airwaves. The concept of NN is great, but as the video mentioned are better ways to implement it. The last thing I want to see is an FCC for the internet.
The example you gave against Net Neutrality (NN) has nothing to do with NN at all. Companies like Google, AOL, Facebook, and Yahoo already sell our information to the government regardless of NN or not. The question is simple. Do unaccountable corporations have a right to control what websites we can and cannot visit? IMO. Your issue with Government accountability is a totally different argument because right now the government is being pampered by corporations on both sides.
What you're talking about has nothing to do with net neutrality. Since when did I talk about any website giving our information out? Not once. I'm talking about not letting the government control NN and letting the people openly control the companies in a free market manor.
I'm not sure where you got that, but you aren't really talking about this video at all.
NN the belief that the internet should be free for everyone to access. The government, as it does with our roads, would allow everyone have access to it. Your examples of censoring is not what any NN advocate is supporting. The government would be regulating the internet not controlling it. There is a difference.
Take advantage of what? The government would not have control of anything. The companies would still have full control over bandwidth and information. The only thing changing would be laws ensuring that companies will not limit their customers' access to certain websites. Again, the government is not controlling anything so it can't censor without the company's consent.
and thats why he said if the first group is doin it too big than a second group would come in and the people could choose which one they feel is more in line w/their beliefs....FREE MARKET, LOWER TAXES, RON PAUL!!!
i agree totally, another issue that i believe that could happen is: after the government has the power to regulate the internet, expect them to tax the internet to the max. We cannot allow the one of the best technologies that humanity has experienced to fall into the hands of corrupt officials.
As for the video, it was great. Keep speaking out and we can make a difference.
Totally. I think I'm going to do a video on how to make your voice heard, without being an 'annoying, yelling, crazy political person that people tune out' next :D
The independent group created 'by the people' will be its own layer of government. Ron not trusting congress to enact a fair law does not mean that he does not trust government or 'by the people,' which is the talisman invoked by all libertarians when they actually want government involvement in the economy.
How would a group by the people be controlled by the federal government? The way it would work is you'd have an independent group. They would set the standards that the ISP's have to follow or they will lose business (imagine it like a 'union').
The only way the government would get involved is if the local government wanted to propose a tax to support this group. Any interest groups that try to put money into the independent group can be accused of participating in bad free market practices. If the group DID accept the special interest money, a better group would show up over time and first group won't be able to grow larger than the state government.
NT is not really what it says. Sure, it keeps ISP's from blocking and hindering your connection, but you know what, there will always be another company that will do what you want.
Thanks for clearing this issue up. The net neutrality movement has been going on for a while and I was almost sucked into it until I found out about Ron's views about it. If you think about it, thats how a lot of things have gone wrong in this country.
Also, Obama wants to create a new position on the FCC to regulate the internet. The same FCC that is now weakening laws set to prohibit big media from buying more media outlets and creating a bigger monopoly. Image Fox being our ONLY news source of if News Corp. merged with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.
Totally. And while Obama I think has the right intentions, he'd basically be setting up a monopolizing system that'd be really hard for any normal person to enter.
I'm not even sure that an independent group would be needed. (Although there's nothing wrong with that.) Finding out if you're ISP is utilizing shady tactics like these would be as easy as using a proxy. I'd think that users would be switching ISPs in droves.
And if the ISP's start blocking proxies or start detecting when their users have an IP that doesn't match their system? And what about the people who only have the 'choice' of one ISP in their region? I wish I could agree with you more, but unfortunately I think the ISP would think of those things. Thanks for the comment though!
You can also just switch ISP's NOW. Just like you can switch healthcare providers NOW. The fact of the matter is, there is MORE CHOICE in the FREE MARKET than there ever could be when THE GOVERNMENT makes choices for us.
Net Neutrality is the old backwoods 'Democrat' dogma of:
"There oughrta be a law again that!"
