Obama's 332 Page Plan to Regulate the Internet

You can probably look at the title and already know this is a bad thing. Well, it is kinda a bad thing. Read this:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Some information: basically the purpose of the bill is to stop big companies like Verizon and AT&T from cheating people and picking favorites with other companies and such. But there are a lot of issues with Obama's plan and it won't be revealed to the public for review. The link I posted leads to a statement on the FCC's website from one of the commissioners. He points out some of the problems with the bill after having given it an initial examination.

 

This is straight from a .gov website, the FCC's actually, you can hardly call that slander.

Also calm down, I'm not looking to start anything here.

And you're right, net neutrality really isn't a bad thing, the bad thing here is it means increased government regulation of the internet, which could have some long term consequences for us.

 

I'd first like to point out that you were saying the statement was slander, which is defined as false statements aimed at harming ones reputation. I only pointed out that's probably incorrect as it was posted on government website, and government websites tend not to do that sort of thing. I NEVER said it wasn't biased, heck no, everything that comes out of any politicians mouth is heavily biased toward whatever they're trying to convince you of. That's what they do.

The reason I posted this link, is because this guy has actually given the plan an initial examination. He knows what's in it, whereas the public doesn't.

And third, I'm busy right now so I haven't had a chance to inform everyone of every detail. I just assumed most people have only heard about how great this is going to be, so I gave the other side. If you would like to make this discussion more informed, be my guest.

 

Sure there is bias, but only in that it might really doesn't list any of the positives. The person who wrote this read the plan, and is pointing out the problems with it. That's why I use this rather than an article written by someone who did not. Also, just in case you didn't read, the person who wrote the statement is one of the FCC commissioners. And the article is not whatsoever written to hurt Obama's reputation, it only talks about the plan he wrote. Everytime his name is mentioned it's clearly about the bill, not him

Another thing you say is that the bill is supposed to prevent monopolies. Well, the commissioner who wrote the statement I posted says in his fourth point that it will move us closer to a broadband monopoly. Not saying you're wrong here, I mean maybe it does it in a different way, but he did read the bill.

And sure, you're right about full on capitalism not working well, but that's not my problem. My concern is about where this is going. I for one would not like to be taxed on how much Youtube I watch.

 

Ok first of all, meme post.

Second of all, have you read the bill? Let me answer that for you, the answer is no because it's not public. That should already be a huge red flag.

Third, can you please give some examples from the statement. You're calling this statement out to be Satan's manifesto but you're not quoting the parts that make it so bad.

Fourth, just because he's saying Obama's bill has issues, doesn't mean he's trying to get him executed or something. I don't see where you're getting this one from. It's like saying joe456 probably thinks username123 should leave McBrawl permanently because joe456 said his server idea has some glaring problems.

Fifth, on the monopolies: again, he looked at the bill, you did not. Maybe both ways help monopolies, I'm not an expert on what causes monopolies and what prevents them. But the commissioner came to that conclusion from the plan, just saying.

Sixth, putting taxes on the internet would increase the amount you pay. That's what makes it different. If you pay 30 bucks a month for internet, and the government decides they want to tax you 15, the company isn't going to lower how much you pay them by 15. No. On what planet are they going to do that?

And finally, in response to this: "The government would not try to abuse you for its own gain; that defeats the purpose of having one" - The government is not run by angels. It's run by humans, a very interesting species that murders, pillages, and cheats fellow humans over different colored rocks and scraps of meat, maybe you've heard of them? When governments abuse the people, yes, it defeats the purpose of having it. That's when the people dispose of said government, and create a new government that does have a purpose. Yes, that's called a revolution. The United States was created by one of those. If everyone thought what you just said in that last line, we'd all be on our knees eating stale bread crumbs and bowing to great leader Kim-Jong-Un (or insert your favorite totalitarian dictator instead).

Tell me something. How exactly does making more rules make something more free? Sounds a lot like going to war to keep the peace.

 

1. You just gave me a link to a plan from 2010. This is not Obama's internet regulation bill. "The National Broadband Plan, released by the FCC on March 17, 2010, sets out a roadmap for initiatives to stimulate economic growth, spur job creation and boost America's capabilities in education, health care, homeland security and more. The plan includes sections focusing on economic opportunity, education, health care, energy and the environment, government performance, civic engagement and public safety." - from http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan
And if you scroll down to where it says "Entire document:" and click English, there's your pdf.
And here's a link to the commissioner teasing you with the plan from this year, that you don't get to look at: https://twitter.com/ajitpaifcc/status/563724099906568193

2. That's because the point was to state the flaws in the article. Everyone already knows what the bill is for and what it is supposed to do. Since the plan isn't available for people to read for themselves (see my first point), Ajit Pai is trying to point out some of the problems with the bill.

3. When he says, "President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift towards government control of the internet", 'government control' is not limited to protecting the people from a monopoly. He is saying 'government control' could potentially expand. And if you like China's system of running the internet, fine, that's your opinion. However, most of us westerners who spend a lot of time on the internet tend to like the freedom of doing what we want on it. I know you're going to respond with "that's never gonna happen," and sure, maybe it won't, but that doesn't mean that it can't. Increasing government control is a step in that direction, and you can keep pushing it "just one step further" until that's what you get.

4. Again, back to 2. I'm also curious about what unbiased factual informed article you're reading, because it really sounds like you're trying to tell me that people are suffering and can't support themselves because they live out in the country and have slow internet. You do realize the lower class in America is living the good life when compared to the rest of the planet, right?

5. The government won't be run by conservatives forever. The government and the laws it makes have changed a great deal over the course of history. Did you know income tax was unconstitutional before the 16th amendment? The founding fathers would probably be outraged if they saw America today. But the thing is, America has changed a lot over a long period of time. Don't underestimate the power of time. It is very, very, very likely some form of tax will be placed on the Internet, whether in 24 hours or 24 years.

6. Protective tariffs don't necessarily help everyone. See the nullification crisis of 1832 and the "Tariff of Abominations". I assume that this has been dicussed in one of your history classes.

My biggest problem with all of this is not the net neutrality (which I already stated wasn't a bad thing), not the bills, heck, not even really the taxes, but the fact that the government is using a single problem to justify a bill (that we can't see until after it's voted on) to give them more power. It drives me insane that they do this all the time (the "War on Terrorism" being the most glaring example) and get away with it.

Not all at once. It's a small step towards their system, but we're not censoring Youtube anytime soon.