0 votes

Why Net Neutraliy means government control over the internet.

It seems many dailypaul'ers including the editor are for net neutrality laws, which will enable the government to take control of the internet.

Now I understand why my post on Internet regulation via "Net Neutrality" laws wasn't posted on the front page. Obviously, the dailypaul is for net neutrality. It's very disappointing to see the dailypaul advocating government regulation of the internet. It seems even the dailypaul can't see that big government is not a friend of liberty.

"Of course we need big government to regulate those evil corporations who might block the dailypaul from us." Well, why do you want the government to take control of the internet to regulate a problem that hasn't happened yet? Please can someone tell me when any major ISP blocked any website except for those displaying kiddie porn or some type of terrorist website? Once the government takes control, the dailypaul could easily be classified by the FCC and Homeland security to be a dangerous website.

I implore all Dailypaul'ers to demand my post or a comparable post against net neutrality be placed on the front page of the dailypaul.com. Check the Constitution where does it say the government has the right to regulate newspapers? Of course there wasn't an internet at that time, but the Constitution is clear that newspapers and pamphlets weren't to be regulated. Why do I say clear because of the first amendment. The internet is just a modern day newspaper that has millions of pages that can be viewed on a new contraption called a computer that can even play moving pictures on it's screen.

It seems everyone here has bought into the kind hand of the government regulating corporations in order to fix all the problems in the world, even problems that don't exist, such as an ISP charging a website some type of fee for people to view it's pages.

Can anyone see that they are being manipulated by the wording "net neutrality"? Has anyone heard of the book "1984". Just give it some cool sounding name such as the Patriot Act, the Fairness Doctrine or the War on Drugs and all of a sudden people just jump on board without thinking the issue through. The internet isn't suppose to be neutral and we don't need the government making it neutral. Neutral means banning or regulating websites that post too many untruths such as the dailypaul. Once your website posts too many untruths then the next step would be to permanently ban it. So, how will you tell your readers that your site was banned? Will you be able to complain to your evil ISP that you were so concerned about regulating? Of course not, it was the government that ordered dailypaul's webhosting provider to shutdown their website. Webhosting companies will only shutdown a website for nefarious activity such as spamming or promoting the download of spyware, but the government can shut a website for any reason it decides once a Net Neutrality law imposed by the FCC.

It's awful strange to see those for liberty advocating government control of the internet?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Damned if we do damned if we don't.....

Unfortunately the choices given are bad ones...

One: We support Net Neutrality, and that open a whole can of worms.
How do we enforce it? Classifying it as a utility? More unnecessary regulation?

Two: We oppose Net Neutrality, and that also opens more cans of worms.
Are Isp's going to block content that goes against their own interests, or throttle them down to the point that it is pointless to visit? Throttle down services they don't like (bit torrent, Emule, p2p, video, etc)?

I personally don't like either choice and it seems that the choices are false. And it bothers me that AT&T and Verizon have spent so much money on lobbying against Net Neutrality that could have been spent improving customer service, improving availability, and improving speeds. For instance look at the internet in South Korea or Japan, blazing fast (speed that puts ours to shame) and available most everywhere.

Imagined Threat

A company will do restrict access if they do they loose business and there are no laws in place to help the company, net neutrality changes that, it puts laws in place to protect the huge providers as well as providing the means to create an enforcible monopoly.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

It's not so difficult at all

It's not some difficult choice at all. Fears of ISP's "throttling" websites are rather ridiculous and just imagined and never actually proven. Please name one website that has been throttled? It's just some ridiculous lefty fear of corporations that's all. The only sites ever "throttled" have been file sharing sites due to the high bandwidth consumption. Many of the files involve copyrighted material that can't be legally downloaded. ISP's just don't have any incentive to throttle anyone. Though, large sites such as Google or Amazon may have face new fees in the future? You're average website just purchases more bandwidth if it is needed due to high traffic. Unless you're planning to setup the next youtube, bittorent, Amazon or Google the whole idea is just to scare you into allowing the government to take control of the internet and ultimately regulate and control the content.

the more the political class realises

we are against them all repubs and dems they will shut it down.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights


I have only seen one person advocating net neutrality on this site. The last thread was overwhelmingly against net neutrality.