FastingOnClowns 2 years ago
This video is misleading. Net neutrality is not giving government the power to filter the internet, it is giving government the power to enforce that NO ONE, not even them, filters it.
Knightsdivine 3 years ago
Although I don't want the government to control the Internet, I doubt ISPs will "care enough about their users" to subscribe to an independent organization. If they did "care enough," net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue.
adegkid 3 years ago
I remain unconvinced that having an independent group would be better than having the government protect net neutrality.
secondgate 3 years ago
You're probably convinced that the government bailout plan is going to be good for you because the government told you.
grapplerke 3 years ago
Why would you assume that? Did I say that I'm convinced that the government bailout plan is good for me? Did you read what I said?
Or are you just another brainless troll?
secondgate 3 years ago
thanks for the video, i didnt really know what that net neutrality stuff was all about... indeed the government SHOULDNT be allowed to control the internet
allismind 3 years ago
Why aren't private organisations monitoring ISP's prevalent all ready? How would such organisations be funded? And what's to prevent them from being paid off by ISP's to allow their behaviour?
I think that creates more problems than it solves... Also, instead of refusing to allow the government to regulate this on the basis that the regulation could become corrupt and use it as a censorship ploy, shouldn't we instead focus on exposing corruption in the government?
pyromania152 3 years ago
Im from europe and I'd vote ron paul if i could^^
MorthusProductions 3 years ago
NT is to stop what you first mention.
It doesn't give any power to the government to then do what NT stops.
It's just saying no you cant do that.
Not, no you cant, but yes we magically can all of a sudden.
Google works by what ever site is linked the most on other websites, comes up first in the search order.
DecentralizedTommy 3 years ago
First off, let me say I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. But there are a couple things wrong with this example.
1. Monopolies are at work in ISPs. Most people only have access to 2 or 3 hi-speed internet providers. If all 3 decide to block a site, there is no competition to switch to in-protest.
2. Net Neutrality is a defense against lobbying Common Carrier networks (IE local phone & data companies) who are not being paid, even though their network makes the internet possible. What about them?
Jaspian 3 years ago
Ron Paul has his supporters sheepishly not supporting net neutrality simply because he voted against one specific bill.
Vektor417 3 years ago
This argument isn't compelling. First, there is no real competition for most internet customers in the US, where local duopolies rule. Second, the regulations only require that ISPs maintain standard neutral connection policies, there is no further oversight. Third, the internet was created by government institutions, opened to consumers by government law, and commercialized by government chartered corporations. It is a fantasy to think that there is no government regulation on the internet.
icarushorza 3 years ago
Now I have to wonder whether or not an independent group would be able to (or want to) keep access to a site that's unpopular. In an ideal world, people will understand that freedom of speech is something everyone should have. But even if we did have that, who's to say the next generation won't think that they should repress certain voices on the fringe, and that they won't draw their own lines? I'm not for the bill, but this needs to be addressed.
HerrSchenkel 3 years ago
Thanks.
I finally know what net neutrality is!
Sean
bobishot905 3 years ago
blame the government. pretend the "markets" solve everything. When will you stupid people wake up?
o0xst 3 years ago
People like you had your chance. Please open up a history book and see just what happened when governments controlled the economy.
chowdy64 3 years ago 2
Hello? Quit buying into what the lobbyists are saying. Open up a book on the present and discover that they are so prevelant, that they can even get a genious like you to quote them verbatum. Good grief. And you might want to read David Cay Johnson's "Free Lunch" before you formulate your final opinions on the butcher Reagan and all the glories he brought us. I'll be a nickel you like Reagan and Hate Dubya. If they switched spots in history, you'd swith who you love 'n hate.
o0xst 3 years ago
Unfortunately, you know nothing of truly free-market philosophy. Free market means that lobbyists have NO reason to lobby, because the government doesn't have any POWER to give the wealthy lobbyists even MORE wealth.
