Keep the net neutrality we have not the net neutrality you wish liberals to impose on us. Let them spend billions. The govennment does control the radio and TV markets, Don't let them control the internet, too. Stop reading so much liberal propaganda about how the government will fix a problem we don't have right now.
The whole wikileaks episode has demonstrated how are totally wrong. It only took a phone call from Lieberman to shut down their web hosting and pressure from the Obama administration on VISA and Mastercard to turn off their payment processing. Who's a silly libertarian? Not Paul or most libertarians. Once the government regulates it, they control it. Let's talk about reality not liberal nirvana.
He's right that Net Neutrality is bogus. But he should expound on the solution, which is to eliminate whatever regulation is constricting the number of choices regarding ISPs. That's how it works in most of Europe: more ISPs than you can shake a memory stick at.
If anti net neutrality were to prevail, then I believe the only thing we could do is let them regret what they've done by killing every bit of bandwidth they had. Which I think is the exact same thing that would happen if it didn't.
@dorielementary So you like what TV and Radio have become? You either get regulation or neo-regulation. And do some research and you'll see what net neutrality really is...dont listen to the propaganda...just look to the real sources...
@o0xst I don't like what the radio and tv have become because it is regulated by the FCC! It IS regulated by the government. If you like what the government has done with TV and radio keep supporting net neutrality and watch the government take over the internet. Net Neutrality is all about the government taking over the internet!!! Don't be duped by their lies.
What we have now is net neutrality, its what lobbist are trying to take away. Equal access to information regulation free. To lose Net neutrality would basically, the internet would be the same, except you would have to pay small fees for EVERYTHING we can get free today. We'll probably have an enormous internet bill if we use the internet often, this formulation of the internet would drive people to maintain only certain websites they subscribe to. No more browsing, it will cost ya.
non net neutrality would give big fat blobby 54 yr old white corporate big business fucktards, the same ones that brought you nickelback and 3 doors down, the ability to regulate the internet.
Wow what a terrible argument. Whose website are you posting your video on? Google owns Youtube and if you didn't know they are BIG business too. Realize that this free oasis that you have is because of business and individual business ethics. Time and time again huge companies like Google have fought the machine. Why wouldn't others?
He is not for limiting the Internet, hello? Where do you get your information from? Go read the dang bill genious then come back to me with your theories on how Ron Paul wants to change the internet. He realizes the power of the internet, look at his campaign. A grassroots movement wouldn't occur without the Ron Paul's support of the internet.
of course not but those are all monopolized and are controlled primarily by wealthy elite. Your news is filtered and fine tuned by these individuals. A feat virtually impossible in a free market society like the internet. A place where ideas and content take priority over wealth and power. Why do you think they are labeling it a haven for potential terrorism because of the liquidity of ideas?
neo regulation you mean, which is deregulation. look at tv and radio since deregulation has occured and discover what little sense your argument makes. You do not understand what is going on here. ck out savetheinternet dot com for some education on the matters
Actually, TV and radio are heavily regulated by the government. That's one of the primary reasons both venues are so screwed up in terms of public access. However, with the internet, it's a different story completely - you need more than a simple radio transmitter to publish something on the internet, and only a handfull of companies own the equipment that runs the internet.
You're ignoring one thing. The business owners right. It's *their* service you are purchasing and they have the right to do as they please. Now what they do not have the right to do is LIE about what they are doing or avoid the issue. If everyone disagrees with their practice go to a different supplier...the prior company will fail and the later will flourish...at least that's how capitalism is *supposed* to work.
They do have the right to lie. There are numerous cases of misrepresentation of products, and the case against changing that via some regulation is dubbed "market interference". PR, Lobbying and Marketing is all about lying.
I suppose if I made a bill that allowed Rape to be legal, but I called the Bill a Net Neutrality Bill. Then forget reading the bill, just pass it! It says Net Neutrality. READ THE AMENDMENT THAT RON PAUL OPPOSED THAT WAS LABELED NET NEUTRALITY. It would make raping the people legal through over regulation The Act already in place was perfectly fine already. Amendment would have given %100 control to the FCC.
fucking american losers man! everyone in america think that THEY are the most important people in the country they are all so self-involved and selfish. ron paul is a fucking hero - who the fuck are you?
The reason we want Ron Paul is not because we like him, but because someone has to win this election, and he is the only one running who is not a member of the C.F.R.(the bushes, the clinton's the rockefeller's etc), and if you don't know who they are you need to find the fuck out, like NOW!!!
I'm down for 420, I admit I don't know what the phish bus is, and with regard to Alex Jones don't worry about me homie I know the truth. From 9/11-1954.
By the way, Ron Paul supporters aren't just a bunch of young emo college kids.
Ron Paul leads Hillary Clinton among 40 year olds, 47% to 44% and is polling strong against her among 30 year olds according to a Rasmussen Reports poll of 1200 likely voters taken from October 12-14, 2007.
USAElectionPolls * com reveals Ron Paul does better than Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson among 30 year olds against Hillary Clinton.
I could care less. the government can't get in my way. I am still voting for Ron Paul and am sick of both parties failing us. period. If only people will see.
problem is, Paul is more a member of one of the parties (Republican) than are any members of any party. His PR advisers just tell him to cater to the "non partisan" emo kids and phish van people...it's a brilliant strategy.
I am/was independent too! I only went republican because Ron paul gives me hope for this country. Can't anyone see this? The republican party ahs been taken over by neocons. I mean, Rudy dressed up as a women twice and has almost the same policies as Clinton, Tomson was a lobbyist, and Romney flip flops so much he can turn ona windmill. Wow, whata god choice they left us. Ron Paul is the only true candidate. His track record shows that. Period.
Fox newsbots? I hate Foc news, as does most Ron Paul supporters. Did you even see how they treated him last night in the debate? Just because he got first place in the debate poll. Pathetic.
Gore is one of the main reasons FOX and newscorp exist as they now do via his rabid promoting of the 96 telecom act. Sounds odd but it is true. Paul is just the same with his "regulation is the enemy!!!" rhetoric, it will allow such orginizaitons to flourish beyond beleif. Whether or not you say you "support" them, you support them when you go with Paul..
No I am not. Regualtion can be enemy ebcause it is often abused. it ahs nothign to do with Ron Paul beign with Fox. Fox is a pure neocon network that is ran by special insterests, such as the CFR. Ron Paul is their worst nightmare.
No he isn't. He abhours the "general welfare..." aspect which protects the majority of the population from the tyranical ways of corporations whos goal is to turn the internet into what tv, radio, and most newspapers are.
DO NOT copy n paste that stupid thing that dumb heritagefoundation fool wrote about the "general welfare" and how it "aint all that" (paraphrasing) beause this forum is for what people think not what people paid to think by the makers of tanks (think tanks) think.
Government contol exists only for one thing, to increase government control. If you think the US government is going to step in and "protect" the internet from evil corporations, you're deluded. The government has never done anything other than protect itself.
If my ISP put a gag in my mouth, guess what I'd do?
Dumb Ass! Paul is against net neutrality because net neutrality means the internet will changed in the way you described! Hes FOR your side! Learn what that means!
Haha @ you nit-picking his views on Net Neutrality? I'm pretty sure I could stand net neutrality if americans aren't dying in foreign nations because our president got power hungry.
