Al invented the Internet and Al's going to save it

[SemperFiUSMC]

We all know that Al Gore invented the Internets. He told us so. Now, his other brother Al (Franken) is going to save it.

Net neutrality makes me sick. Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, Sprint, and a host of other companies spent their time and sharholder capital to build the Internet. Dim witted little men who've never had to even be funny now want to tell those companies how to use their property.

It never ceases to amaze me how midget can stand on the shoulders of giants and believe themselves to be giants too.

Al Franken: The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

 

[rambone]

A couple weeks ago you and I had a Battle Royale over letting DHS shut down and confiscate websites of its choosing. Now when the FCC does something similar you seem alarmed.

You have to defend the stuff you don't like, or before you know it, the Big Government Nannies will be cracking down on stuff you do like. Censorship is censorship. You can't cheer for all-powerful government agencies one day, and then expect to be left alone the next day. Pandora's Box is already opened.

 

[grimor]

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

 

[CampingJosh]

We all know that Al Gore invented the Internets. He told us so. Now, his other brother Al (Franken) is going to save it.

Net neutrality makes me sick. Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, Sprint, and a host of other companies spent their time and sharholder capital to build the Internet. Dim witted little men who've never had to even be funny now want to tell those companies how to use their property.

It never ceases to amaze me how midget can stand on the shoulders of giants and believe themselves to be giants too.

Al Franken: The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

I don't mind if corporations want to use their resources to promote their own services. I do, though, have a problem with paying for internet access and getting "restricted internet access." If the rules go thorough and Verizon starts blocking some parts of the internet, my contract with Verizon had better be void.

If that's the case, there is sure to be some IP that advertises as "net neutral," a concept that I would be willing to pay for. I like being able to access INGO at the same speeds as everything else, and I don't think INGO could pay a much as, say, the Brady Campaign could in order to be the first page brought up when someone searches "guns."

I don't like government regulation. But I do agree with Al Franken that net neutrality is better for the consumer. (Saying the first seven words of that sentence make me wish we had a puking smiley.)

 

[clgustaveson]

A couple weeks ago you and I had a Battle Royale over letting DHS shut down and confiscate websites of its choosing. Now when the FCC does something similar you seem alarmed.

You have to defend the stuff you don't like, or before you know it, the Big Government Nannies will be cracking down on stuff you do like. Censorship is censorship. You can't cheer for all-powerful government agencies one day, and then expect to be left alone the next day. Pandora's Box is already opened.

I didn't see the other discussion but I hate net neutrality. As funny as it sounds, Al Gore was instrumental in promoting the public use of the internet. He didn't say he "invented" the internet... he said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet".

As much as I despise the man, He was the one that promoted it in congress and made it what it is today... he never claimed to have "invented" it like Bush's comercial said.... Here's a quote from MCI Worldcom "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator".

Anyway, that was off-topic... to me it doesn't matter who you are, you have no right telling private companies what to do with their property.

 

[Expat]

Study: net neutrality could lead to "devastating" job losses
ISPs on net neutrality: TV networks are the real villains

 

[clgustaveson]

I don't mind if corporations want to use their resources to promote their own services. I do, though, have a problem with paying for internet access and getting "restricted internet access." If the rules go thorough and Verizon starts blocking some parts of the internet, my contract with Verizon had better be void.

If that's the case, there is sure to be some IP that advertises as "net neutral," a concept that I would be willing to pay for. I like being able to access INGO at the same speeds as everything else, and I don't think INGO could pay a much as, say, the Brady Campaign could in order to be the first page brought up when someone searches "guns."

I don't like government regulation. But I do agree with Al Franken that net neutrality is better for the consumer. (Saying the first seven words of that sentence make me wish we had a puking smiley.)

