Glenn Beck on Net Neutrality. Know what he calls it?

Krynn72

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,095
Reaction score
926
You guessed it! Communist!

Glenn Beck recently stood at his chalkboard to warn Fox News viewers of a sinister plot to shut down free speech. A "gang of communists" had infiltrated Washington, he raged. Their goal: to pass Net Neutrality and turn the Internet into a "Marxist utopia."

Beck has it backward: Net Neutrality is the Internet principle that protects — not threatens — our ability to speak freely in a democracy.

But don't tell that to the phone and cable lobbyists. They're flooding the FCC with the same lies about Net Neutrality and censorship that Beck peddles to the public.
Click to expand...

I like these newsletters I get. They're refreshingly bold and intelligent.

Also, stop assholes like beck and Comcast from ****ing up the internet. Rest of the email:

But don't tell that to the phone and cable lobbyists. They're flooding the FCC with the same lies about Net Neutrality and censorship that Beck peddles to the public.

Set the Record Straight: Net Neutrality Fosters Free Speech

Our new site, Debunk the Junk, reveals the lobbyists' bogus claims about Net Neutrality — and lets you counter them by telling the FCC the truth.

The Internet's founders established open standards to ensure that everyone with a connection could communicate with everyone else online. This basic Net Neutrality principle turned the Internet into an amazing engine for free speech.

The FCC is considering whether to protect this freedom with a Net Neutrality rule. Without it, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have a commercial incentive to decide whose voices are more important and whose views will be heard. They've already put in place technology that allows them to filter and block content they deem undesirable.

Debunk Their Junk: Don't Let the Telcos Control Internet Speech

Help expose phone and cable company lies; tell the FCC the truth and stop powerful interests from stifling your voice.

Thanks,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
SaveTheInternet.com
Click to expand...
 
You know what, F*** it. I am going to infiltrate Fox studios and when Glenn is doing a live show I will butt rape him and make him squeal like a pig on national television.
 
Considering the following Beck has, I'm concerned that his incoherent ramblings on this particular topic will lead to adverse effects.
 
More like the typical conservative song and dance:

They will support legislation against Net Neutrality even if it actually does them harm, simply because ****ing idiots like Beck have blindsided them with a frenzied whirlwind of populist bullshit. They will disguise their boneheaded masochism as a matter of principle while ****ing up a good thing for everybody else.

Just wait. There will be protests in Washington with every dumbshit Te Party pseudo-libertarian in attendance, demanding that we protect the sanctity of corporate business so they can control and monetize our unrestricted flow of information. I'll FedEx you my severed dick if this doesn't happen in a few years time.
 
FOX and other media corporations have a huge financial interest in this. So they tell the people whatever it takes to fight NET NEUTRALITY. Net Neutrality is in the people's interest! It's a shame the way they can so easily manipulate millions of Americans with ridiculous scare mongering, far fetched slippery slope analogies and Nazi Germany forecasts. This should be illegal.

I will be voting, not watching News on TV, and writing letters to government officials, as usual. It's the only way we have a chance against the millions of dollars media corporations spend fighting it, and callus manipulation of the people through national television.

Just take a look at this page:
www.savetheinternet.com


Right now, I have one of the worst internet speeds in the world - it's expensive, it's unreliable, and it's dead slow. I live a few hours away from the Capitol of USA. Doesn't that seem wrong? Why does it suck so hard?

2 Internet Service Providers [ISPs] provide 90% of America's internet access. In most areas, you don't have a choice of what provider to go with. No competition means they will sit on their ass and charge us a premium for this terrible service.

WHO IS THE #2 PROVIDER OF INTERNET SERVICE TO AMERICANS? AT&T

Oh, well isn't this interesting:
AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and FOX News Channel (FNC), a wholly owned division of News Corporation (NYSE: NWS), today announced a distribution agreement to deliver FNC programming as part of the AT&T U-verseSM TV channel lineup.
Click to expand...

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23076

You can see they're in bed together. At least since 2006.

http://entertainment.att.net/tv/network/fox-reality
http://entertainment.att.net/tv/network/fox-television-classics
 
Im so confused about this net neutrality thing. I swear i saw a thread here months ago where EVERYONE was against it, and now everyone is for it. I dont know what i am, becuase i dont really know what it means. The groups who are against it say its against free speech, and the ones that are for it says its for free speech. ?!?!?!??!
 
Ravioli said:
Im so confused about this net neutrality thing. I swear i saw a thread here months ago where EVERYONE was against it, and now everyone is for it. I dont know what i am, becuase i dont really know what it means. The groups who are against it say its against free speech, and the ones that are for it says its for free speech. ?!?!?!??!
Click to expand...

Anybody who has been a fan of the internet as it's been since inception... is for network neutrality.

Anybody who wants internet companies or other companies and stuff basically writing the rules of internet availability of websites and other things... corporate control basically... is against network neutrality.

Look at me... talking like a true professional on 'stuff' and 'things'.
 
The media corporations' cable and satellite TV services are failing in favor of free video on the internet that we enjoy. They want to:

1) Reduce accessibility to this free video or have it removed. One way they can do this is to lobby for stronger copyright laws. You've probably already seen videos on Youtube that have been removed.