This is symptomatic thinking. Ron Paul is looking at the causes. If he did away with the FCC, as he would, the big telecoms would lose their monopoly in a month! *You* do not "understand this kind of thing"!
podcast-files(dot)cnet(dot)com(slash)podcast(slash)realdeal062706.mp3 What I consider a fairly balanced interview. If they want a REAL net neutrality bill, then leave out the open ended FCC pieces in the next revision.
RP says he's against corporatism, which is what I'm guessing the telecomm companies are pushing towards. I think RP has something up his sleeve that doesn't involve government intervention on the last free media, but I'd like to see if he can elaborate on this.
Yes he's going to make AT&T, Comcast, Verizion, etc promise us they will never take advantage of their newly acquired powers. I'm sure that will be a lot more effective than evil, restrictive, Big Government "regulations"
True all 'dat Hombre. But watch out for the Clear Channel talk without knowing this. The next "big thing" amongst the "market will solve everything" fucktards is that many of them (yes Ive met a handful) are now talking about how things didn't work out with Clear Channel so they are selling a lot of their assets and bla bla bla...well, sounds great until you discover the company buying their shit is headed by the devil himself MICHAEL POWELL....
PART ONE (a)- i totally agree, it is by no means a stretch of imagination, especially after the 96' telecom act, that regulated internet strictly for the purpose of preservation would not only secure our online freedom of choice, but also preserve the wonderful neo-informational 'boon' that has emerged within the last 15 years. That emergence has opened the door to EVERYONE with an internet connection to, for example: (cont'd)
PART 1 (b)- 1.Seek out information independent of the major media outlets (and ironically the SAME KINDS OF CONGLOMERATIONS that would inevitably devour an unsecured internet); 2. Be entertained all day (youtube, ebaumsworld, etc.); 3. (and most importantly) change the spectrum of public policy through this wonderful medium that allows UNFEDDERED ACCESS at low cost to ordinary people and grants us the freedom to blog, etc.
PART TWO - Thats only three, THREE of many reasons to keep the web secured and as we enjoy it today. I totally loved Ron Paul until i found out this fact. Its only one issue that i find myself at odds w/ him, but its SO HUGE. Why is there always a catch with these guys!? Ron Paul is at least mostly articulate, mostly truthful (from what i can tell which is totally rare), and has obvious leadership quality characteristics. And then he's anti net neutrality.
PART THREE - Seriously, if you're online right now blogging away about how net neutrality is the anti-freedom beelzebub superdemon who sweeps down using the arm of the statue of liberty to strangle your rights, then YOU DONT KNOW WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS, ITS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND- unregulation of radio and TV by the FCC in 1996 is why we have clearchannel, citadel, viacom and now our television and music culture has gone completely DOWN THE TOILET.
PART FOUR - I will have no pity if the telecom companies run our internet COMPLETELY and all the bloggers who supported this are whining into thir Verizon cell phones because they can't afford a website because i'll be in England living amonst those socialst, tea drinking free healthcare freedom haters enjoying my low cost internet far away from Paris Hilton's new music video on the E! channel and Vioxx commercials. IDIOTS.
One last comment and then I will leave you to whatever decision you have already made. Ron Paul is the only one who has stood up against all of these evils consistently. If saving Google a few bucks is more important to you than your rights as a human being, then I am sure there is little I can say to change your mind. Btw, since you mentioned Obama, has a nice position on a first strike nuclear attack against Iran as well. Life must be really worth little these days.
On a friendlier note, I would simply ask that you consider the possibility that a business does have the right to charge what it likes for it's service, and a consumer has the right to decide whether it is worth it. Hence, the market being self maintaining. But that government restriction always leads to abuse no matter how well intentioned (and I have NO DOUBT that they are well intentioned).
Markets arent and have never been "self maintaning" here. The invisible hand has always been spooked away by the ghost of McCarthy and that will never change, ever. "Free Markets" are tyranny plain and simple.
Really? We now condone torture, imprisonment without trial, arrests for spreading "propaganda", unauthorized searches, illegal wiretaps, monitoring of what we read (via library, and certain resellers). Yeah, they are really afraid to go through that again. (and this is just the stuff that they admit to! we know there is always more under the surface!)
And markets are good at dealing with existing eco or soc problems? Absolutley not. Good post but I must say that the Goverment bashing is just too too much.
I think this idea of fair competitive market, w/o subsidies, corporatism, is a difficult concept to grasp b/c of the decades of dependencies (welfare, wars on povery, drug, terrorism - aka, false security). It doesn't help that so-called deregulations and market reforms in the 80-90 under the free-market banner gave it a bad name. But the fact is the gov't isn't good at dealing with existing eco or soc problems; much less predicting c
anyone who is against Net Neutrality is "the enemy" in my opinion. Just goes to show Ron Paul is nothing but a Libertarian Zealot who lets his dogma cloud his judgment, to the point of supporting policies that are anything but free market, and actually hurt average american workers/consumers. D not vote for this man if you care about internet freedom.
I actually did this video becuase I know without a doubt he has no clue on this topic, but is interested in learning and MIGHT change his mind. Hope he does.
Ok, here is the problem with net neutrality. It sounds harmless right, protect web businesses from being charged at tiered levels. However, this model has been in place for you personally on your high bandwidth for quite sometime. Do you think the company doesn't have a right to do that? Well, net neutrality is to protect them, not you because you are already charged that way. Net Neutrality is one group of corps who lobbied against another group of corps (neither care about you).
Next point. If you let the government get involved with the internet at all, like they did with radio, tv, cable, etc. You get the same effect, censorship, and with the internet, they have already proven a predisposition to monitoring.
Do you think google is going to start charging for searches just because their bill went up? They don't want to have to deal with the telecom's interfering with their profit margins. Better to wait and see. If one group behaves irresponsibly toward the other, THEN we should look at doing something.
Yeah, I am ok with google paying a little more for better bandwidth JUST LIKE I DO! That is the nature of business. If they are able to provide a better product for more money by implementing new tech, so be it. And if they can't then they will die.
lol. you are ok with getting your message out, as long as it is government approved? lol. Seriously, you can't talk about the freedom of the internet in one breath and talk about it being ok to censor in the next breath and expect me to take that seriously?
Im ok with crossing an intersection with "government approval" so a car doesnt smash into me. And net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship and most likely wont....corporate censorship however is a gurantee. Lots of fundamentalist shareholders will demand boobs dot com or whatever is wiped off the face of the earth and their wish shall be granted
what does corporate censorship have to do with the Net Neutrality bill? That would/does occur at the same frequency regardless of this bill. This bill is about money and who pays. Most web hosting companies have a ToS preventing pornography (mostly for legal and technical reasons). I am sorry but censorship is not the same thing as a traffic light.
oh man the propaganda people sure do an amazing job gettin you folks to believe and regurgitate. This is verbatum what the hill knowlton people have been paid to get everyone to say....
saying it already exists and that means it is ok is like saying before the kurds were gassed that they hadnt been gassed before so why worry
I could say the same to you. Why would you want to support either of these lobby groups? Both sides are the corp giants. And regulation on either side would be merely one trying to take from the other, which government subsidized monopolies, government price fixing, and cencorship hurts all of us, but not the winning corps, they keep chugging along.
Anyone notice wolfebn is just spouting inane babble that has nothing to do with this debate? Not one valid argument made about why we should ditch Net Neutrality, just recycled Libetard talking points that make about as much sense as the Rove-soundbites used by neocons.
