There’s already a conspiracy theory brewing over net neutrality

Government takeover of the internet begins.

lol

Wow. Stocking up on tinfoil there bud?

Who? You mean me, or the portion of the right wing upset that the FCC is getting ready to gift itself with more power through regulation, before it tells the public what exactly those regulations are?

Myself I see that more business as usual under the current American regime.

Remember Pelosi and, "We have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it?" It's the way the progressive left of the Obama regime gets things done. One could also look at the activities of EPA under Obama and many other examples of regulatory agencies circumnavigating what should require constitutional authority under congress.

In any case, to be honest, I don't fully understand what that one mentioned in the Washington Post is all about yet.

I'm more on board with the one described in the links from Brian Lilley and Front Page that simply says what falls under the misnomer of "net neutrality" is more about getting government control over the internet, than it is about keeping corporations from getting too much control.

Hey...it's kind of dueling conspiracy theories isn't it? If it's me you're accusing of needing a tinfoil hat does it not strike you as ironic that you're putting one on to accuse me of needing one?

That was one of the most incoherent things I've ever read.

Telecom companies need some regulation because they're out of control. Canada needs to follow suit.

DrCaleb is currently building is foil-lined bunker.

Are they? How so? Because I've heard net neutrality described as "a solution in search of a problem"

It's interesting you call them "Telecom" companies.

From that I'm going to guess you haven't clicked the links. I suggest you do, or we'll find ourselves discussing two separate issues and not understanding each other.

The links make the point information services are being reclassified as "Telecommunication".



The Brian Lilley video explains how that could create more problems than it could solve even if it could find some.

I considered trying to clarify it for you, but no, if you understand what's in the three links I gave you, the post should be perfectly clear.

Are they? How so? Because I've heard net neutrality described as "a solution in search of a problem"

It's interesting you call them "Telecom" companies.

From that I'm going to guess you haven't clicked the links. I suggest you do, or we'll find ourselves discussing two separate issues and not understanding each other.

The links make the point information services are being reclassified as "Telecommunication".



The Brian Lilley video explains how that could create more problems than it could solve even if it could find some.

Do you understand what net neutrality is? What they are trying to accomplish? What some of the largest tech companies in the world have been pushing for?

Honestly? No. I've always had problems figuring out which side is which in that one. It's like watching one of those kung fu movies with 2 lookalike villains fighting it out.

I thought I was starting to get it, until Xerxes posted that comedy video (which actually has some funny stuff in it, so thanks).

But here's my problem. Maybe you can explain it to me.

In the Washington Post link they're pissed because the right is in conspiracy mode over the FCC wanting to create regulations, but it won't tell people what those regulations are.

So, if the right is against the FCC, doesn't make the FCC the good guy in Washington Post-world?

So I go to the right wing media to see what they're actually saying about this issue.

They're saying the FCC is grabbing this regulatory authority without congressional oversight, as a kind of end run method of getting government control over the internet.

So that makes the FCC the bad guys in right wing world, right?

OK, so then I watch Xerxes comedy video from the John Stewart spinoff guy. Shouldn't he be in the Washington Post camp? Shouldn't he be telling me the FCC are the good guys?

At the 2:30 Oliver says "The internet in it's current form is not broken, and the FCC is taking steps to fix that".

So he's against the FCC right? After that he's saying how the FCC is endorsing the big cable companies who are being favored by the Obama administration. As he describes it the strategy appears to be the Government takes control, and goes corporatist like good socialists would be expected to be. The cable companies get government pats on the head and the ability to strengthen their monopoly with selective over-pricing.

So what happened? Did the John Stewart guy join the right wing? He doesn't like that monopoly business. Who does? Grassroots conservatives are for competition.

I think I may be starting to get it. Us grassroots conservative types aren't actually pro-corporatist, or pro monopolies, or even pro croney capitalist. We walked out on Jeb bush last week at . We get as pissed at Harper when he takes GE's hand on adopting the twisty light bulbs as what's left of real liberals do.

So is that it then? Did some sort of common ground thing happen between grassroots conservatives and classic Liberals. Are we together again against the Progressives? Cause that would be cool. Old times, good times. Just like when we fought the Commies together.

Here, this should help: