What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Need a Vacation? view!
bing.com - Bing(tm) scans 1 billion+ airfares to locate the ones that meet or beat the record low. Check every day.
221 Comments
- skytoucher, on 10/11/2007, -48/+158Net Neutrality gives the government the ability to legally 'touch' the internet. The internet is pretty self-regulating and is doing fine. If someone posts BS, within 5-10 minutes 2-3 people will be along to check em with the facts.
Do you really want the government to get involved with the internet? Look at everything else its touched.
Do you really want to give the government a 'foot in the door'? That is always how it starts. - EnglishVoodoo, on 10/11/2007, -34/+110'Net Neutrality' is double-speak like so much of our speech today. 'Net Neutrality' gives our government precedent and power to regulate our Internet, which is what Ron Paul would never allow as President of this once-great country.
- simbolo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+75they give names to bills which proclaim the exact opposite of what the bill would actually do, wake up!
- bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -7/+50I think you have a misunderstanding of what net neutrality means. Your comment indicates that you think it means that the government makes sure that everything on the internet is neutral in terms of positions and truth. As in no BS is on the internet, which you seem to define it as. That is not at all what it means. It means that ISPs give preference and faster speeds to particular sites that could pay them so that they would download quicker and therefore would force people to use them or wait longer periods of time to use sites that didn't pay off the ISP. Net neutrality makes sure that ISPs can't make such deals and therefore ensure that all sites download at the same speed. Now whether you agree with that or not is your business, but at least debate the correct topic not what you are thinking. Your comment shows you to completely misunderstand the issue. I haven't the slightest idea how you could get so many diggs. I guess it is a combination of the first comment diggs plus defending Ron Paul diggs.
- skyorbit, on 10/11/2007, -12/+51He doesn't need to know anything about it to know that the rest of government doesn't know anythingabout it either, and also to know that government shouldn't be regulating it.
Tracy - mv10, on 11/07/2007, -16/+54I love it how certain Diggers who were so "for" Net Neutrality and bashed everything and everyone who said anything bad about it (Ted Stevens) are now saying Net Neutrality is not a big deal because Ron Paul voted that way.
Flip Floppers - PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -8/+41Good intentions in the Net Neutrality effort don't amount to good solutions. Ron is willing to study any issue he is not familiar with, but he has the good sense to understand that Government should not be involved in regulation as it invites lobbyists to self-regulate their industries to the detriment of the small guy, assuming they can even get their business started.
Internet regulations is a protection racket for the major business players.
The cost of service issue will be solved once infrastructure regulation is addressed, and that requires a strong effort to combat anti-competition in cable and terrestrial telephone. I have not heard any other candidate say a peep about the real issue of removing the regulations other than Ron. It shows that at least he's willing to try and fix things. Everyone else just gets complacent in office, and try to take credit for things they do in government even though we're all paying for it. - quakerob, on 10/11/2007, -5/+34Quote from the interview:
"Net Neutrality had some Regulation in it" - rancemo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+38I would expect every congressman to vote NO on every bill they don't completely understand. Any other vote would be dishonest!
- masamunecyrus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27Presumably, he is against Net Neutrality because he probably feels that Net Neutrality is something that should be self-regulated by the market and by the people with their money (while that is not currently possible due to monopolies, I'm sure he supports competition in the ISP market).
Basically, he doesn't want the government regulating for net neutrality or regulating against it; he wants the government to stay the hell off of the internet.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan boy by any means, but I think that it's important that you think about his reasoning about it before going off and bashing him without thinking. - Insofar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29Net Neutrality is against libertarian principles as it calls for government regulation. Voting against Net Neutrality is consistent with all of his other positions, it should not be a surprise.
- JiveDadson, on 10/11/2007, -6/+32Last year before the 2006 election, CNET rated all 535 congressmen and senators in a Tech Voters Guide. They based it on a large number of votes on bills before the legislatures, and on whether technical organizations endorsed the bills or not. Despite the fact that they counted a vote against the net neutrality bill and one onerous bill about patents as a strikes against, Ron Paul rated higher than all the other 534.
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30Einstein said you cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it.
The problem of not enough competition in the ISP market is a result of government regulations in the first place. More regulations will likely cause more of the same problems, and government regulating the Internet.... that can't ever be good. - godd4242, on 10/11/2007, -13/+36Will you please stop having a ***** orgasm over Ron Paul?
For the love of Christ man, he's not King Midas, just because you wanna put him as President doesn't mean the whole country will be fixed over night.