The telecoms are monopolistic. I am not saying that they are good. (And since you didn't bother to address any of my points, I assume you can't). As far as gov. regulations, there was a recent article where congress was trying to site p2p as a national security threat. These are the people YOU want to trust?
You get a shitty rating not because your anti-Ron Paul, but because you can't read the COPE before you post a judgement about it. Net neutrality already exists. That bill called for net neutrality as defined by the FCC aka CENSORSHIP. Do some research before you waste people's time with your Obama propaganda.
Really?!? Then why do you say, "Obama voted for it!" Like that somehow is suppose to justify the bill. Congratulations you're video has been upgraded to simply anti-Paul propaganda. I really don't know what you're trying to get at, except bash Ron Paul and his supporters. Any reasonable citizen that has read the bill and supports internet freedom knows that the COPE Act was BS.
They already have made strip clubs shut down and no touching between strippers and patrons thanks to focus on the family regulate the internet and thats whats going to happen you can't just open a crack open the door its going to bee wide open in the end!
Assuming they want to (and I'm not arguing that either way)... how could they regulate the net within the private sector? Don't they need the feds to actually do it for them? At which point, it's really not a private sector issue any more, is it?
Socialism regulate everything if the government regulates the internet then you might not be able to spread your socialism. Or your internet porn. Welfare is stupid.
hahhaahah ok if you'll excuse me I am due back on the planet earth...wait, actually I need to send ANOTHER email correspondance to my friend in C-U-B-A
the quote says that the ISP has to pay for the infrastructure upgrade somehow (BILLIONS of dollars) - if the websites don't pony it up, you will.
It's not so much that the websites are using too much bandwidth (which they are) but they're using streaming video/audio & other services that demand priority over other content. Hence the "fast lane/slow lane" - honestly, people who don't know about technology shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion.
Lilly livered Article 1 Section 8 General Welfare and simply being dismissive of Ron Paul as a sweet old man.
None the less, instead of basically saying nothing, why not say something specific.
Explain why Ron Paul is wrong in your opinion on Net Neutrality, which incidentally he clearly admits to not being fully informed on and willing to learn more about the issue.
o0xst: to load a website, there are pauses/breaks (read: "waiting for host"). Google on the other hand, uses a lot of technology that requires higher speeds with no delay (Youtube?). Net neutrality proponents like to say "no diamond lanes!" But that slants the argument. Yes, technology that requires these ridiculous speeds should pay for it. If the websites that use terabytes of streaming video don't pay for it, you will dumb ass.
How much money does Ron Paul get from Telecom & Cable companies? Exact figure please.. I assume you have an estimate since you said it's "so much money", so tell me how much and quote me a source for your info. Just back up your statements is all I ask.
I didnt say Ron Paul gets a cent, opt...I said the people he is quoting gets money from them. And they get money because they are VERY GOOD at what they do, i.e getting people like Paul to use phrases like "I wont regulate the internet".
My god you people are totally irrational and incapable of thinking. What is wrong with you guys?!?!?!?
I agree the telecom & cable companies spent alot of $ fighting the bill, I also liked the idea of Net Neutrality, Ron Paul admited there wasn't alot he knew about it but he was willing to learn. He said he opposed it because it would have essentially said the Congress has a right to regulate the internet, which is something he doesn't want to cede. His arguement is sensible, and he is likely sympathetic to the cause, but it may not be the right way to do it.
I am not as stupid as it seems, and trust me...he must, MUST be for this or he stands no chance whatsoever.
And no, its not one of those "spew cliches' or die!" I mean "Live free or die!" things, its not acquiescing..it is doing what is right to prevent this monster that is turning America into one big shopping mall from doing yet more damage.
What I am concerned with is putting morons in charge of 2 trillion dollars per year, anyone who wants to limit that power has my vote. Corporations benefit currently because they lobby government to spend those tax $s with them and give them tax breaks. I have no problem with legitimate business, I am opposed to corporatism which is what you inevitably end up with under our current system. Let me guess, you are a registered Democrat right?
Im all for finding a way to put an end to the lobbying bs and the corporatism but I dont know what exactly Paul plans to do to stop it....the ideas and rhetoric sound great but I just don't know how realistic it is unless he embraces some things that involve certain government groups working as watchdogs, i.e via things like net neutrality....
I do think Dr. Paul (aka Dr. "No" because he is sometimes the only one to vote against a bill) is sympathetic to the "Net Neutrality" cause and can be persuaded, he honestly admitted he could learn more about it and is willing to. Atleast he votes against a bill he doesnt understand instead of voting for it and regulating something he doesn't understand.
By reducing the ammount of $ the government brings in and not allowing overspending it would largely address the corpratism problem.
Not necessarily, what with how much the big corporations already have here and abroad. If he gives no power to good people like Adelstein and Copps (especially if they are on the majority side of the FCC after 08) then how will there be good things like new slots for non-profit lo-fi stations to open up?
How about campaign finance reform? Oh, and putting an end to political perks and junkets?
And while we're at it, let's come up with a different system to give politicians raising (instead of all of them agreeing to give themselves raises)...
look saladpuncher, I am for those things....one reason is that if those things were taken care of then you and Ron Paul would be able to understand things and not be so indoctrenated by PR boobgirls and other evildoers...
Listen man, he admitted on G4TV interview that he was Against Regulation of The Internet by any Governments or Corporations. He voted NO for Net-Neutrality. And admits hes still learning the full issues involved. MANY people misunderstood Net Neutrality because its made to sound good, much like The Federal Reserve is a made up phoney name. He understands the truth of the Fed, and by now Im sure he understands Net Neutrality better and admits hes still learning more in that interview.
Thanks for posting this dude. I hope that RP changes his mind on this issue. I like so many other things about him, but this is just one example of why I am having trouble seriously considering voting for him. I think he is a good man (unlike the current low-lifes), but I just don't agree with him on some issues that are important to me.
You're right about net neutrality, but are you right about Ron Paul?
It's unfortunate that someone chose the term "net neutrality," because it is very misunderstood. It should have been called "keep the internet free and open as it is."
Ron Paul supports keeping the internet free and open as it is.
He doesn't support the double-speak named campaign "Hands off the internet," which you rightly identify as the campaign to regulate the internet and turn it over to corporate control.
Ron Paul will listen to us on this, unlike the other candidates.
Everyone who is confused about what "net neutrality" means should read up on it rather than believing the bs the corporate ad campaigns are feeding you.
Btw, it's a fallacy promoted by the likes of Fox News that Ron Paul supporters use e-mail lists to coordinate their "attacks"and spam his opponents.
I'm not on any Ron Paul e-mail list, and I don't get any messages from other supporters.
Like most Ron Paul supporters, I'm simply someone who likes his message and sees him as the only politician who can save America, and everything I do to support him I do on my own.
Yes, and it's the standard line by everyone who wants to deny the level of support that Ron Paul has--that it's a conspiracy by a few dedicated supporters to spam the polls and message boards--it's totally not true.
One newspaper wrote that "Ron Paul's internet strategy is working." Ron Paul doesn't have an internet strategy--his support is real and is the spontaneous actions of people like myself who see what he has to say and believe he is our only hope.
For example, take the MSNBC poll before and after the first debate. Just before the debate, Ron Paul had 9% positive--in line with the other less known candidates.
If there was a conspiracy among a few dedicated spammers, it would have been much higher.
It was after the debate that Ron Paul shot to 40%, and that's because people saw and liked what he had to say.
