I agree to Idea Government should stick to the constitution, leave biz alone!
Voting Disabled

157 votes

I disagree to Idea Government should stick to the constitution, leave biz alone!

Rank20

Idea#229

This idea is active.
The Open Internet & the Freedom of Speech »

Government should stick to the constitution, leave biz alone!

There are very few things that the constitution actually spells out as duties of the government. Silencing free speech is not one of them. Want jobs, economic growth, and REVENUE? Get out of the way of business owners and watch the economy grow. Want REAL freedom of speech and opportunity? Get government out of the way. This "net neutrality" crap is just one of the many angles from which the liberals/democrats are attacking freedom of speech. They are trying to use "diversity," and "fairness" as the labels for some of their other attacks on the 1st amendment.

Don't let you government muzzle you like Hugo Chavez or the Soviets.

Submitted by 4 years ago

Comments (15)

  1. I agree wholeheartedly....those in Washington have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution....I think maybe first they need to read it....then defend it. They need to stay out of our lives and our pocketbooks!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. I don't disagree that government should leave business alone, but big business should leave government alone, too. It is my understanding that big business is lobbying Congress to interfere with our use of the Internet. That is an interference with Free Speech. That is why I support Net Neutrality. Kurt F.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. Yeah! Corporations Rock!!! FREEDOM!!!! JESUS!!! APPLE PIE!!!! LIBERTY!!!!! CEO's!!!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. Funny, we didn't hear a lot of rhetoric about Hugo Chavez and Communists when Comcast and AT&T were accepting public subsidies to BUILD their networks in the first place, did we?

    Funny how that works.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. I'm not sure why I keep hearing people say that net neutrality is an attack on free speech. It is a regulation designed to keep the telecoms from interfering with network traffic based on content. That would in turn do a lot to protect free speech.

    Destroying net neutrality now could have horrible long term consequences on free speech.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. I'm a business owner, but the truth is, there is little virtue in commerce with government regulation. Company's goal is profit, at the expense even of liberty.Without government by and for the people we would be still in a feudal system, the rich getting richer preventing the movement of those under them from moving up. Greed does not have heart and does not consider the consequences of excessive profit taking. Just look at our economy today. World wide greed at the expense of the community. When I first got into the real estate business , 36 years ago, we had a saying that usury was ruinous. We had a limit at that time. The greedy bribed congress to remove the regs, to make room for them to scam the bank depositors. Now look where we are. Business is the "the" answer. Virtue is.

    voiceinthewilderness

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. Thank you lindajjohnson. That is the issue in a nutshell.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. Oh, goodness. Do you really understand that Net Neutrality will basically make it so that we are paying for bandwidth as opposed to have ISPs choose and pick which websites we will get to visit? They would legally be allowed to cripple any website they want without net neutrality. Say goodbye to all small startups that can't afford to pay individual extortion fees to every ISP. ATT just wants to fleece you.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. You are misinformed. This has nothing to do about the government regulating speech.

    I suggest you read the NPRM to understand what regulations that are proposed, the history of the regulations, and understand more background.

    Generally speaking, the NPRM is about 6 Principles for companies to live by:

    --> Users control content they send and receive

    --> Users may run applications and use services of their choice

    --> Users may connect legal devices that do not harm the network

    --> Users are entitled to competitive marketplace

    --> Nondiscrimination

    --> Transparency

    Some highlights:

    1) This has nothing to do about government regulating speech. It is about regulating Internet Service Providers to prevent or limit certain predatory behaviors reminiscent of the original AT&T. Those behaviors are what led to the AT&T antitrust suit.

    2) The regulations being proposed were long standing rules with regard to telephone companies and telephone calls. They are now being applied to Internet access.

    3) This action is needed because of a) providers blocking or degrading traffic; b) lack of disclosure; and c) provide certainty to users and providers

    4) As with the original AT&T, market forces alone are unlikely to ensure that broadband Internet access service providers will discriminate in socially efficient ways. Absent regulation, discrimination will reduce competition and innovation. Providers with market power have incentives and the ability to reduce or fail to increase transmission capacity. Companies also have incentive to degrade competing applications in favor of their own application -- this was one of the issues with AT&T degrading MCI connections.