 

[nawainwright]

Well, the FCC voted to move forward with Net Neutrality (shocking). My bigger question is who gave these turd burglars in the FCC, EPA, and other Alphabet Nazi Acronyms (ANA) the ability to decide what they are in charge of? I can't go outside and just decide I have the responsibility to regulate traffic on the street outside my house, why do they get to make these decisions? It's like congress voting on whether they get a raise.....its asinine.
"Duh, do we deserve more money?"
"Heck yes we do!"
Except with the FCC its:
"Do we have the right to control a private industry?"
"Heck yes we do!"
"Says who?"
"Says us!"

 

[steveh_131]

Aren't the cable and phone lines that deliver internet to our homes located on public property?

Normally from a perspective based solely on liberty, I would say that the government should stay out of how a corporation chooses to price and deliver their product.

Unfortunately, due to the current infrastructure, the corporations and FCC/Government are very much intertwined in this instance. This has led to what is basically a complete monopoly for most people when choosing ISP's, and the free market has no hold on it.

For example, I have no option except to purchase Comcast at my home. If they start throttling my traffic, I don't have other options that allow me to vote with my wallet. And since they have a government-created monopoly, I have no problem with the government forcing them to adopt reasonable pricing schemes.

They chose to build their infrastructure on government property and use the FCC to create their monopolies. Now they have to live with the consequences.

 

[Ramen]

Aren't the cable and phone lines that deliver internet to our homes located on public property?

Normally from a perspective based solely on liberty, I would say that the government should stay out of how a corporation chooses to price and deliver their product.

Unfortunately, due to the current infrastructure, the corporations and FCC/Government are very much intertwined in this instance. This has led to what is basically a complete monopoly for most people when choosing ISP's, and the free market has no hold on it.

For example, I have no option except to purchase Comcast at my home. If they start throttling my traffic, I don't have other options that allow me to vote with my wallet. And since they have a government-created monopoly, I have no problem with the government forcing them to adopt reasonable pricing schemes.

They chose to build their infrastructure on government property and use the FCC to create their monopolies. Now they have to live with the consequences.

Sounds like a reason to dissolve the FCC and stop forcing service providers to ask for permission from the government to put in the lines. They can take a free market approach and buy/lease the rights to the ground. Then companies can compete. They can also meet demand quicker and fix problems without the headache of government involvement.

 

[Muzzleloaderbill]

The government wants to control eveything in our life. They are in the schools now brainwashing our kids.

 

[steveh_131]

Sounds like a reason to dissolve the FCC and stop forcing service providers to ask for permission from the government to put in the lines. They can take a free market approach and buy/lease the rights to the ground. Then companies can compete. They can also meet demand quicker and fix problems without the headache of government involvement.

I agree completely. But it's not going to happen. So while we wait (forever) for that to happen, I'm ok with them being required to deliver uncensored content since they're using (OUR) public land.

 

[level.eleven]

I agree completely. But it's not going to happen. So while we wait (forever) for that to happen, I'm ok with them being required to deliver uncensored content since they're using (OUR) public land.

This is a tough one. A principled stance on the basic idea of NN is simple. Who do you want controlling content delivered via the web - the free market or the federal government.

The rub comes in all the points you listed. Telcos, while investing a lot of their own money, are heavily subsidized and are granted monopoly privileges. If I am unhappy with the service I am receiving, it is illegal for another company to pull cable to my curb.

 

[littletommy]

Okay, we went from Al Gore to Al Franken in the OP, That's just too much idiocy for me to contemplate after a long day at work. I'm taking some excedrin and going to lay down for a while.

 

[boljr01]

My bigger question is who gave these turd burglars in the FCC, EPA, and other Alphabet Nazi Acronyms (ANA) the ability to decide what they are in charge of?

Their boss, i.e. - Obummer; they're appointed not elected...and he;s pleased with their latest intervention just as he was with the intervention into housing, banking, student loans, auto, etc.

 

[level.eleven]

Their boss, i.e. - Obummer; they're appointed not elected...and he;s pleased with their latest intervention just as he was with the intervention into housing, banking, student loans, auto, etc.

The Constitution of the United States of America in conjunction with rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States of America allow for such agencies to exist in order to regulate interstate commerce and interests relevant to the public. It really has nothing to do with the current president. Each administration uses the tools available to them in different ways.