Not to mention that you could only vote once. I mean, the people who programmed the MSNBC poll weren't idiots.
Oh yah now I remember what you are talking about regarding FOX, when the poll numbers were rolling in...I suspect there is some minor truth to what they said HOWEVER the same applies to about every candidate so they might as well accussed Ron Paul and his supporters of breathing air.
and Echelon, I believe you that there is a good chance Paul will listen to the people on this matter. No way I'd waste my time on this if I didn't think so!
Even if they are corporate-funded, that doesn't change the fact that net neutrality aims at solving a problem which does not exist, and may not ever exist. As wireless MANs become more popular, its doubtful anyone will have a monopoly on providing internet connectivity.
a group that lobbies for conservatism in government is automatically evilly corporate funded and that has something to do with net neutrality? you act like every single corporation in the world is conspiring to keep net neutrality down. and we're the ones being propagandists? you also totally ignored my comment about the communications act of 1934.
dude! look it up! all those groups are funded by big business!!!! Go to source watch dot org it's completely documented and impossible to debate. And if the FCC has this power, it WONT happen with Kevin Martin in control which is why it is being dealt with elsewhere. If the Democrats win, Copps and Adelstein will deal with the matter if what you say is correct and they can make it happen.
i dont think most people really know what they want. i dont think most of them even understand net neutrality, its a very complex issue and it's almost always presented to them from an extremely biased perspective. the best article i've read so far on the subject is this one:
The Communications Act of 1934 gave the FCC the power to intervene if there was to be a case of online discrimination (even though it doesn't appear to be a problem at all) but we DON'T need a new regulation for something the FCC already had the power to do.
You really want to give the keys to the internet to the government?!!!
dorielementary 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is unelectable.
MrSeriouslytho 2 months ago
Keep the net neutrality we have not the net neutrality you wish liberals to impose on us. Let them spend billions. The govennment does control the radio and TV markets, Don't let them control the internet, too. Stop reading so much liberal propaganda about how the government will fix a problem we don't have right now.
Sweetahthensuga 11 months ago
@Sweetahthensuga The government does control TV and Radio. Go look up the FCC. They control it, limit access to it, and they do a terrible job of it.
dorielementary 2 months ago
The whole wikileaks episode has demonstrated how are totally wrong. It only took a phone call from Lieberman to shut down their web hosting and pressure from the Obama administration on VISA and Mastercard to turn off their payment processing. Who's a silly libertarian? Not Paul or most libertarians. Once the government regulates it, they control it. Let's talk about reality not liberal nirvana.
Sweetahthensuga 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
He's right that Net Neutrality is bogus. But he should expound on the solution, which is to eliminate whatever regulation is constricting the number of choices regarding ISPs. That's how it works in most of Europe: more ISPs than you can shake a memory stick at.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
Ron Paul is a free market guy, ofcourse he would be against net nuetrality.
joepglass 1 year ago 2
@joepglass non-sense.
o0xst 1 year ago
fake! i can tell this is photoshopped by the pixels.
notpip 2 years ago
Ron Paul is in strong support of Net Neutrality.
How is Net neutrality Regulation?
You've made now sense?
Slander much?
14WaysToFightBack 3 years ago
Since when? When I made this he was parroting the lobbyists lines of "no regulation of the net". Slander much?
o0xst 3 years ago
If anti net neutrality were to prevail, then I believe the only thing we could do is let them regret what they've done by killing every bit of bandwidth they had. Which I think is the exact same thing that would happen if it didn't.
Azilythe 3 years ago
There is always something you can do...it's hard as hell, but there is always something.
o0xst 3 years ago
We need net neutrality.
Iguana886 3 years ago
indeed. And fewer lobbyists.
o0xst 3 years ago
Oh ok.
o0xst 3 years ago
@Iguana886 Like a hole in the head. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET!
dorielementary 2 months ago
@dorielementary So you like what TV and Radio have become? You either get regulation or neo-regulation. And do some research and you'll see what net neutrality really is...dont listen to the propaganda...just look to the real sources...
o0xst 2 months ago
@o0xst I don't like what the radio and tv have become because it is regulated by the FCC! It IS regulated by the government. If you like what the government has done with TV and radio keep supporting net neutrality and watch the government take over the internet. Net Neutrality is all about the government taking over the internet!!! Don't be duped by their lies.
dorielementary 2 months ago
@o0xst TV and Radio ARE regulated by the FCC!!!! You have just made my point that government regulation is NOT the answer.
dorielementary 1 month ago
@dorielementary Good lord. What I was saying, when MASSIVE amounts of deregulation occured, it went to hell. You people just do not get it.
o0xst 1 month ago
@o0xst Government is almost NEVER the answer. MASSIVE amounts of deregulation are almost ALWAYS good.
dorielementary 1 month ago
@dorielementary k. Enjoy your Christina Aguilera Christmas.
o0xst 1 month ago
@o0xst ?????What
dorielementary 1 month ago
Net Neutrality = GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE INTERNET.
You think the FCC was bad? Wait until BIG BROTHER gets their claws into the net.
framecut 3 years ago
youtube michael copps or jonathan adelstein, they are good guys.
o0xst 3 years ago
What we have now is net neutrality, its what lobbist are trying to take away. Equal access to information regulation free. To lose Net neutrality would basically, the internet would be the same, except you would have to pay small fees for EVERYTHING we can get free today. We'll probably have an enormous internet bill if we use the internet often, this formulation of the internet would drive people to maintain only certain websites they subscribe to. No more browsing, it will cost ya.
14WaysToFightBack 3 years ago
@14WaysToFightBack Welcome to Internet2
joepglass 1 year ago
Net Neutrality would give the federal government the ability to regulate the internet.
devknob 4 years ago
non net neutrality would give big fat blobby 54 yr old white corporate big business fucktards, the same ones that brought you nickelback and 3 doors down, the ability to regulate the internet.
o0xst 4 years ago
lose lose situation
madcatdriver 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CNN=FOX
screw em, lets show them what the internet can do!!
they thought 4.3 million was impressive just wait!!
deluded chumps blindly following prepackaged candidates!
Ron Paul 2008!!
johnny55a 4 years ago
Wow what a terrible argument. Whose website are you posting your video on? Google owns Youtube and if you didn't know they are BIG business too. Realize that this free oasis that you have is because of business and individual business ethics. Time and time again huge companies like Google have fought the machine. Why wouldn't others?
banemaler 4 years ago
Ive never read a post that made less sense.
This is about net neutrality, not an across the board statement that all big business is bad.
hello?
o0xst 4 years ago
He is not for limiting the Internet, hello? Where do you get your information from? Go read the dang bill genious then come back to me with your theories on how Ron Paul wants to change the internet. He realizes the power of the internet, look at his campaign. A grassroots movement wouldn't occur without the Ron Paul's support of the internet.
banemaler 4 years ago
So you are saying tv and radio are great and wonderful just like the internet?
o0xst 4 years ago
of course not but those are all monopolized and are controlled primarily by wealthy elite. Your news is filtered and fine tuned by these individuals. A feat virtually impossible in a free market society like the internet. A place where ideas and content take priority over wealth and power. Why do you think they are labeling it a haven for potential terrorism because of the liquidity of ideas?
banemaler 4 years ago
The only way you can stop the internet is with regulation, the type of regulation that Ron Paul would never support.
banemaler 4 years ago
neo regulation you mean, which is deregulation. look at tv and radio since deregulation has occured and discover what little sense your argument makes. You do not understand what is going on here. ck out savetheinternet dot com for some education on the matters
o0xst 4 years ago
Actually, TV and radio are heavily regulated by the government. That's one of the primary reasons both venues are so screwed up in terms of public access. However, with the internet, it's a different story completely - you need more than a simple radio transmitter to publish something on the internet, and only a handfull of companies own the equipment that runs the internet.
intricatic 4 years ago
read the bill instead of the title ... sheesh
smokie2012 4 years ago
did you read the supposed bill? it acts the exact opposite of what the title reads stupid
smokie2012 4 years ago
You're ignoring one thing. The business owners right. It's *their* service you are purchasing and they have the right to do as they please. Now what they do not have the right to do is LIE about what they are doing or avoid the issue. If everyone disagrees with their practice go to a different supplier...the prior company will fail and the later will flourish...at least that's how capitalism is *supposed* to work.
Gremio42 4 years ago
They do have the right to lie. There are numerous cases of misrepresentation of products, and the case against changing that via some regulation is dubbed "market interference". PR, Lobbying and Marketing is all about lying.
o0xst 4 years ago
I suppose if I made a bill that allowed Rape to be legal, but I called the Bill a Net Neutrality Bill. Then forget reading the bill, just pass it! It says Net Neutrality. READ THE AMENDMENT THAT RON PAUL OPPOSED THAT WAS LABELED NET NEUTRALITY. It would make raping the people legal through over regulation The Act already in place was perfectly fine already. Amendment would have given %100 control to the FCC.
Wolfsheim23 4 years ago
fucking american losers man! everyone in america think that THEY are the most important people in the country they are all so self-involved and selfish. ron paul is a fucking hero - who the fuck are you?
48C 4 years ago
ha!
o0xst 4 years ago
The reason we want Ron Paul is not because we like him, but because someone has to win this election, and he is the only one running who is not a member of the C.F.R.(the bushes, the clinton's the rockefeller's etc), and if you don't know who they are you need to find the fuck out, like NOW!!!
supershane 4 years ago
hahahhah right on man 420 man lets get on the phish bus man
oh yah alex jones maaaaaaaan
o0xst 4 years ago
I'm down for 420, I admit I don't know what the phish bus is, and with regard to Alex Jones don't worry about me homie I know the truth. From 9/11-1954.
P.S.
Alex Jones is the next Thomas Jefferson.
supershane 4 years ago
Google Internet 2
yankdini99 4 years ago
Ron said he doesn't fully understand net neutrality and I do not fully understand it either. Send him some info :)
sm0ky40 4 years ago
save the internet dot com
o0xst 4 years ago
By the way, Ron Paul supporters aren't just a bunch of young emo college kids.
Ron Paul leads Hillary Clinton among 40 year olds, 47% to 44% and is polling strong against her among 30 year olds according to a Rasmussen Reports poll of 1200 likely voters taken from October 12-14, 2007.
USAElectionPolls * com reveals Ron Paul does better than Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson among 30 year olds against Hillary Clinton.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
40 year olds are the new emos
o0xst 4 years ago
Awesome. Then that means we'll live to be 160!
JackNeedles 4 years ago
I could care less. the government can't get in my way. I am still voting for Ron Paul and am sick of both parties failing us. period. If only people will see.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
problem is, Paul is more a member of one of the parties (Republican) than are any members of any party. His PR advisers just tell him to cater to the "non partisan" emo kids and phish van people...it's a brilliant strategy.
o0xst 4 years ago
Jack is right, the Government is not doing its job, thats why i turned independent, Ron Paul represents everything the US needs right now.
seanynoodles5556 4 years ago
I am/was independent too! I only went republican because Ron paul gives me hope for this country. Can't anyone see this? The republican party ahs been taken over by neocons. I mean, Rudy dressed up as a women twice and has almost the same policies as Clinton, Tomson was a lobbyist, and Romney flip flops so much he can turn ona windmill. Wow, whata god choice they left us. Ron Paul is the only true candidate. His track record shows that. Period.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
Well the candidates i am looking at are
1. Paul
2. Gravel
3. Huckabee
4.
seanynoodles5556 4 years ago
hah. fox newbots are becoming ron paulbots. beautiful.
o0xst 4 years ago
Fox newsbots? I hate Foc news, as does most Ron Paul supporters. Did you even see how they treated him last night in the debate? Just because he got first place in the debate poll. Pathetic.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
Gore is one of the main reasons FOX and newscorp exist as they now do via his rabid promoting of the 96 telecom act. Sounds odd but it is true. Paul is just the same with his "regulation is the enemy!!!" rhetoric, it will allow such orginizaitons to flourish beyond beleif. Whether or not you say you "support" them, you support them when you go with Paul..
o0xst 4 years ago
No I am not. Regualtion can be enemy ebcause it is often abused. it ahs nothign to do with Ron Paul beign with Fox. Fox is a pure neocon network that is ran by special insterests, such as the CFR. Ron Paul is their worst nightmare.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
hardly. like I said, he'd allow them to buy up anything and everything they desire....thats not a worst nightmare scenario by a long shot sport.
o0xst 4 years ago
Not at all. Coprorations are out of his control.
JackNeedles 4 years ago
No he isn't. He abhours the "general welfare..." aspect which protects the majority of the population from the tyranical ways of corporations whos goal is to turn the internet into what tv, radio, and most newspapers are.
DO NOT copy n paste that stupid thing that dumb heritagefoundation fool wrote about the "general welfare" and how it "aint all that" (paraphrasing) beause this forum is for what people think not what people paid to think by the makers of tanks (think tanks) think.
o0xst 4 years ago
don't worry, I'm not a blind Paul follower, but I do support him. This shakes things up though. mixed feelings...
UnsounderGnome 4 years ago
Read Cornell West's essay on the 80s and apply everything in it to what Paul's reign would be like and then consider the big picture...
o0xst 4 years ago
What Kool-aid flavor does Ron Paul drink? I want to try it...
Manqusso 4 years ago
Heritagefoundationberry
o0xst 4 years ago
Government contol exists only for one thing, to increase government control. If you think the US government is going to step in and "protect" the internet from evil corporations, you're deluded. The government has never done anything other than protect itself.
If my ISP put a gag in my mouth, guess what I'd do?
I'd dump their ass.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
you think there are going to be tons of choices here in a couple years? I don't think so.
o0xst 4 years ago
> you think there are going to be tons of
> choices here in a couple years? I don't think
> so.
When the government regulated the phone company guess how many choices you had then?
1.
Ma Bell.
How many choices did you have in 2000? How about now?
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
not a lot...and they send records to the FBI et. al...fun fun
o0xst 4 years ago
Dumb Ass! Paul is against net neutrality because net neutrality means the internet will changed in the way you described! Hes FOR your side! Learn what that means!
blinedriver 4 years ago 2
ok name calling emo kid, explain....
o0xst 4 years ago
Haha @ you nit-picking his views on Net Neutrality? I'm pretty sure I could stand net neutrality if americans aren't dying in foreign nations because our president got power hungry.
tRoss87 4 years ago
I do not agree Ron Paul does listen to lobbiest.
twopotatoesonecarrot 4 years ago
This is symptomatic thinking. Ron Paul is looking at the causes. If he did away with the FCC, as he would, the big telecoms would lose their monopoly in a month! *You* do not "understand this kind of thing"!
momerath42 4 years ago
ok explain please...since you "understand". Don't keep it to yourself.
o0xst 4 years ago
How do you know he is not aware of all these thing?
