Whiny People Plan To Sue To Keep Government In Charge Of Internet

Hey, sure, we want the same people Glenn Greenwald exposed years ago in terms of spying on everything that happens on the ‘net to be in charge of the Internet

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Commission will no longer protect net neutrality. Now, officials in more than a dozen states are trying to take on the job.

Within minutes after the FCC voted to jettison its Obama-era rules that prohibit internet providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful content, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he would lead a multistate lawsuit against the agency to preserve the regulations. Ars Technica reported that that so far attorneys general in Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington have also announced suits. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s office tweeted that he will consult with other attorneys general about a suit. Others are likely to join as well—18 state attorneys general signed a letter encouraging the agency to delay the vote.

Of course, this was a regulation by an unelected, unaccountable agency which was implementing a solution in search of a problem. Which is also funny, because Statists also complain when they lose at the Supreme Court, whiny about 5 unelected judges making decisions. Versus 3 FCC commissioners.

Then there’s this, because these nutbags aren’t worth delving too deep

I actually like this idea, because it will force Democrats to stand up and make an argument that empowering the government to treat the Internet just like a utility and putting the government in charge is what they ultimately want.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Whiny People Plan To Sue To Keep Government In Charge Of Internet”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Poll after poll demonstrate that the American people favor net neutrality.

    Here’s a recent poll showing 77%. Even conservatives support net neutrality.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consulting-Net-Neutrality-Poll

    Are 77% of Americans “whiny”? Are they wrong? Are the 23%ers right?

  2. Jeffery says:

    A number of states’ attorneys general requested a delay in the FCC regulation, including from the red states Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

    It appears that We the People aren’t taking authoritarianism well.

    • Rotterdam says:

      comical. How do you consider DEREGULATING SOMETHING Authoritarian??

      Authoritarian is when the government tells someone what to do. What really is apparent in the RESISTANCE movement is to challenge everything Trump does. Thats okay. The GOP did the same thing and guess what. Obama won two elections in a landslide.

      The difference is that the real authoritarian movement was Obama’s in telling EVERYONE they had to buy insurance. Telling the auto industry they Had to increase MPG. Telling coal industry to go Screw themselves. Telling offshore oil drillers to stop drilling.

      That my friend is autoritarianism. Fascism.

      Its quite comical how the resistance is so confused that they believe an economy that is roaring and jobs that are returning and a world that is now starting to notice the USA again is going to take back the house and the senate by screaming rape a billion times a day.

      After awhile it just becomes mundane noise. The great left wing noise machine is just making noise so they dont get primaried by Michael Moore. Screw Americans. Resist Trump and all these damn new jobs hes creating. Poverty and welfare. The Lefts rallying cry.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Rotterdam,

    The fear in the right is palpable as real Americans are mobilizing to take their country back from the far-right minority. We’ll have to see how the ruling right responds.

    Thank gawd that Trump hasn’t ruined the recovering economy, yet. The stock market almost tripled under Obama and that continues (corporations foresee the continuation of corporation friendly policies); the drop in unemployment continues at the same rate as since after the Great Recession. The labor force participation rate started dropping during the Great Recession but started recovering in 2014.

    Econ 101 says that as the labor supply tightens wages will increase as employers compete for workers (employers, corporations and the wealthy hate this, and is why monetary policy sacrifices millions of jobs to the greed of the wealthy). But average wages are flat. US corporations have been accruing record profits for years now, but prefer to reward execs and shareholders rather than workers.

    Median household income shot up during the Clinton boom, cratered during the Bush years and started shooting up (in 2011) as we recovered from the Great Recession. It stands now at about $59K per household. Half of US households make more than $59K, half make less.

    • Fargo says:

      total deflection of your insistence that Trump and the right are all into authoritarianism.

      You are so full of it. You misdirect every time you get a chance. We are not talking about median infukingcomes. We are talking about net neutrality and how you made the gigantic leap to say that DEREGULATING the NET is AUTHORITARIAN.

      Obama is the one that practically destroyed this economy and I absolutely love how the left is claiming responsibility for the 3.3 gdp growth and 4.1 percent unemployment and 16k manufacturing jobs per month.

      LOLOL. Do they like send out a talking points email to all you trolls so that you all say the same things on blogs.

      Let us return to who is the real authoritarians in this world. That would be the left who want bigger, and bigger government who make rules and regulations that DICTATE YOUR BEHAVIOR. That is authoritarian. Not deregulating something and cutting rules and regulations so that businesses and people have MORE Freedoms and not less.

      LOLOL. Send me that e-mail I gotta make a photo copy of that.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Authoritarian (along with propensity), another word of 4 syllables or more, the meaning of which the little guy just cannot comprehend.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Poll after poll demonstrate that the American people favor net neutrality.

    When described as simply “net neutrality,” people do support it. But the term is intentionally misleading.

    So let’s go and ask people if they support the net neutrality with the following, actual effects:
    1) higher prices.
    2) less choice
    3) less innovation
    4) more government intrusion into private contracts.
    5) less investment into the wireless and broadband infrastructure.
    6) slower speeds.
    7) more regulations by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

    Let’s see how people react to the actual effects of “net neutrality” rather than the hysteria put out by the left that wants to control everything and everyone.

    Isn’t it amazing how the left says they want to keep the internet “free and open” and to do so they impose business killing, cost raising, and overreaching regulations?

    “Free and open with more constraints.”

    How Orwellian.

    • Jeffery says:

      So you’re saying the unsophisticated 77% don’t understand what the 23% right-wing elitists do?

      Maybe you corporate elitists (23%) need to do a better job educating the ignorant masses (77%). The next round of elections should be pretty interesting unless the authoritarian right manages to steal all the elections.

      • gitarcarver says:

        So you’re saying the unsophisticated 77% don’t understand what the 23% right-wing elitists do?

        No, I am saying that lying. liberals have spread the idea that nothing good could ever happen without net neutrality except, of course, before Febuary 2015, that is exactly what happened.

        Liberals love to spread fear via their lies.

        • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

          Hmmm, aren’t these polls from the same people who said Felonia Von Pantsuit had a 99% chance of winning? Asking for a friend.

          • Jeffery says:

            Clownstick Von Fvckface received 3,000,000 fewer votes than Secretary Clinton, so in fact the polls counting votes were correct.

            Do you question the methodology of the poll on Net Neutrality? There have been several polls and they all see a majority in favor.

            Your brother-in-excuses claims that most Americans are too stupid to understand how bad Net Neutrality is for them. This is the same argument Con Men make of Black voters favoring Democrats – claiming Black folks are too stupid to recognize what’s in their self-interest.

            Such arrogance.

            Anyway, why are you arguing about this? Your side won.

          • gitarcarver says:

            Your brother-in-excuses claims that most Americans are too stupid to understand how bad Net Neutrality is for them.

            Proof please.

            Please show me where I said that.

            Or is this another example where you are lying?

            Secondly, are you saying that how a question is worded doesn’t make a difference in polls?

            Thirdly, if you remember, the polls had Hillary winning the Presidency with the most votes and that most Electoral College votes. Last time we all looked, those polls were wrong.

            This is the same argument Con Men make of Black voters favoring Democrats – claiming Black folks are too stupid to recognize what’s in their self-interest.

            There is a difference between voting for what you think is your best self interest and what is your best interest.

            Of course liberals like yourself put forth the idea that blacks are too stupid to exist on their own and cannot continue to live without government telling them what to do.

            There is an arrogance here and it is from the liberal side of the aisle.

  5. Fargo says:

    What the Report and Order Would Do:
    • Adopt transparency requirements that ISPs disclose information about their practices to consumers, entrepreneurs, and the Commission.
    • Restore the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to protect consumers online from any unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices without burdensome regulations, achieving comparable benefits at lower cost.
    • Eliminate the vague and expansive Internet Conduct Standard, under which the FCC micromanaged innovative business models, along with the bright-line rules.

    There is actually quite a bit of oversight being reinstituted and will require transparency on the part of ISP providers. This is actually all about the ISP providers who are already charging pretty substantial fees to connect to the internet. This simply no longer protects google from unfairly bullying their way across the internet. The 666 of the world. A company that thinks they run the world. and when you think about it. They probably do now.

    • gitarcarver says:

      This simply no longer protects google from unfairly bullying their way across the internet.

      “Net Neutrality” didn’t affect Google at all. Google is a content provider and not an ISP.

      One of the great divides in the net neutrality debate is that the content providers – who make money off of the content – like the idea of businesses being forced to carry all content and not make deals with other content providers. ISP’s on the other hand, said “we are doing the heavy lifting of the infrastructure and we should have the right to make deals and let the consumer decide.”

      That’s one of the hypocrisy’s that Teach and others are trying to point out. Content providers don’t want any regulation on their content or ability to make deals between themselves, but want to restrict the ISP’s from making the same type of deals. Content providers want the government to force ISP’s to act in a manner that the content providers will not.

      Not only that, but prior to the passage of the Obama regulations, the internet was already governed by the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act all of which protect consumers from the very acts that people advocating for net neutrality will now happen without net neutrality in place.

      What really happened with Net Neutrality was a government agency of unelected officials made a power play to regulate something that was already regulated under law. The FCC wanted to pass rules and regulations that would act under the color of law without actually being passed by Congress or any other legislative body.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8986 access attempts in the last 7 days.