I would like to here from Nystrom on this issue. I think you (Mike) just got called out. What say you?

Mises.org search results for net neutrality


Here is RP

Lew Rockwell:

Judge Napolitano:

Is anyone, anywhere with any proven history of principled defense of freedom, in favor of government imposing yet another set of regulations?

I'm generally not a huge proponent of argument by reference to supposed authority, but for what it's worth, this issue does seem pretty one sided.

But leave it to the progressives to, for one, believe some expert du jour "invented the internet" and everyone should therefore shut up and listen to him. As if an academic being a statist, would be such a revelation!

Here's the thing; if local ISPs are "monopolies", the proper course of action is to get rid of the regulations that help give them that status, not to enact even more regulations to supposedly make up for the unintended consequences of earlier regulation.

Work to get rid of bans on people stringing wire between their houses, bans on people putting up more powerful wireless transmitters (to build wireless networks with greater reach), bans people from digging ditches to lay cable, bans people from using the entire radio spectrum etc., etc. But instead, the statists wants to leave all that alone (after all, it was decided by "experts" in the government...), and instead combat what they claim are ill consequences of their own regulations, by enacting even more regulations. Talk about nonsense!

But heck, I'm still waiting for someone to post Al Gore's opinion as indisputable fact. After all, he invented the internet as well, didn't he?

Al Gore

Yes, it's important to check with Al, since he invented the internet. I'm sure he could clear up all of our confusion.


the Unintended Consequences of Regulation

A flash from the past

Has the government ever done anything right?Have they ever snuck in language that no one ever reads before passing?Why are we where we are in this country now?Would they ever throw in an adjoining bill at the last minute to be passed in minutes?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

the man who invented the web


He explains why Net Neutrality is a good thing.

Again, here's Comcast breaking Net Neutrality and blocking the King James Bible: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/poll-on-ap-tests-show...

Oh yes, the Man who invented the Internet can Help Us!!

And I thought that was Al Gore!! I sure do have a lot to learn don't I? Me and Jeb Clampett got to figure out how the internet works? We're going to watch your video so we can learn why bumpkins like us need you smart people in Washington to protect our websites from those evil, greedy corporations. I think the smart people at the FCC are going to enforce their net neutrality laws to make the whole internet safe from all the evil websites on the internet.

Btw, Jeb said he loves those moving picture shows on youtube. He said it's great what you guys are doing to make the internet more fair under the great net neutrailty laws.

They Invented the Web listen closely

Yes, I can't wait for him and Al to give us their views. Those internet inventors are mighty smart guys and me and Jeb always like to listen. Maybe we should build a statue down on the Mall for them original internet gods.

Bit-torrent hogs bandwidth so that's why they may block the Bible download. You're thinking they're infringing freedom of religion I must assume? Don't jump to conclusions. It's their right to block anything they choose, but it's not because it's the bible. It's a download from bit-torrent which is a file sharing service that hogs so much bandwidth. Seems you're trying to stir everyone into a tizzy without informing us about bit-torrent hogging so much bandwidth making it difficult for Comcast to serve regular customers. Many movies and songs are downloaded illegally using bit torrent. You're waving the bible instead of the flag to attempt to infuriate us here. I'm sure that wasn't deliberate right? I love reasoned political discussions don't you? You wouldn't attempt to manipulate us by claiming an ISP is restricting the download of our sacred bible? "We must support Net Neutrality to protect the bible" What's the next trick up your sleeve to round up support for the government to take control of the internet?