Markennz 4 years ago
He said so himself!
o0xst 4 years ago
where could I read the literature to this bill?
ParapaDrifter 4 years ago
savetheinternet dot com
o0xst 4 years ago
podcast-files(dot)cnet(dot)com(slash)podcast(slash)realdeal062706.mp3 What I consider a fairly balanced interview. If they want a REAL net neutrality bill, then leave out the open ended FCC pieces in the next revision.
wolfebn 4 years ago
RP says he's against corporatism, which is what I'm guessing the telecomm companies are pushing towards. I think RP has something up his sleeve that doesn't involve government intervention on the last free media, but I'd like to see if he can elaborate on this.
Sabin17 4 years ago
what?!?!?!?!!?? militias blowing up tubes???
o0xst 4 years ago
Yes he's going to make AT&T, Comcast, Verizion, etc promise us they will never take advantage of their newly acquired powers. I'm sure that will be a lot more effective than evil, restrictive, Big Government "regulations"
excavatethefuture 4 years ago
True all 'dat Hombre. But watch out for the Clear Channel talk without knowing this. The next "big thing" amongst the "market will solve everything" fucktards is that many of them (yes Ive met a handful) are now talking about how things didn't work out with Clear Channel so they are selling a lot of their assets and bla bla bla...well, sounds great until you discover the company buying their shit is headed by the devil himself MICHAEL POWELL....
o0xst 4 years ago
PART ONE (a)- i totally agree, it is by no means a stretch of imagination, especially after the 96' telecom act, that regulated internet strictly for the purpose of preservation would not only secure our online freedom of choice, but also preserve the wonderful neo-informational 'boon' that has emerged within the last 15 years. That emergence has opened the door to EVERYONE with an internet connection to, for example: (cont'd)
HombreSully 4 years ago
PART 1 (b)- 1.Seek out information independent of the major media outlets (and ironically the SAME KINDS OF CONGLOMERATIONS that would inevitably devour an unsecured internet); 2. Be entertained all day (youtube, ebaumsworld, etc.); 3. (and most importantly) change the spectrum of public policy through this wonderful medium that allows UNFEDDERED ACCESS at low cost to ordinary people and grants us the freedom to blog, etc.
HombreSully 4 years ago
PART TWO - Thats only three, THREE of many reasons to keep the web secured and as we enjoy it today. I totally loved Ron Paul until i found out this fact. Its only one issue that i find myself at odds w/ him, but its SO HUGE. Why is there always a catch with these guys!? Ron Paul is at least mostly articulate, mostly truthful (from what i can tell which is totally rare), and has obvious leadership quality characteristics. And then he's anti net neutrality.
HombreSully 4 years ago
PART THREE - Seriously, if you're online right now blogging away about how net neutrality is the anti-freedom beelzebub superdemon who sweeps down using the arm of the statue of liberty to strangle your rights, then YOU DONT KNOW WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS, ITS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND- unregulation of radio and TV by the FCC in 1996 is why we have clearchannel, citadel, viacom and now our television and music culture has gone completely DOWN THE TOILET.
HombreSully 4 years ago
PART FOUR - I will have no pity if the telecom companies run our internet COMPLETELY and all the bloggers who supported this are whining into thir Verizon cell phones because they can't afford a website because i'll be in England living amonst those socialst, tea drinking free healthcare freedom haters enjoying my low cost internet far away from Paris Hilton's new music video on the E! channel and Vioxx commercials. IDIOTS.
HombreSully 4 years ago
One last comment and then I will leave you to whatever decision you have already made. Ron Paul is the only one who has stood up against all of these evils consistently. If saving Google a few bucks is more important to you than your rights as a human being, then I am sure there is little I can say to change your mind. Btw, since you mentioned Obama, has a nice position on a first strike nuclear attack against Iran as well. Life must be really worth little these days.
wolfebn 4 years ago
Ron Paul is an uninformed douchebag just like you.
excavatethefuture 4 years ago
On a friendlier note, I would simply ask that you consider the possibility that a business does have the right to charge what it likes for it's service, and a consumer has the right to decide whether it is worth it. Hence, the market being self maintaining. But that government restriction always leads to abuse no matter how well intentioned (and I have NO DOUBT that they are well intentioned).
wolfebn 4 years ago
Markets arent and have never been "self maintaning" here. The invisible hand has always been spooked away by the ghost of McCarthy and that will never change, ever. "Free Markets" are tyranny plain and simple.
o0xst 4 years ago
Really? We now condone torture, imprisonment without trial, arrests for spreading "propaganda", unauthorized searches, illegal wiretaps, monitoring of what we read (via library, and certain resellers). Yeah, they are really afraid to go through that again. (and this is just the stuff that they admit to! we know there is always more under the surface!)
wolfebn 4 years ago
And markets are good at dealing with existing eco or soc problems? Absolutley not. Good post but I must say that the Goverment bashing is just too too much.
o0xst 4 years ago
I think this idea of fair competitive market, w/o subsidies, corporatism, is a difficult concept to grasp b/c of the decades of dependencies (welfare, wars on povery, drug, terrorism - aka, false security). It doesn't help that so-called deregulations and market reforms in the 80-90 under the free-market banner gave it a bad name. But the fact is the gov't isn't good at dealing with existing eco or soc problems; much less predicting c
tooltalk 4 years ago
anyone who is against Net Neutrality is "the enemy" in my opinion. Just goes to show Ron Paul is nothing but a Libertarian Zealot who lets his dogma cloud his judgment, to the point of supporting policies that are anything but free market, and actually hurt average american workers/consumers. D not vote for this man if you care about internet freedom.
corporatized 4 years ago
I actually did this video becuase I know without a doubt he has no clue on this topic, but is interested in learning and MIGHT change his mind. Hope he does.
o0xst 4 years ago
Ok, here is the problem with net neutrality. It sounds harmless right, protect web businesses from being charged at tiered levels. However, this model has been in place for you personally on your high bandwidth for quite sometime. Do you think the company doesn't have a right to do that? Well, net neutrality is to protect them, not you because you are already charged that way. Net Neutrality is one group of corps who lobbied against another group of corps (neither care about you).
wolfebn 4 years ago
Next point. If you let the government get involved with the internet at all, like they did with radio, tv, cable, etc. You get the same effect, censorship, and with the internet, they have already proven a predisposition to monitoring.
wolfebn 4 years ago
Do you think google is going to start charging for searches just because their bill went up? They don't want to have to deal with the telecom's interfering with their profit margins. Better to wait and see. If one group behaves irresponsibly toward the other, THEN we should look at doing something.
wolfebn 4 years ago
oh gads. No, we cant play defense forever man.
o0xst 4 years ago
Yeah, I am ok with google paying a little more for better bandwidth JUST LIKE I DO! That is the nature of business. If they are able to provide a better product for more money by implementing new tech, so be it. And if they can't then they will die.
wolfebn 4 years ago
Id rather lose the masturbation superhighway than the information superhighway
o0xst 4 years ago
lol. you are ok with getting your message out, as long as it is government approved? lol. Seriously, you can't talk about the freedom of the internet in one breath and talk about it being ok to censor in the next breath and expect me to take that seriously?