What you modern liberals want to do is make government LARGER to counter business, but business always finds a way to use government to its ADVANTAGE. So, now, you've effectively made business LARGER.
chowdy64 3 years ago
Listen, true free markets won't exist until people like Ron Paul acknowledge that "letting the states decide" is not a cosmic cure all, as they are the biggest problems with regards to subsidizing big business and ruining the dream of truly free markets. They put states up against each other, make them compete to see who can supress the workers the most, and then who ever does wins. I'm not a big "liberal" as you say, might want to ck some of my vids before you throw labels around.
o0xst 3 years ago
God job on explaining net neutrality, it's nice to see the issue explored clearly and without rhetoric.
velation 3 years ago 2
I'm not exactly sure how this independent group is supposed to have the power to keep net neutrality, or even inform others if an ISP decides to block their websites as well if they can't get any airtime or newspaper slots. Also, what if the independent group is in favor of certain things, and rejects others? And what if the majority supports them? What happens to the rest of the people that cannot access what they'd like?
HerrSchenkel 3 years ago
what a load of crap. I am tired of this Ron Paul conspiracy theory bullshit. The whole point of Net Neutrality legislation is to make sure that all websites can be accessed equally, and to not have the ISP's block access to certain sites that havent paid them money. The government is not seeking to be the gatekeeper to internet content. Thanks for fooling 1300 people with your kooky libertarian crap masquerading as fact. Ron Paul is an ignorant cock and so are his supporters.
pavlopwnsyourface 3 years ago
you, right there with that comment scares the living shit out of me. you're not educated about the federal reserve i bet, and you've never listened to our forefathers. please, before saying, conspiracy blah blah. open your eyes up and educate yourself from ALL sides of the spectrum. the radio was first just regulated so traffic with the waves was controlled. now, 95 percent of what's on the air is not only closely censored, but is owned by corporations.
dabuddha669 3 years ago
I have educated myself and have come to the conclusion that Libertarianism is ridiculous. You're the one who needs to educate yourself. Stop subscribing to the close minded Libertarian principle of Government=Bad, and stop thinking that the founding fathers support Ron Paul and everything he believes in. You should also educate yourself about technology because you don't seem too know very much (or fully understand my post). Try coming up with opinions on your own, without the help of ron paul
pavlopwnsyourface 3 years ago
i'm not saying anything about libertarianism. government can be good, in a perfect society. however, the abuses of power go unseen behind the scenes, and here you are telling me i'm wrong to question? sorry i don't support an America that allows for a private bank to control the issuance of our currency. jefferson said the corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property. sorry i don't support bullshit fucking wars, and these corporations that feed us bs.
dabuddha669 3 years ago
ok, asides from libertarianism, which i don't understand why anyone would think is ridiculous, how can you deny the, idk, possible harm of big corporations, and central banks that control the issuance of our currency? how is he an ignorant dick? you say ur educated, prove it by telling me factual reasons why he is ignorant. how do i also know so little about technology? the television feeds us. the internet is different in that it allows us to make choices.don't risk that freedom we have.
dabuddha669 3 years ago
your whole 'government=bad' generalization is a load of crap.
government(with perverted power)=bad
youdumbfk
sweetmpea5 3 years ago
Dhbuddha. You proved why NN has to be OPEN and free. The monopolistic control over the airwaves is an example of legistration won by large corporations to control the radio. Today, large corporations want to control the internet.