"It seems many dailypaul'ers

"It seems many dailypaul'ers including the editor are for net neutrality laws, which will enable the government to take control of the internet."

You might want to check into why the editor favors Net Neutrality.

Basically because it's what allowed him to do what he pleases. And it's allowed you and me to post here.

Totally False

Patently untrue. Obviously, you've never had any significant website yourself. You pay for bandwidth and that allows your customers to view your site. I guess you want everything free?

They did this during WWII

for the Security of the Nation.Newspapers had to be "cleared" before printing.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.


"Well, why do you want the government to take control of the internet to regulate a problem that hasn't happened yet? Please can someone tell me when any major ISP blocked any website except for those displaying kiddie porn or some type of terrorist website? Once the government takes control, the dailypaul could easily be classified by the FCC and Homeland security to be a dangerous website."

Net Neutrality is not about "the government" taking control over the Internet. And the problem is happening. People have reported for years that certain information has been throttled down (read up on throttling down).

Comcast. Look into Comcast. They actually stopped file transfers of the King James Bible! Look: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/poll-on-ap-tests-show...

This is real.

Without Net Neutrality, more and more companies will decide-for you-what is acceptable.


Net Neutrality as it stands now: Net Neutrality is not enforced at this time by any firm law, but it is the unwritten law of the Internet that allows customers to decide for themselves what to view and where to go online.

If the concept of Net Neutrality is cast aside, then more and more ISPs will find whatever reasons to block sites or to slow down access in favor of dichotomies more to their liking.

Keep this in mind: The FCC has not proposed any blocking of any website.

Do your own homework. If we lose the Internet, it's over.

I'm going to have to ask

I'm going to have to ask another dailypauler (that's been on for quite a while) to talk to you folks about Net Neutrality.

I promise you, if you foolishly follow Ron Paul on this one, you'll pay by having sites like this SLOWED DOWN so that many people give up and get their information elsewhere, like msnbc.com and other mainstream "trustworthy sources."

You need to do your homework on this one. Don't believe me or anyone here. Please, I beg you. Go look into Net Neutrality.

It is NOT something new and it is not the friend of the criminals that are running most of our government.

Think: AT&T desperately wants Net Neutrality destroyed and they are already readying the propaganda. Remember how AT&T secretly conspired with the NSA to spy on your by using the Internet's choke pokes as basically data filters? The secret room?

If you, the reader, don't know what I am talking about, then you have a lot of reading to catch up on.

The point is, it would seem that the giant telecommunications industries successfully have fooled some of the people here at dailypaul.com

Don't be fooled. Do your own homework on Net Neutrality before it's too late.


"Think: AT&T desperately wants Net Neutrality destroyed and they are already readying the propaganda. Remember how AT&T secretly conspired with the NSA to spy on your by using the Internet's choke pokes as basically data filters? The secret room?"

They want the gullible to believe they are against it so the will do their fighting for them and help quell any resistance. I have followed Net Neutrality for many many years it is a fraud and a farce, those after net neutrality are the bad guys.

It is really simple common sense, do not fix that which is not broken.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

We're winning...there used to be a lot more on here

that were ignorantly (in the true sense of the word, ie. lacking knowledge) for net neutrality. But, I say us anti-net-neutrality folks are now in the majority. Probably 60% to 40% imo.


Net neutrality, The net needs to stay as is period. Government should have no authority at all in the web and net neutrality does nothing but give big brother more power indirectly through corporate cronies!

NO ONE owns the net!

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Sounds kinda like the Patriot Act

Why would anyone be against neutrality? Keep the government out - period.

and since I'm going to breakfast

I will ask my next question. I think both are important to think about and have answers for.

Who would you say owns the internet?

Who Owns the Internet?

Certainly not the government. The internet consists of the Internet service providers who allow each other to "peer" over their lines. So, their isn't really an internet to "own". Not to avoid your question, but no one company, organization or government "owns" the internet. The only reason the "internet" exists is because the internet service providers have agreed to allow a free flow of information across each other's lines. Even though you may be a "Verizon" customer, parts of your internet browsing may view pages hosted on Sprint, Comcast, AT&T and numerous other large ISP's. There are any restrictions on the flow across the borders of each companies lines. If there were, the internet would cease to exist as the "internet" and it would become the Sprint internet or the AT&T internet. It's just an agreement among internet provides to allow this "free" access.


then would you say that the internet is close or not close to a function such as gas, electricity, or running water

just a curiousity question

what in your eyes should be the role of the federal government?

should it not exist at all or something else?

Role of the Federal Government?

It seems you're trying to infer I must be some crazed lunatic anarcho-capitalist to think the government shouldn't control the internet. I suppose you're not some crazed conservative or liberal lunatic who thinks the government must send troops around the world or fund a Department of Education, Energy and who knows what else? What is it do I want? Don't I know we need a big government in order to fund building all our roads and bridges. Oh, I must be so ignorant to believe in small government!! Sorry, I didn't know I had happened on some intelligent right or left wing website that loves big government?

So, no I won't answer your question what is the role of the Federal government. Why don't you ask Ron Paul what is the role of the Federal Government? I will go with whatever he happens to say right now. Can we get back to the main question? Do you believe the government owns the internet or not? If the internet is owned by the government then naturally the government has the right to regulate it and ban websites that oppose big government. Why would anyone allow people against them to post untruths on their internet? If you don't believe the government owns the internet, then why do you want the government to control it? So, they can ban your favorite websites such as the dailypaul.com? I can't believe that most people here including the editor of this site himself, doesn't realize what's at stake here. I must assume everyone here is comfortable with the government editing the internet? Why don't those who agree with so called "Net Neutrality" controls sign up at the FCC for their net neutrality editor positions? I'm sure they will pay very well. Then, you'll be able to afford to come to Washington and live in one of the thousands of McMansions they've built in the DC area courtesy of the US taxpayer. I happen to live in the DC area and I can tell you these government employees think the economy is peachy keen and that I'm one of those crazy lunatic libertarians who think the government is too big. Why because you people who live in the rest of this "great" country still think these fine politicians in Washington and their bureaucratic friends are here to fix everything including the internet. Of course, we all know the internet is broken, that's why we need "net neutrality"!! So, I will thank everyone here for supporting the next great growth industry in Washington, regulating the internet.




I'm not going to bite you - I am not your enemy

This was just meant to be a simple question so I can get it from the horse's mouth - you - so I could know where you, the OP, comes from

There were no bad inferrings, no pre-conceived notions, nothing more than me throwing a lob for you to hit

I was hoping to give you a chance to deliver something other than the standard "I'm Ron Paul" card. I thought the chances were good of that happening because you made your own free thinking post and this is obviously an issue you obviously feel strongly about.

no big deal

For me at least, net neutrality is not an easy issue... in my book it's probably the hardest one. Health care looks black and white in comparison.
Hell even Ron Paul openly admits that he is no expert in this area

so please take your time, think about it, and nail this question?

imo it's kind of an important q for an individual to know about themselves in politics

but that's my opinion

Computer Challenged

It just seems difficult for the computer challenged. That makes it easy for the liberals to manipulate the public. It's really no different than a newspaper delivering it's papers to each subscriber. We don't the government regular the newspaper delivery personnel or the newspaper printing presses. Why would we want the government regulating the network switches and bandwidth providers?

Limited Government

Okay, no problem, I'm for very limited govenment. Didn't mean to bite back so hard. Just seemed you were asking a random question that wasn't directly relevant. I'm not a pragmatist personally. I won't support Harry Republican just because he says "I'm for Limited Government. I'll vote libertarian rather than for him. I'm not worried about so called wasted votes. I'll waste my vote on anyone I think supports most of my views which usually includes all RP'ers running, but there might be exceptions?