wolfebn 4 years ago
Im ok with crossing an intersection with "government approval" so a car doesnt smash into me. And net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship and most likely wont....corporate censorship however is a gurantee. Lots of fundamentalist shareholders will demand boobs dot com or whatever is wiped off the face of the earth and their wish shall be granted
o0xst 4 years ago
what does corporate censorship have to do with the Net Neutrality bill? That would/does occur at the same frequency regardless of this bill. This bill is about money and who pays. Most web hosting companies have a ToS preventing pornography (mostly for legal and technical reasons). I am sorry but censorship is not the same thing as a traffic light.
wolfebn 4 years ago
oh man the propaganda people sure do an amazing job gettin you folks to believe and regurgitate. This is verbatum what the hill knowlton people have been paid to get everyone to say....
saying it already exists and that means it is ok is like saying before the kurds were gassed that they hadnt been gassed before so why worry
o0xst 4 years ago
I could say the same to you. Why would you want to support either of these lobby groups? Both sides are the corp giants. And regulation on either side would be merely one trying to take from the other, which government subsidized monopolies, government price fixing, and cencorship hurts all of us, but not the winning corps, they keep chugging along.
wolfebn 4 years ago
Anyone notice wolfebn is just spouting inane babble that has nothing to do with this debate? Not one valid argument made about why we should ditch Net Neutrality, just recycled Libetard talking points that make about as much sense as the Rove-soundbites used by neocons.
excavatethefuture 4 years ago
The telecoms are monopolistic. I am not saying that they are good. (And since you didn't bother to address any of my points, I assume you can't). As far as gov. regulations, there was a recent article where congress was trying to site p2p as a national security threat. These are the people YOU want to trust?
wolfebn 4 years ago
You get a shitty rating not because your anti-Ron Paul, but because you can't read the COPE before you post a judgement about it. Net neutrality already exists. That bill called for net neutrality as defined by the FCC aka CENSORSHIP. Do some research before you waste people's time with your Obama propaganda.
JizzonTheDark 4 years ago
I could give a rats ass about Obama and whatever he stands for, if anything outside of the Dempublican party.
o0xst 4 years ago
Really?!? Then why do you say, "Obama voted for it!" Like that somehow is suppose to justify the bill. Congratulations you're video has been upgraded to simply anti-Paul propaganda. I really don't know what you're trying to get at, except bash Ron Paul and his supporters. Any reasonable citizen that has read the bill and supports internet freedom knows that the COPE Act was BS.
JizzonTheDark 4 years ago
The reason I say Obama was for it is that it will no doubt give him the upper hand over Paul, which I dont think is a good thing.
o0xst 4 years ago
See if you can get some kind of initiative where you can vote with a ctrl-c ctrl-v and maybe Ron Paul will be the next president.
o0xst 4 years ago
They already have made strip clubs shut down and no touching between strippers and patrons thanks to focus on the family regulate the internet and thats whats going to happen you can't just open a crack open the door its going to bee wide open in the end!
Libertarian311 4 years ago
yes because they are the "cosmic cure all" private sector...
o0xst 4 years ago
Assuming they want to (and I'm not arguing that either way)... how could they regulate the net within the private sector? Don't they need the feds to actually do it for them? At which point, it's really not a private sector issue any more, is it?
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
your saying you can't see the christian coalition or focus on the family try to regulate internet porn? you'd be sadly mistaken.
Libertarian311 4 years ago
Socialism regulate everything if the government regulates the internet then you might not be able to spread your socialism. Or your internet porn. Welfare is stupid.
Libertarian311 4 years ago
hahhaahah ok if you'll excuse me I am due back on the planet earth...wait, actually I need to send ANOTHER email correspondance to my friend in C-U-B-A
o0xst 4 years ago
"If the websites that use terabytes of streaming video don't pay for it, you will dumb ass. "
Don't be niave... bandwith is cheap, not free.
SlickExecutiveType 4 years ago
the quote says that the ISP has to pay for the infrastructure upgrade somehow (BILLIONS of dollars) - if the websites don't pony it up, you will.
It's not so much that the websites are using too much bandwidth (which they are) but they're using streaming video/audio & other services that demand priority over other content. Hence the "fast lane/slow lane" - honestly, people who don't know about technology shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion.
shaunak84 4 years ago
Thank you for posting a video response.
I disagree with some statements you've made.
Lilly livered Article 1 Section 8 General Welfare and simply being dismissive of Ron Paul as a sweet old man.
None the less, instead of basically saying nothing, why not say something specific.
Explain why Ron Paul is wrong in your opinion on Net Neutrality, which incidentally he clearly admits to not being fully informed on and willing to learn more about the issue.
School him/us who support him.
Regards,
Rev
revolutn 4 years ago
o0xst: to load a website, there are pauses/breaks (read: "waiting for host"). Google on the other hand, uses a lot of technology that requires higher speeds with no delay (Youtube?). Net neutrality proponents like to say "no diamond lanes!" But that slants the argument. Yes, technology that requires these ridiculous speeds should pay for it. If the websites that use terabytes of streaming video don't pay for it, you will dumb ass.
shaunak84 4 years ago
They wont pay for it, we will pay for it...so to speak.
o0xst 4 years ago
You still have no idea how bandwidth works... Leave the internet to the computer scientists, you just fuck up a working product.
shaunak84 4 years ago
Hold up,,, without net neutrality you wouldn't be able to make a video like the one your making now???
Talk about a Kool-Aid drinker.
All net neutrality does is make the internet regulated as opposed to being a free market tool.
BigRob829 4 years ago
free market tool like tv and radio. Think about it for a minute, coach.
o0xst 4 years ago
Do you support the fairness doctrine as well? All net neutrality is, is the fairness doctrine for the internet.
Fairness Doctrine = regulation of the free market on TV and radio
Net Neutrality = regulation of the free market on the internet
BigRob829 4 years ago
No I am very much opposed to the Fairness Doctrine,it is a TOTALLY different thing than Net Neutrality.
o0xst 4 years ago
Its exactly the same thing. With the fairness doctrine you have to have an opposing viewpoint by law or face fines.
With net neutrality you have to give free content as much priority as paid for content by law or face fines
and possible lawsuits
In the end its all about more regulation and more laws.
BigRob829 4 years ago
How much money does Ron Paul get from Telecom & Cable companies? Exact figure please.. I assume you have an estimate since you said it's "so much money", so tell me how much and quote me a source for your info. Just back up your statements is all I ask.
OptDiscounts 4 years ago
He can't being that he has no argument to speak of and shifts his tactic to slander.
dagnome1984 4 years ago
I didnt say Ron Paul gets a cent, opt...I said the people he is quoting gets money from them. And they get money because they are VERY GOOD at what they do, i.e getting people like Paul to use phrases like "I wont regulate the internet".
My god you people are totally irrational and incapable of thinking. What is wrong with you guys?!?!?!?
o0xst 4 years ago
I agree the telecom & cable companies spent alot of $ fighting the bill, I also liked the idea of Net Neutrality, Ron Paul admited there wasn't alot he knew about it but he was willing to learn. He said he opposed it because it would have essentially said the Congress has a right to regulate the internet, which is something he doesn't want to cede. His arguement is sensible, and he is likely sympathetic to the cause, but it may not be the right way to do it.
OptDiscounts 4 years ago
I am not as stupid as it seems, and trust me...he must, MUST be for this or he stands no chance whatsoever.