There are deeper ***** problems then who is in charge. - Chadh21, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Like the patriot act.
- seven1m, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20This is exactly what we have heard so much of over the past almost 6 years... the government is only doing warrantless searches and eavesdropping and bombing other countries and imposing sanctions to ensure your freedom. I call BS.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin - screamsionara, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19""Quite frankly I don't understand all the details..." Then Why Vote Against It?!"
better than not knowing all the details and blindly passing it, like the patriot act. Net Neutrality's agenda is giving the FCC power to regulate the internet. It says it right there on save the internet's website. http://savetheinternet.com/yourstory it's right there if you don't believe me.
I know I don't want AT&T and whoever else setting up a tier system for internet access, but if they do, you know that I will not get my internet from them, I will go to an ISP that does not use it. There will always be ISPs out there that will not implement the tier system to try and get an edge in the market, that's how the free market works. Bringing in the government and forcing companies to conduct business a certain way is the opposite of freedom. If we give power to the government, we will never get it back.
http://handsoff.org/blog/ - beneathbrooklyn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Dear Gtitian and to Whom Else it May Concern:
YOU scare ME! You speak of HISTORY with an expertise that I can only assume was cultivated from a lifetime spent reading the cliff notes of high school text books. I ask only that you take your OWN advice and look at this "era" you mention of "fat cats and robber barons". If you would, you would find that for instance the 1907 Bank Scare was INSTIGATED by these very same tycoons (namely Rockefeller, Rothschild and Morgan) who had been for the last thirty or so years been trying to revive the concept of a Central Bank in this country. An idea so dangerous to DEMOCRACY that on his deathbed President Andrew Jackson noted his success at "killing the bank" as being his most proud achievement.
Then in 1913 the country's monetary system was wrapped up in a pretty bow and handed to these International Bankers with the illegal ratification of the 16Th Amendment followed shortly by the Federal Reserve Act. These momentous events created a system where the country was no longer comprised of FREE MEN but of DEBTORS who's own GOVERNMENT has to BORROW at INTEREST all its money from a CENTRAL PRIVATE BANK that is all but unaccountable to the people. This "Strong Federal Reserve System" you seem to hold in such high esteem had been justified after the scare of 1907 by claiming it would forever PREVENT such an economic collapse from taking place. But then after 16 years of skyrocketing inflation brought on by the Fed's unchecked lending and printing of this new fiat currency the country did exactly what we had been told was impossible and the Great Depression ravaged the Nation.
It has been shown that Roosevelt's "New Deal" had in fact PROLONGED the depression by subsidizing large swaths of the workforce and creating a Welfare Class in this country. Your claim that the Federal Reserve and these "public works projects" SAVED the country are so naive and misguided its frightening.
So you need to beware of your reckless ignorance and please, know YOUR history. And spare us the juvenile scare tactics about our children starving. Do you really believe Clinton, Obama, GIULIANI!? or any of the other shills being paraded before us in this dog and pony show would do a better job than Mr. Paul?
He is absolutely correct that this law would have set a precedent allowing the Government to regulate the first TRULY egalitarian public medium in the HISTORY of the WORLD. If the Government was granted such a power, who do you think would take advantage of that through lobbying and donations? Those same "soulless" corporations! Why make it so easy for them? Keep the Internet in the Free Market where at least these corporations have to fight it head on instead of through some contrived backdoor by corruptible legislation.
Please take these words to heart and give what I have said some thought because the Internet truly is the ONLY thing that can keep this idea of Democracy alive. - ecorona, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Let's keep in mind that we really don't need to make the next Presidential election a single-issue process. Granted NN is important and I sure as hell support it, but Ron Paul still is the best Republican running by a long shot.
- anachronoks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Ron Paul voted against the "Net Neutrality" bill because of the included tax provisions. Wake up, people! Just because a bill has a happy sounding name doesn't mean we should automatically support it.
- JahRage, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I don't see that my Internet is restricted in any way. If cox decided to cut me off I would take my business elsewhere. I have plenty of options as far as that goes because the market would not stand for restrictions.. I want my government as far away from my net as possible. Check their track records people.
- seven1m, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22Just because the bill was called "Net Neutrality" or similar doesn't mean it would actually accomplish that. RP knows that the less government intervention the better.
- cmcagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12The Great Depression was caused by an unregulated free market? Perhaps you should actually study the economic history of the era before you make statements which show such ignorance of the facts. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, giving the power of fractional reserve banking to the privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks. The banks cranked up the money supply almost immediately, fueling wild speculation in the stock market. Then, in 1917, the Fed called in a lot of loans, which contracted the money supply very quickly, creating a recession. To reverse the effects of this recession, the Fed lowered the interest rate on it's loans and started again increasing the money supply at an even greater rate than the period from 1913-1917. When those loans were called in, again precipitously contracting the money supply, the result was the stock market crash of 1929, which kicked off the worldwide Great Depression. The entire thing was caused by the Federal Reserve. The Fed wasn't created to protect consumers from the "boom/bust" cycle, it was created to give monopoly power to wealthy bankers so they can legally counterfeit money. The Fed is the cause of the so-called "business cycle," it certainly is not the remedy. Before you admonish others to "know your history," you might want to actually take your own advice. If we don't get rid of the Fed, and fiat currency in general, we are heading for another world-wide depression (according to the Bank for International Settlements) which will make the 1930's look like fat times. If you're so concerned about children starving in this country, you should be fighting to end the Fed.
Back on topic, the Network Neutrality bill should be recognized for what it is: a price control, and a foot in the door for federal restriction of the Internet. Price controls do not work, as the gas shortages of the 1970s and the California power crisis just a few years ago showed us. Nor do we ever want to set precedent for federal control of the Internet. It isn't a lack of pricing tiers that has helped the Internet become what it is today--one could argue that "pricing tiers" already exist in a sense, since companies who pay more for better infrastructure already enjoy better bandwidth to and from their sites--rather, it is the lack of government control and regulation. - confoundedjoe, on 10/11/2007, -13/+24I completely agree. Ron Paul said some stuff people liked about non-interventionism and the Iraq War and now they seem to think he is god. before ron paul EVERYONE on digg was all for NN. i'm just glad most people on the internet who are all into ron paul probably can't even vote yet.
- iamso910, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Many are attracted to Ron Paul because they can sense his honesty, incorruptibility and intelligence.
But many still don't realize that nearly everything they have ever learned concerning the role of government are lies based on misconceptions that serve various vested interests.
Those of us who have studied Ron Paul and free market economics for years find his ideas to be consistant and intelligent and based on a true understanding of history.
All I can suggest is for doubters to keep an open mind, keep reading Ron's arguments and perhaps read and listen to the many great resources at mises.org which covers nearly all subjects imaginable. - whatthefu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Who the ***** watches Attack of the Show anyway?
- darksheer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I'm afraid it is you, sir, who are ignorant of what Net Neutrality LAWS are about. Net Neutrality as a grand concept is exactly as you describe, but Net Neutrality laws do nothing other than giving the US Government the power to regulate the internet. That means they can regulate speeds, regulate what is and isn't allowed, start censoring it as they do television, and most frighteningly, levy taxes on it.
Simply put, Net Neutrality is a great concept--but history shows us that when we put a great concept into the hands of government it never works out well for the people. - tehnico, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I prefer to believe that people get smarter over time.
- natmaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Amen. And if I remember correctly, the Bill that way actually going through isn't the kind of net neutrality I want.
- joeglab, on 10/11/2007, -14/+23The government NEVER has your best interests at heart. And please don't be mislead but the noble label "Net Neutrality." It's no different than the "Ministry of "Truth."
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17And voting it down means an ISP can screw with which sites you visit and how quickly your own data is sent and received. Would you accept it if the corporation running your phone line took money from Wal-Mart so your calls to Target were dropped or filled with static?
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8No actually it can be a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"You scare me. You speak of this man as if you know him, as if your all personal friends. You are not."
Yup, never met the man, but I don't know Hillary or Barack Obama either. But from what I've seen of all the candidates, he's the only one with whom I agree on most points.
"He, like all the other candidates, is a career politician."
No, he's a career ob/gyn. The politician part came later.
"You only know even the smallest fragment of his public image, the version of himself his campaign manager wants you to see."
And his voting record, which is available for all to see.
"Ron Paul is a dark house candidate, he really doesn't have much of a chance at winning."
So I should just vote for a "sure thing" rather than my conscience? That is a travesty against free elections.
"So he turned to the internet, and said a bunch of internet stuff that doesn't totally disagree with his libertarian ultra free-market ideology."
As opposed to a top-down, authoritarian ideology, which works so much better.
"Then he voted against net neutrality, the only thing that can protect the internet from soulless corperations."
Large, centralized government gives special privileges and subsidies allows large corporations to
"Ron Paul is for an unrestricted free market. Consider that. Don't get me wrong, it's easy to spin that in a way that sounds great. But take a look at history first. Take a look at the era of the "fat cats" and the "robber-barons"."