What you are talking about with the federal reserve is a totally different topic.
woostopalypse 3 years ago
google: savetheinternet
gearzone2611 3 years ago
Also, I completely understand the concern for government regulation becoming the same thing we're trying to prevent with net neutrality, but how can that fear be justified when all net neutrality has to be is a lightweight bill explaining requirements for ISP business, specifically that packets cannot be blocked, filtered or deterred based on content, source, or destination?
zortnac 4 years ago
What happens when the ISP blocking google happens to be a major backbone, like Sprint or UUNET? Savvy consumers and independent organizations, like in your example, simply don't matter. Sure, switch from Verizon to the ISP endorsed by the hypothetical independent group; your connection to google *still* has to travel through said backbones. The ISP's you buy service from, in turn buy their service from other ISPs. This is an infrastructure and system where "free market" just doesn't work.
zortnac 4 years ago
lets see... why are people pushing this NN thing? oh- FEAR! just like they sold us on the Patriot act, NN is here to protect you! NO THANKS, as Ben Franklin said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
bohemianowl 4 years ago 2
Are you for real or is your statement some form of twisted sarcasm?
What essential liberty would be lost by accepting network neutrality? The push for NN is due to fear of losing freedom of internet use.
superadf 4 years ago
Yeah well said, no gov. cencorship!
bigsmallfish 4 years ago 2
Wats up with the long posts....
littleweb1 4 years ago
Like many Ron Paul supporters' arguments, this one depends on the pre-existence of a perfect libertarian universe. Where's the broadband competition? I don't see it. Without it, groups of neutral net watchdogs would have no power. Partly implemented libertarian policies = fascistic playgrounds. And what if the uneducated masses WANT a Disneyfied internet? Do we roll over and let Verizon give it to them? The internet has come so far, and I don't want to see it go under.
ichormosquito 4 years ago
well said.
pavlopwnsyourface 4 years ago
The FCC is the government's censorship wing. The government has already attempted to censor the internet, and with regulation nationalizing the internet's anatomy, it would be that much easier to pass legislation to do the same thing that has happened with television and radio over the last century.
intricatic 4 years ago
Also with a "People Made group" the problem with that is we do not have very many choices with ISP in an area. You can get DSL with one ISP (though others resell the same thing) and you can get cable with one company. Dial-up is an option that you can diverse but those dialup servers have their internet connection running through someone.
Lancewar1 4 years ago
I don't completely agree. Yes I agree with NN but I do not think the government would control everything. There has been net neutrality laws since the creation of the internet and the FCC (backed by large ISP's) decided they do not need to renew the law since they supposedly have enough power. The government already had the control and they did not go to the extent you are afraid off.
Lancewar1 4 years ago
Good video!
JesusHChristofLDS 4 years ago
it's the same as the FDA.. we'll decide what you can have but we'll also decide what you can't
buckybadger9876 4 years ago
I BET THE NEO CON'S ARE PISSED OFFF NOW CAUSE THEY CANT CNTROL THIS REVOLUTION hehehehehehe
AngelHour 4 years ago
thanks great video!
buckybadger9876 4 years ago
Thanks for the video. Now I understand Net Neutrality and why we should keep the hands of government out of the internet.
y2knoproblem 4 years ago 4
Give the government an inch and they'll take 10 miles. Everyone should know by now that many the government will take the simplest of regulations as a precedent to go hog wild on our lives. There're plenty of politicians out there who what to regulate CONTENT the same way the FCC regulates the airwaves. The concept of NN is great, but as the video mentioned are better ways to implement it. The last thing I want to see is an FCC for the internet.
cjays1 4 years ago 4
The example you gave against Net Neutrality (NN) has nothing to do with NN at all. Companies like Google, AOL, Facebook, and Yahoo already sell our information to the government regardless of NN or not. The question is simple. Do unaccountable corporations have a right to control what websites we can and cannot visit? IMO. Your issue with Government accountability is a totally different argument because right now the government is being pampered by corporations on both sides.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
What you're talking about has nothing to do with net neutrality. Since when did I talk about any website giving our information out? Not once. I'm talking about not letting the government control NN and letting the people openly control the companies in a free market manor.
I'm not sure where you got that, but you aren't really talking about this video at all.