And no, its not one of those "spew cliches' or die!" I mean "Live free or die!" things, its not acquiescing..it is doing what is right to prevent this monster that is turning America into one big shopping mall from doing yet more damage.
o0xst 4 years ago
What I am concerned with is putting morons in charge of 2 trillion dollars per year, anyone who wants to limit that power has my vote. Corporations benefit currently because they lobby government to spend those tax $s with them and give them tax breaks. I have no problem with legitimate business, I am opposed to corporatism which is what you inevitably end up with under our current system. Let me guess, you are a registered Democrat right?
OptDiscounts 4 years ago
Hell no. Independent...
Im all for finding a way to put an end to the lobbying bs and the corporatism but I dont know what exactly Paul plans to do to stop it....the ideas and rhetoric sound great but I just don't know how realistic it is unless he embraces some things that involve certain government groups working as watchdogs, i.e via things like net neutrality....
o0xst 4 years ago
I do think Dr. Paul (aka Dr. "No" because he is sometimes the only one to vote against a bill) is sympathetic to the "Net Neutrality" cause and can be persuaded, he honestly admitted he could learn more about it and is willing to. Atleast he votes against a bill he doesnt understand instead of voting for it and regulating something he doesn't understand.
By reducing the ammount of $ the government brings in and not allowing overspending it would largely address the corpratism problem.
OptDiscounts 4 years ago
Not necessarily, what with how much the big corporations already have here and abroad. If he gives no power to good people like Adelstein and Copps (especially if they are on the majority side of the FCC after 08) then how will there be good things like new slots for non-profit lo-fi stations to open up?
o0xst 4 years ago
How about campaign finance reform? Oh, and putting an end to political perks and junkets?
And while we're at it, let's come up with a different system to give politicians raising (instead of all of them agreeing to give themselves raises)...
Really, you must be a genius...
shaunak84 4 years ago
look saladpuncher, I am for those things....one reason is that if those things were taken care of then you and Ron Paul would be able to understand things and not be so indoctrenated by PR boobgirls and other evildoers...
o0xst 4 years ago
you just don't understand.....Net-Neutrality it's not what you think it is. don't be fooled.
kevin29chev 4 years ago
Listen man, he admitted on G4TV interview that he was Against Regulation of The Internet by any Governments or Corporations. He voted NO for Net-Neutrality. And admits hes still learning the full issues involved. MANY people misunderstood Net Neutrality because its made to sound good, much like The Federal Reserve is a made up phoney name. He understands the truth of the Fed, and by now Im sure he understands Net Neutrality better and admits hes still learning more in that interview.
Wolfsheim23 4 years ago
nice argument. by your logic anyone who even thinks net neutrality might be a bad idea is a shill for AT&T?
rapsody 4 years ago
Thanks for posting this dude. I hope that RP changes his mind on this issue. I like so many other things about him, but this is just one example of why I am having trouble seriously considering voting for him. I think he is a good man (unlike the current low-lifes), but I just don't agree with him on some issues that are important to me.
seanonymous 4 years ago
You're right about net neutrality, but are you right about Ron Paul?
It's unfortunate that someone chose the term "net neutrality," because it is very misunderstood. It should have been called "keep the internet free and open as it is."
Ron Paul supports keeping the internet free and open as it is.
He doesn't support the double-speak named campaign "Hands off the internet," which you rightly identify as the campaign to regulate the internet and turn it over to corporate control.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
Ron Paul will listen to us on this, unlike the other candidates.
Everyone who is confused about what "net neutrality" means should read up on it rather than believing the bs the corporate ad campaigns are feeding you.
SaveTheInternet . com
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
Btw, it's a fallacy promoted by the likes of Fox News that Ron Paul supporters use e-mail lists to coordinate their "attacks"and spam his opponents.
I'm not on any Ron Paul e-mail list, and I don't get any messages from other supporters.
Like most Ron Paul supporters, I'm simply someone who likes his message and sees him as the only politician who can save America, and everything I do to support him I do on my own.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
Is that true echelon? That FOX stated this thing about the email lists?
o0xst 4 years ago
Yes, and it's the standard line by everyone who wants to deny the level of support that Ron Paul has--that it's a conspiracy by a few dedicated supporters to spam the polls and message boards--it's totally not true.
One newspaper wrote that "Ron Paul's internet strategy is working." Ron Paul doesn't have an internet strategy--his support is real and is the spontaneous actions of people like myself who see what he has to say and believe he is our only hope.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
For example, take the MSNBC poll before and after the first debate. Just before the debate, Ron Paul had 9% positive--in line with the other less known candidates.
If there was a conspiracy among a few dedicated spammers, it would have been much higher.
It was after the debate that Ron Paul shot to 40%, and that's because people saw and liked what he had to say.
Not to mention that you could only vote once. I mean, the people who programmed the MSNBC poll weren't idiots.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
Oh yah now I remember what you are talking about regarding FOX, when the poll numbers were rolling in...I suspect there is some minor truth to what they said HOWEVER the same applies to about every candidate so they might as well accussed Ron Paul and his supporters of breathing air.
o0xst 4 years ago
Yes, by their logic, only Ron Paul has committed supporters. That in itself would say he's in the lead.
EchelonMonitor 4 years ago
and Echelon, I believe you that there is a good chance Paul will listen to the people on this matter. No way I'd waste my time on this if I didn't think so!
o0xst 4 years ago
video.google dot com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840&q=type%3Agoogle+engEDU+internet&total=66&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
lojpre 4 years ago
sorry, duplicate
lojpre 4 years ago
Even if they are corporate-funded, that doesn't change the fact that net neutrality aims at solving a problem which does not exist, and may not ever exist. As wireless MANs become more popular, its doubtful anyone will have a monopoly on providing internet connectivity.
glbeaty 4 years ago
yes
lojpre 4 years ago
ad hoc networks, encryption and key signing will democratize network access
lojpre 4 years ago
video.google dot com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840&q=type%3Agoogle+eng EDU+internet&total=66&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plind ex=0
lojpre 4 years ago
a group that lobbies for conservatism in government is automatically evilly corporate funded and that has something to do with net neutrality? you act like every single corporation in the world is conspiring to keep net neutrality down. and we're the ones being propagandists? you also totally ignored my comment about the communications act of 1934.
rapsody 4 years ago
dude! look it up! all those groups are funded by big business!!!! Go to source watch dot org it's completely documented and impossible to debate. And if the FCC has this power, it WONT happen with Kevin Martin in control which is why it is being dealt with elsewhere. If the Democrats win, Copps and Adelstein will deal with the matter if what you say is correct and they can make it happen.
o0xst 4 years ago
big business? who's the 3 biggest lobbyists for net neutrality? Amazon, Google, and Microsoft!
rapsody 4 years ago
ok, fair enough rapsody. Since this is the case both ways, lets look at what the people want for the tie breaker. ok poof net neutrality wins!
o0xst 4 years ago
i dont think most people really know what they want. i dont think most of them even understand net neutrality, its a very complex issue and it's almost always presented to them from an extremely biased perspective. the best article i've read so far on the subject is this one:
mises(dot)org/story/2139
rapsody 4 years ago
The Communications Act of 1934 gave the FCC the power to intervene if there was to be a case of online discrimination (even though it doesn't appear to be a problem at all) but we DON'T need a new regulation for something the FCC already had the power to do.
rapsody 4 years ago