Log in

No account? Create an account
neutrality, Switzerland

Net Neutrality

Posted on 2014.11.18 at 00:00
Current Location: 67114

Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions.
~Harlan Ellison

I saw a post recently which read, "By declaring the Internet a public utility, the FCC would be authorized to impose a 16.1% tax on Internet access." It went on to say, "Net neutrality isn’t something we want. It’s a threat to the Internet. It must die." Assuming the poster doesn't want the possibility outlined in The Oatmeal's reply to Ted Cruz's uniformed statement, "Net Neutrality is Obamcare for the Internet;" leads me to believe individuals are simply not aware of the sheer complexity which surrounds all the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. Apparently Ted Cruz (as well as every other member of Congress) is also "oblivious" the FCC is funded by regulatory fees, according to a recent Forbes article. I find that assertion bizarre.

What I read a lot in articles is the term, "principle behind net neutrality" meaning many agree upon an open Internet, but may not agree with everyone else's very specific ideas. That's okay, the only ones who make it an either/or scenario are those who deny complexity (and possibly greedy corporations). And when the bill does come to vote, I will remember that often political parties put "riders" in the bill, which will probably demand some outrageous dispensation which has zero connection with anything even remotely related to net neutraility, so when [other political party] votes against it, I won't be posting a meme stating,

"[political party] hates FREEDOM!"

For example, one could interpret the Forbes article as the author saying he wants to keep wi-fi out of schools and libraries - he must hate children. The idea isn't to latch onto something and believe only one side of the argument - democracy demands proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason - rather attempt to understand both sides of the issue. In just reading Wikipedia's page on Net Neutrality I was able to see how both sides were for and against things I am for and against. Sadly, my cynicism tells me greed will win out in the end, and we'll all be poorer for it, mostly because we thought taking sides without fully understanding implications was the right thing to do.


michelle1963 at 2014-11-18 13:25 (UTC) (Link)
LOVE the Harlan Ellison quote!!!!

And exactly! If someone were to ask my opinion on Net Neutrality, I would say that I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. People seem to have a problem with "I don't know." And have a bigger problem with doing research in order to have an informed opinion.

I am going to fix my ignorance by reading the links you cited. Thanks!
michelle1963 at 2014-11-18 13:48 (UTC) (Link)
So after reading all of the articles posted, I will say, I support the spirit of net neutrality, but if there is any validity to the assertion that the FCC will require a 16% tax to become the "unbiased" regulatory body protecting net neutrality, then it appears that could be problematic in its own right.

Aren't there more than just these two possibilities? Why does it always come down to just two?
ehowton at 2014-11-20 16:56 (UTC) (Link)
Because, people.
suzanne1945 at 2014-11-18 14:35 (UTC) (Link)
Since I had only heard the term "Net Neutrality" as of yesterday, this is going to take much more study. However, in trying to get a simple definition to get me started on my search I find this video visually aiding my understanding and also rather entertaining.

ehowton at 2014-11-20 16:56 (UTC) (Link)
Good vid. According to this one, the former head of the FCC is now the cable industries head lobbyist, and another former cable industries lobbyist is the current head of the FCC.
raingirl26 at 2014-11-20 06:44 (UTC) (Link)
i have two specific pet peeves in politics - big money in elections (corporate or individaul) and riders. what the f? riders? maybe okay if they were adding to or in line with the bill at hand, but i'm not sure they ever are. they are just used as a political tool. yuck.

"I was able to see how both sides were for and against things I am for and against" - you are a reasoned man.

my p.t. friend who opposes floride in our water (we are one of few cities without floride being added to our water system) has joined campaigns to keep it out of our water. she has very strong opinions. but when people meet her, they say how suprised they are at how moderate she is. what they are really saying is that she is willing to listen to everyone and have an actual informed discussion around the issue. she has lots of knowledge and facts to back up her opinion, but is completely willing to hear more. too bad we can't find people like her willing to go into politics.
ehowton at 2014-11-20 16:19 (UTC) (Link)
Wichita is another city in which fluoride has always been disallowed, how very odd! My son asked me the other day why Americans were so fat compared to the rest of the world (a question that no doubt came up in Social Studies, or whatever they call the high school equivalent) and I had to reply, "Lobbyists" and explain how even the FDA's food pyramid wasn't free from political pressure, and had to be modified to be more politically correct than factual.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Have you watched House of Cards on Netflix? There's an eye-opener.
raingirl26 at 2014-11-21 05:23 (UTC) (Link)
oddly i struggle with being too empathetic and can't watch things like "house of Cards". i don't pretend things aren't happening, i just can't deal with learning all the details. instead i try to be how i want the world to be. i certainly don't always succeed, but i try.
ehowton at 2014-11-21 12:47 (UTC) (Link)
Yay! That's my favorite Gandhi quote!
Previous Entry  Next Entry