the party of freedom is against net neutrality now?

Big government telling businesses what to do.

goddammit, this is such an expert tweet

Next Cruz tweet: Net Neutrality is phase 2 of Obamacare, meant to implement the individual mandate. That is, all heterosexual male homepages will be redirected to gay dating websites and they will be forced to choose a man to date. The Internet should not be used for special privileges for gays.

i lol'd so hard at this tweet from this guy

That's too long for a tweet, tho.

Guys, Obama appointed Tom Wheeler. As usual, his words mean jack ****. The FCC will do as it pleases (stall).

Ted Cruz needs to post here

this, dude has gotten the facebooks confirmed furious

.

Cruz is definitely an elite troll. He's not stupid.

Yeah, well Congress made him do all that stuff somehow. This is how Obama really feels.

Yeah!

*cognitive dissonance*

GO, TEAM, GO!

*Sad Trombone*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-the-internet/

Odd question but do other countries have a pay to play system? Off the top I can't find anything about it.

they have a "monopolies are bad" system, and that seems to have worked out very well for them

Here's a discussion of net neutrality in Europe.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/bu...ules.html?_r=0

Don't we already have net neutrality? I go to youtube, amazon, and netflix all the time. The question here is treating the internet like a utility. It would be nice to have a monthly payment that does not change by some hidden schedule.

The only company that does not support net neutrality is google because they track you.

Most of all the high speed providers are not involved in content in a big way. Here again only google with youtube and google wire is the only one doing this.

Can't this be solved by just preventing connection providers being involved in content?

The only website I have problems with is the TWC plugin site.

http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/

USA is #12 on this list and rising and since we started with all this old equipment it is understandable.

heil Obama!

Do you really want a utility running your internet I have been waiting 2 months for the liberal city of Los Angeles to give me the ok to turn on my solar.

lol steelhouse

Yeah, this issue is totally about overregulation, and not in any way about curbing exploitative monopolistic practices

I find it pathetic how a lot people are approaching this topic by spouting off some typical petty partisan nonsense.

Democrats: Obama is a scumbag for appointing Wheeler. His words mean nothing. If you're cheering for him because of this, you suck and should feel bad about yourself.

Republicans: Stop spouting off nonsense because you feel obligated to oppose this because Obama supported it in a speech. This doesn't give you justification to pretend net neutrality is about MORE REGULATION. It is not. It is about basic fairness-motivated principles and about preventing monopolies from ****ing everyone over.

We are in the situation today BECAUSE of the government. How would more government be the answer to get out?

I don't like the idea of massive monopolies getting to throttle the internet anymore than the next guy. But getting the government involved is a BAD idea. It is only going to make the situation worse, not better.

The government is involved either way, so it's not a choice of more or less government but between versions of property rights that will be enforced by the government. In a Net Neutrality world the government simply won't enforce any contracts that stipulate data is treated differently and in a non Net Neutrality world they will. Which is why this whole "more government vs less government" bit is flimsy. Though if you want to go that route Net Neutrality is deregulation relative to non Net Neutrality.

So if you completely deregulated internet providers, it would get better? Do you think Comcast has your best interests in mind?

Has government involvement ruined our access to clean water, clean air, roads, mail, etc?

I encourage anyone who shares the un-nuanced opinion of 'more government = bad' to spend some time in developing countries with small governments to get an idea of how good we have it here with our 'big government'.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...rtner=yahootix

Jeffrey Dorfman argues the other side.

.