5 ms·

People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer f

People who oppose net neutrality don't trust the FCC to be a benevolent regulator of the internet. For example, this blog post has links to a number of longer form pieces that make the case against it: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-the-internet/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-fcc-should-not-regulate-t... And here's a post refuting the "money" argument: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-network-neutrality/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/siding-with-the-geeks-on-netw...

Bud 16y ago
Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.
- mbateman 16y ago
  I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.
  - Bud 16y ago
    I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.
- Judson 16y ago
  >as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.
    - enjo 16y ago
      It's not without cause.
  - kevin_morrill 16y ago
    ummm I'd just prefer neither. I cringe to think of net neutrality in place next time there is a Republican majority. The energy being applied advocating net neutrality could be a lot better spent lobbying for real freedom in the telecom space and undo'ing the legally enforced monopolies there.
spenrose 16y ago
Cato supports its corporate masters: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#Cato_Institute http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#C...
- webXL 16y ago
  And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-interest-no-bid-deals-opens-new-lobby-shop http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-intere... What's your point?
  - spenrose 16y ago
    My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.
    - webXL 16y ago
      How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?
      - spenrose 16y ago
        "Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing rhetoric you quote.

Bud 16y ago

Of course, once the right-wing gets its way on net neutrality, insuring that corporations can do whatever they want, they will then ALSO argue, as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. This BS about opposing government control really just means they oppose government control that comes from Democrats.

mbateman 16y ago
I upvoted you because I agree that this true of many/most conservatives, especially those with an actual political career. But it's sad that this is the case. And it's certainly not by itself a very good argument for net neutrality or government control.
- Bud 16y ago
  I agree that corporate rapaciousness and Republicans' pattern of serial lying is not a reason to support net neutrality. Net neutrality must stand on its own merits. I feel it does; others obviously will disagree. :) My only point was, it's laughable to think that Republicans are telling the truth about this, or to believe they will keep their hands off the Internet once they have enough power to mess with it again. I believe the recent historical record provides incontrovertible proof of this.
Judson 16y ago
>as soon as Republicans hold the White House again, that the government has to be able to regulate the Internet as well, in order to make the world safe for Jesus and protect us from the terrorists. I don't agree with the political "back and forth" that is prevalent on both sides of the spectrum, but certainly this could have been rephrased to be a bit more objective.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  Unfortunately on the Internet, Republican has become synonymous with racist radical Christian.
  - enjo 16y ago
    It's not without cause.
- kevin_morrill 16y ago
  ummm I'd just prefer neither. I cringe to think of net neutrality in place next time there is a Republican majority. The energy being applied advocating net neutrality could be a lot better spent lobbying for real freedom in the telecom space and undo'ing the legally enforced monopolies there.

spenrose 16y ago

Cato supports its corporate masters: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#Cato_Institute http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#C...

webXL 16y ago
And Sourcewatch (AKA Center for Media and Democracy, AKA PRWatch) supports its union masters: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-interest-no-bid-deals-opens-new-lobby-shop http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10080/koch-denies-intere... What's your point?
- spenrose 16y ago
  My point is that Cato's professed ideology is contrary to the fights it actually undertakes, while the fights it undertakes are in service of those who pay its bills. Cato's corporate funders are opposed to free markets, and so is Cato. Cato uses the rhetoric of free markets to advance the interests of its funders in keeping control of their markets.
  - webXL 16y ago
    How exactly is preventing the government from regulating the internet anti-free market? I agree with Cato most of the time. I haven't given them any money. Isn't it possible that they get financial support from the Kochs and vocal support from myself because of their support of freedom (i.e. limited government)?
    - spenrose 16y ago
      "Preventing the government from regulating the Internet" is not on offer by anyone. Existing government regulations give certain companies oligopoly power, whose rents they are using to finance (via Boehner) opposition to further regulations intended to reduce those rents. "limited government" is Orwellian language. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity; I question your understanding of the motives behind the appealing rhetoric you quote.