Nexxion 4 years ago
NN the belief that the internet should be free for everyone to access. The government, as it does with our roads, would allow everyone have access to it. Your examples of censoring is not what any NN advocate is supporting. The government would be regulating the internet not controlling it. There is a difference.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
And you think that the government would not take advantage of that? Like cJays said above, "Give the government an inch and they'll take 10 miles"
Nexxion 4 years ago
Take advantage of what? The government would not have control of anything. The companies would still have full control over bandwidth and information. The only thing changing would be laws ensuring that companies will not limit their customers' access to certain websites. Again, the government is not controlling anything so it can't censor without the company's consent.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
What
Bennettchild 4 years ago
Sorry bout my "What" post please discard it. My post before did not go so I was confused.
Bennettchild 4 years ago
Imagine thousands of Ron Paul supporters marching at the same time in every major city in the world on December 31, 2007!
ronpaulmarch[dot]com
Email your meetup group and post on myspace and facebook to spread the word! We don't have much time left!
gtdogg 4 years ago
and thats why he said if the first group is doin it too big than a second group would come in and the people could choose which one they feel is more in line w/their beliefs....FREE MARKET, LOWER TAXES, RON PAUL!!!
eazee420 4 years ago
Exactly. Thank you very much for the support for RP. Keep it up! (and thanks for the comment too!)
Nexxion 4 years ago
i agree totally, another issue that i believe that could happen is: after the government has the power to regulate the internet, expect them to tax the internet to the max. We cannot allow the one of the best technologies that humanity has experienced to fall into the hands of corrupt officials.
As for the video, it was great. Keep speaking out and we can make a difference.
ndnspongebob 4 years ago
Totally. I think I'm going to do a video on how to make your voice heard, without being an 'annoying, yelling, crazy political person that people tune out' next :D
Nexxion 4 years ago
The independent group created 'by the people' will be its own layer of government. Ron not trusting congress to enact a fair law does not mean that he does not trust government or 'by the people,' which is the talisman invoked by all libertarians when they actually want government involvement in the economy.
nitzwalsh86 4 years ago
How would a group by the people be controlled by the federal government? The way it would work is you'd have an independent group. They would set the standards that the ISP's have to follow or they will lose business (imagine it like a 'union').
Nexxion 4 years ago
The only way the government would get involved is if the local government wanted to propose a tax to support this group. Any interest groups that try to put money into the independent group can be accused of participating in bad free market practices. If the group DID accept the special interest money, a better group would show up over time and first group won't be able to grow larger than the state government.
Nexxion 4 years ago
great vid! 5 Star!
avoozl07 4 years ago
Thank you! :)
Nexxion 4 years ago
That is pretty much how I understand it too.
NT is not really what it says. Sure, it keeps ISP's from blocking and hindering your connection, but you know what, there will always be another company that will do what you want.
PizzaGod 4 years ago
Exactly. Thank you for the comment!
Nexxion 4 years ago
Thanks for clearing this issue up. The net neutrality movement has been going on for a while and I was almost sucked into it until I found out about Ron's views about it. If you think about it, thats how a lot of things have gone wrong in this country.
musicsheddcom 4 years ago 2
Also, Obama wants to create a new position on the FCC to regulate the internet. The same FCC that is now weakening laws set to prohibit big media from buying more media outlets and creating a bigger monopoly. Image Fox being our ONLY news source of if News Corp. merged with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.
musicsheddcom 4 years ago
Totally. And while Obama I think has the right intentions, he'd basically be setting up a monopolizing system that'd be really hard for any normal person to enter.
Nexxion 4 years ago
I'm not even sure that an independent group would be needed. (Although there's nothing wrong with that.) Finding out if you're ISP is utilizing shady tactics like these would be as easy as using a proxy. I'd think that users would be switching ISPs in droves.
Vhaeos 4 years ago
And if the ISP's start blocking proxies or start detecting when their users have an IP that doesn't match their system? And what about the people who only have the 'choice' of one ISP in their region? I wish I could agree with you more, but unfortunately I think the ISP would think of those things. Thanks for the comment though!
Nexxion 4 years ago