Many "Robber Barons" were made by government subsidies and propped-up monopolies, not for lack of government involvement, but anti-compatitive cronyism.
"Consider the life of working class people around the turn of the last century. The great depression."
Lots of good explanations for it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Causes
"The Dust bowl."
I'm not sure what poorly managed farming practices have to do with it...
"The plight of the granger."
??? I've not heard of that, please direct me to some info.
"All of these events are a direct result of unrestricted free market. The only thing that saved our country from certain doom was government stepping in, with public works projects, monopoly busting, and a strong federal reserve. Beware, please, and know your history."
Obviously.
/rolls eyes
"If you elect this man, your children will starve."
Won't somebody think of the children?!?! FUD - MadOtaku, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8If Comcast did that to me, I'd switch to Qwest (at&t). if Qwest did it, I'd switch to Sprint mobile broadband. If Sprint did it, I'd switch to Verizon's mobile. See where I'm going with this? My city has only 150,000 people in it, and look at how many options I have.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10That could be why Ron Paul is known as Dr. No.
- gypsynuke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9That's not a fair analogy. It's closer to throwing out rotten meat. It's almost impossible to ensure every congressman will be principled. It's much easier to prevent bribery by not granting the government powers it wasn't meant to have.
- rye419, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9There is a difference to the Net Neutrality that we believe in, and the Bill that the government tries to pass in the name of Net Neutrality.
- bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it is a debate tactic.
- blast_flame, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Take the regulation government out of the picture and the corporations would suddenly start having to compete again.
- bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7It is not an automatic fallacy and isn't a fallacy as it is used. When you look at the explanation on wikipedia, only an inductive analogy can be fallacious. As this is clearly a momentum analogy, it would not be fallacious. It may be untrue, but it cannot be logically fallacious or a fallacy of reason.
- Hananda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Corporations can't exist in a Libertarian system as they only exist through government intervention in the marketplace, particularly the granting of juristic personhood. Cartels and the like would still exist, and would potentially have a similar dominance in major industry, however. Libertarianism and Corporatist Consumerism are in no way the same ideology.
- DrOBoogie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7In a Libertarian Utopia, corporations don't exist...
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -12/+18For people who care about 'freedom of speech', you'd think you'd want the ISPs treating all internet traffic equally. All regulations aren't inheritly evil, and we don't live in a perfect world where regulation isn't needed. If all net neutrality dies, that will be a direct sign to the ISPs that it's totally within their rights to screw over their end users. Maybe the 'free market' will make consumers move to another ISP, you say? Free my ***. Big tier cable and DSL providers are pretty much the only games left.
Just wait till you try getting out that "Ron Paul" message when all of your traffic is flagged bottom-of-the-bucket priority. - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that realizes this country is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.
- NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7" they have to give their customers access to the entire internet, not just whatever bits of it they wish."
You didn't read the bill, and you don't know what the debate is about, do you? No ISP in the free world has made any attempt to do anything of the kind.
-jcr - JahRage, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8More government fear tactics that the sheeple cannot shake. I don't know about you, but having the government jump in because ISPs MIGHT start charging differently is paranoid. If they try this, people will change services and ISPs will be forced to go back to an all access Internet. Freedom isn't free folks, you have a voice and for the time being you can still use it. I wonder how many of you anti corporation people still shop at walmart?
- rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6But I think thats the same theory FOR net neutrality. "OMG if companies regulate speed it will be the end of freedom forever." type stuff. As someone else here said. Once it becomes a problem THEN the government should intervene. Not before.
- blast_flame, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Solution: change isps
That my friend is the basis of capitalism. - blorc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8It's hilarious to see people say that someone lost their vote over a YouTube video posted on Digg. You obviously have some real conviction if that's all it takes to sway you. Don't do your own research about the issue or why he voted the way he did. Trust an extremely brief blurb on G4TV.
Read the post above this one. You guys don't even know what the Net Neutrality bill was supposed to do.
I'll quote it here since some people seem to be skipping over it:
"Ron Paul voted against the bill because it gave authority to the FCC that it doesn't currently possess."
"Ron Paul voted against the bill because it gave authority to the FCC that it doesn't currently possess."
"Ron Paul voted against the bill because it gave authority to the FCC that it doesn't currently possess."
It also added yet another tax. - NoTiG, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11In other words... the net neutrality of this bill is similar to the patriotism of the patriot act. Deceptive naming of bills to try to get them passed is pretty slimeballish.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 221 discussions