2) Charge money to access internet sites by setting up subscription services to internet video streaming sites. This would be similar to paid TV channels.

3) Funnel traffic to their online video services by reducing the service quality of competing websites, while offering more bandwidth to their sites. Imagine slow or oft inaccessible websites for domains they don't own.

4) Charge as much as possible for internet access.


Net Neutrality would keep them from changing the way we use the internet today. It would stand in their way. They don't want the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to regulate prices and to ensure all websites have the same accessibility. Why should FOX news have streaming video, while other news sites suffer with limited bandwidth that cannot provide streaming video?

Comcast has been in the news many times over the years for its shady over-priced cable services, poor customer service, and restricting internet access to its users. Even before they offered internet service, when they were a cable TV provider, satellite TV came into the picture and gave them competition; it forced them to keep their prices in check. When cable TV was the only option, people were being charged a great deal of money for standard Television service.

"Comcast Corporation, the USA's largest provider of high-speed Internet to private homes"

See Comcast: Net Neutrality
As early as late 2006, Comcast has implemented measures using Sandvine hardware which sends forged TCP RST (reset) packets, disrupting multiple protocols used by peer-to-peer file sharing networks.[84] This has prevented most Comcast users from uploading files
Click to expand...
In 2007, Comcast customers reported a sporadic inability to use Google, because forged RST packets are interfering with HTTP access to google.com,[93] which has further angered users.
Click to expand...
In January 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated that the FCC is going to investigate complaints that Comcast "actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online".[95] During a February 2008 FCC hearing in Boston, Comcast admitted they paid people to hold seats. The company claimed it was so staffers could attend later, but opponents claimed it was to keep Comcast opponents from attending.
Click to expand...

See also Comcast: Lobbying efforts
Analysis indicates that Comcast spends millions of dollars annually on government relationships.[102][103] Regularly Comcast employs the spouses, sons and daughters of influential mayors, councilmen, commissioners, and other officials to assure its continued preferred market allocations.
Click to expand...
See also Comcast: Reputation for poor customer satisfaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

IMAGINE that for $33 a month you could buy Internet service twice as fast as what you get from Verizon or Comcast, bundled with digital high-definition television, unlimited long distance and international calling to 70 countries and wireless Internet connectivity for your laptop or smartphone throughout much of the country.

That’s what you can buy in France, and similar speeds and prices are available in other countries with competitive markets. But not in the United States.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html
 
Yeah, my 10mb broadband connection costs £15/month and came with a free router.
 
speedtesti.jpg

http://www.speedtest.net/

Yours is cheaper than mine and 4 times faster. Also they charge a monthly fee to rent modems and routers.
 
Wireless router might I add!

And yes, seems sucky for you :(
 
One of the main reasons I voted for Obama was his policy on Net Neutrality. Yes, I do believe that everyone should have affordable and reliable internet access, just like I believe everyone should have affordable and reliable telephone service in their homes! Call me crazy!

You don't see Glenn Beck criticizing the fact that the FCC regulates the telephone companies, do you? Because before the FCC came into the picture to regulate the phone companies, they charged a lot of money for phone service, with all kinds of hidden fees and tricky fine print, extremely expensive long distance calling, etc. Some of you guys weren't born yet to know about it. These days we pay a fraction of that amount - for much better service, thanks to the FCC.
 
<RJMC> said:
lol so he does have a blackboard whit pics of comunists and stuff? lol I thought that was the comedy central guy joking
Click to expand...
No there are communists and everything, they want to redistribute the rapey dollars.
 
Solaris said:
Yeah, my 10mb broadband connection costs £15/month and came with a free router.
Click to expand...

My 10Mb cable connection costs $9/month. Plus a house phone, and a mobile phone which they provide for free.

/advertising
 
Solaris said:
Here's the video.

He's such a ****ing lier, it really angers me:
Click to expand...

"It's free speech or the government! You can't have both!"

It's really frightenng that people will buy into such an argument.
 
Absinthe said:
"It's free speech or the government! You can't have both!"

It's really frightenng that people will buy into such an argument.
Click to expand...

So he goes from anti communist paranoid psycho, to anarchist... brilliant! :rolleyes:

Haven't actually watched the video yet, will take a look now.
 
OMG. This video is made like it is for ****ing idiot children. I suppose that is what Beck's audience is in a mental sense. That dog is right to be scared of him. I am really so upset that this guy is able to reach so many people, but at the same time I am thankful for my broadband internet access that allows me to stream these Fox programs for free on YouTube. Everybody should be able to do this! Yay Net Neutrality!!
 
I heard a story on a neutral internet that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Is there any truth to this? If this kind of false information could be spread on a neutral internet, why is this good for society?
 
If the fairness doctrine were re-instated, the majority of Glenn Beck viewers would disappear over night when they realise that he is entirely full of shit and has to invoke Godwins Law to make an argument
 
VictimOfScience said:
I am thankful for my broadband internet access that allows me to stream these Fox programs for free on YouTube. Everybody should be able to do this! Yay Net Neutrality!!
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality should not be the guise for justifying the distribution of others' copyrighted material, just saying. That's more like Fair Use.
 
I hate Glenn Beck so much. I can't believe anyone listens to that crap.

Every time I watch it, he always compares America to the years when it was founded and all of that stuff. Apparently, if he had his way, America would be how it was when it was first founded and not evolved.

Is America the exact same country now rather than when it was founded? Of course not. Times change. Everyone evolves. New technology comes out, and it needs to be regulated. He's living in a fantasy world that the world shouldn't change or evolve, and it pisses me off to no end.

I'll be quite upset if net neutrality doesn't pass.
 
I don't mind paying a private company to provide high speed internet access as long as the content isn't limited. Paying AT&T or Verizon for blazing fast internet I understand... someone has to maintain the infrastructure and keep it all up to date. But if they start charging me for "access" to website "packages" there will be hell to pay.
 
lord_raken said:
I don't mind paying a private company to provide high speed internet access as long as the content isn't limited. Paying AT&T or Verizon for blazing fast internet I understand... someone has to maintain the infrastructure and keep it all up to date. But if they start charging me for "access" to website "packages" there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

So... you want it to stay the way it is. Then go and do something help make Net Neutrality a law.
 
Personally, I think the odds of content actually being limited are slim. As soon as one company starts limiting content, their customers will (most likely) migrate to a service that doesn't limit content.

Unless they all start colluding. Then things might get bad.

Anyway, can someone please explain the difference to me between Net Neutrality and a government subsidization of all the pipes?
 
Net Neutrality: legislation forcing all service providers to treat all digital content equally, in terms of both accessibility and speed of access.

Government subsidisation: Government pays for the construction and maintenance of all digital infrastructure; routers, fiberoptic cables, local loops, etc.

Government subsidisation of the infrastructure would effectively force Net Neutrality, but Net Neutrality doesn't require government subsidies.
 
Noodle said:
Personally, I think the odds of content actually being limited are slim. As soon as one company starts limiting content, their customers will (most likely) migrate to a service that doesn't limit content.

Unless they all start colluding. Then things might get bad.

Anyway, can someone please explain the difference to me between Net Neutrality and a government subsidization of all the pipes?
Click to expand...
Most Americans have access to only one or 2 providers.
 
While Glenn Beck is a retard, this whole net neutrality thing is pretty damn overblown as well.
 
The good news is that there are companies like Google that rely on net neutrality, and they are powerful enough to fight the telcos and cable companies.

I guarantee you that one of the main reasons behind Google's ISP experiment is to prepare for a situation where net neutrality doesn't pass. If ISP's started limiting limiting/blocking traffic to sites that aren't part of their pre-approved packages, I guarantee you we'd see Google emerge quickly as a competing ISP offering open internet at extremely competitive prices (whether they did it themselves or subsidized another company).
 
Noodle said:
Personally, I think the odds of content actually being limited are slim. As soon as one company starts limiting content, their customers will (most likely) migrate to a service that doesn't limit content.
Click to expand...

Just like cable TV right?

We've already seen proposals from Comcast (or maybe it was AT&T) where they had "bundles" that would only give access to certain sites and anything else would cost assloads extra. As for migrating, like Solaris said, most people can choose between two provides at most. Like me for instance, I can get AT&T service, or Suddenlink. Thats it.
 
Noodle said:
Personally, I think the odds of content actually being limited are slim. As soon as one company starts limiting content, their customers will (most likely) migrate to a service that doesn't limit content.
Click to expand...
Spoiler: apparently, 85% of Americans have no choice of service provider.

That said, it's unclear what urgent necessity there is for net neutrality when we haven't (or I haven't) seen any serious attempts at tiered content restriction. I believe in the regulation in principle but we seem to have done alright without it so far. Why all the rush to 'save the internet'?

Noodle said:
Anyway, can someone please explain the difference to me between Net Neutrality and a government subsidization of all the pipes?
Click to expand...
Ummm...net neutrality is where you legally force service providers to provide equal access to all websites and users...whereas government subsidisation of the pipes is where the government subsidises the pipes. I'm not sure where your confusion comes from.

That said, as the article above makes clear, the government should either force service providers to allow other companies access to their pipes, or simply build their ownk, and charge providers to use them. Currently the monopolisation of infrastructure is the big problem with internet access, rather than content limitation - and your 'competition' argument would apply, and limitation be more difficult, if the infrastructure problem was fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
Net Neutrality - Chapter 12: Betrayal in the FCC
Replies
15
Views
1K
VirusType2
VirusType2
Krynn72
Another Net Neutrailty thread
2
Replies
74
Views
2K
Krynn72
Krynn72
No Limit
Comcast has started to impose a fee on Netflix provider Level 3 Communications
Replies
1
Views
361
Lucid
Lucid
Noodle
  • Locked
No Net Neutrality. Whoops.
Replies
3
Views
829
Maestro
Maestro
VirusType2
Federal Court: FCC can't regulate Internet
Replies
36
Views
3K
the cow says moo
the cow says moo
Back
Top