    In sum, these regulations are about requiring the companies who provide Internet access to play nice with consumers and potential competitors. As it is, most Americans have only one choice of broadband provider so we're mostly powerless to let our wallets do the talking. This happens to be a classic case of regulation being proper rather than too much, which occurs too often.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. You don't understand the first thing about the internet or about political or economic systems. Fantastically ignorant comment. Mind-boggling, really.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. Don't let the government muzzle us? No sir, don't let the rich muzzle average Joe again! We lost Radio and Newspapers because we didn't have the idea to regulate it- companies moved in and made it too expensive for average Joe to get published or have a radio station, it became that only really rich individuals or people hired by really rich people (often multinational corporation owners who refuse to pay their Taxes in our country) to represent them.

    Saying "the free market will decide" is putting your trust in a rich stranger- we came to be a democratic republic where we try to make sure average Joe has power because we came to the conclusion that trusting a rich stranger wasn't good for average Joe! Always keep in the back of your mind that for the owner of the business, the best possible model is all profit- money for nothing and the labor for free. The government is supposed to be YOU, write your congressperson often, keep an eye on him or her to make sure he or she is representing YOU! Business owners are under no such obligation!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. Well ssaid laskruska!

    We have to find the legal means to enforce net neutrality. What a horrible thing the internet will turn into if AT&T and COMCAST are given the power to restrict access to legal websites. In China the government restricts access, we shouldn't let corporations do it in the USA. Net neutrality will make it so that nobody can restrict access to a legal website. I want to pay for bandwidth, not a particular "version" of the internet that AT&T or COMCAST want to sell me.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/67471-companies-lobby-newest-fcc-members-on-net-neutrality-rule

    Tech companies that develop online applications, such as Skype, Google and Amazon.com, back net neutrality rules. They worry that in the absence of government regulation, Internet providers will block websites, services and applications that compete with their own offerings. The FCC’s proposed rules would prohibit Internet providers from giving preferential treatment to certain types of Web traffic.

    ---------------------------------------------

    I didn't know that Google and Amazon.com were democrats/liberals.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. You talk about the constitution without any understanding of how it works. Only the government is controlled by the Constitution. Big business does not grant Americans any rights at all.

    If you do not have Net Neutrality ( as we have always had so far ) set in FCC rules then you lose your first amendment rights to freedom of speech on the Internet. It is ONLY by having a government entity protecting your freedoms that you obtain a constitutional right to those freedoms.

    Remember, private companies do not need to give you free speech. They have no constitutional obligation to you what so ever.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. What the hell kind of nonsense are you talking? Do you even understand the argument you're supposedly in opposition to?? Methinks not.

    Yeah, Big Businesses really have the little guy in mind. *Cough*Enron*Cough* Regulation is NOT by itself a bad word. And it it not synonymous with "Government-Run."

    All that's being asked is for fairness, transparency and businesses being made to hold up their end of the bargain on contracts, without fettering, throttling, censoring or degrading the end-user experience unfairly.

    Businesses have already shown a willingness to block content they disagree with, restrict or throttle users for LEGITIMATE uses of the network (gaming, legitimate file sharing, video conferencing, etc.)... If someone has paid for unlimited use or a high MB/s transfer rate, the company ontracting with them should not be able to penalize them for utilizing it right up to the last byte below their cap. It's what they've paid for, and so long as it's a legitimate use (READ: not patently illegal), companies should not be able to penalize their end-users for using the service they've contracted for up to the specified limits.

    I'm sorry that businesses have decided to screw their customers to the point that their customers are demanding government redress. Maybe they should have "self-regulated" before it got to this point. But it's pretty clear that Big Business is not in the self-regulation business. They've shown they'll do anything and everything they can get away with unpenalized to turn a buck. And do you "honestly" think ALL those "bucks" (multi-millions of dollars) are going toward fixing the economy, or are they going into the massively disproportionate CEO salaries (of the folks who are inevitably pissing on us without the courtesy of calling it 'rain') and then being "sat on" in the bank?

    Just sayin'...

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)