Rep. Collins critical of FCC net rules plan

"FCC actions to reclassify the Internet under Title II pose a direct threat to Internet freedom,” said Congressman Collins."

Bunk. A direct threat to whose 'Internet freedom', the likes of Time Warner, or the consumer's? I'll welcome the protections of a regulated public utility , and leave Mr Collins to suck up to his plutocratic masters.

"This fight is far from over and I will be steadfast in my commitment to keeping the Internet free from debilitating government intervention.”

What he actually means is "The big internet providers in my district payed my campaign effort a metric sh*ton of filthy lucre to hoodwink you into thinking net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

In reality, net neutrality is awesome. Time Warner will never be allowed to mess with my Netflix streaming. They can't slow you down based upon your usage.

Every time Collins opens his mouth, he proves how ignorant he is...or proves how bought off he is. Either way, he needs to go.

Big Brother to the rescue, yea ......... more government control

What is going to stop Obama/Clinton from offering waivers to democrat contributors as dems has done with Obamacare?

I worry the FCC will mess this all up big time trying to help me.

Actually, net neutrality means less government control. Google is your friend, there's no excuse for willful ignorance.

Seems to me that anytime the government gets involved in anything and says it's for my own good, I am leery for they have lied and lied and lied. Lied so much that I will Never believe anything they try to tell me.
Before you say "if you don't like it then leave" I don't believe that is an option anymore.

I wonder if the citizens in the Peoples Republic of China welcome the protections of a regulated public (government controlled) utility.

On the other hand most of the citizens in the Peoples Republic of China don’t know or don’t miss what they never had.

They are like the flies that live in a vinegar bottle. They believe it’s the sweetest place in the world.

I’m for less FCC Government intrusion, not more.

"This fight is far from over and I will be steadfast in my commitment to keeping the Internet free from debilitating government intervention.”

Mr Collins might be shocked to learn that at its inception, the Internet was itself a government intervention.

Robert Elliot Kahn and Vinton Gray Cerf invented the Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol the fundamental systems of the internet.

The government funded their research further with our taxes; in other words the people’s money helped them to further develop it.

Politicians and Regulatory agencies do not create money and wealth; they spend or redistribute it.

Visionary and risk taking entrepreneurs (capitalists) invested billions their own money to make the internet what it is today.

Regulatory agencies are not mandated to create money or wealth, nor to spend or redistribute it. Their function is analogous to the referees on a football field, to insure that rules are followed, the game is played fairly, and that violations are sanctioned.

Regulatory Agencies are the Petri dishes of Political Patronage and layers upon layers of non-elective government officials and policy makers who write regulations that have the same weight as laws passed by Congress.

It is the job of Congress to write regulatory laws and then being held accountable to the taxpaying citizens of our Great Republic.

Unlike Congress, Regulatory Agencies can’t be voted out of office regardless how they spend our money.

It is analogies to Congress appointing JV football referees for life regardless of competence and then paying them one-million dollars per game.

"It is the job of Congress to write regulatory laws and then being held accountable to the taxpaying citizens of our Great Republic."

Yes.

But Richard, there are no perfect systems, nor will there ever be. There will always be a dynamic tension between unrestrained capital, which seeks to expand itself, and the broad public interest. Too much regulation can strangle an economy . To little regulation can bankrupt nations. Remember 2007?

Balance in all things.

You're correct. Under the FCC rule, Albany can no longer prohibit Batavia from offering city-wide broadband if it wanted to. Before the ruling, cities in 19 states were banned from doing so because of legislation pushed by Comcast, Verizon and Time-Warner.

This is a huge win for consumers.

By the way, you can go to the FEC website at http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml and see multiple entries of contributions by the "Verizon Wireless Good Government Club" to Rep. Collins. Apparently their investment is paying off.

Scott,

I’ll concede there are no perfect systems. We can disagree on what constitutes balance.

Nonetheless, unchecked and unaccountable government spending and Regulations will bankrupt our Republic; regardless of perceived fairness or good intentions.

No government or economy has ever regulated or taxed itself into prosperity.

"I'll concede there are no perfect systems. We can disagree on what constitutes balance."

Fair enough. At least this was more fun than talking about the damn weather.

Government regulation has a habit of starting out with good intentions, then seems to morph and overreach, hurting more than helping.

This should feel like a win for consumers because right now it is. But In the long run all this is going to make Time Warner do is change the way they offer the internet. Instead of different speeds now you're going to see it change to the likes of a cell phone plan with 3 or 4 different amounts of allotted data. You will only be allowed a certain amount of data per month and if you go over the cap your speed will not be throttled but you will be charged massive overage fees. So yes, Time Warner still wins. I for one cannot wait for Empire to get a move on and be up and running in Batavia.

The power to regulate by a non elected board..FCC in this case..Does not always work to our benefit..Starts out with good intentions but has a habit becoming too controlling..

Well Scott, it sure is funny how you ban people including me for stating their opinions on your Batavia neighborhood watch group!

Jim. Not quite sure to what you're talking about. But, as far as I know, Howard & Billie are the only ones with the power to BAN anyone's comments here.
So, you go right ahead and speak, and see what happens. Of course, you may, or may not, get 'down' votes, but I've learned that those votes don't really mean much (in the scheme of things).

This simply opens the door for fees and higher taxes. Looked at your phone bill lately?

"Well Scott, it sure is funny how you ban people including me for stating their opinions on your Batavia neighborhood watch group!"

Actually it wasn’t me who banned you, but I would have. Opinions are welcome on Neighborhood Watch. The racial tropes you employed are not.

Apologies to all for the off-topic.

Scott, there was no racial anything employed and I was banned for stating that anyone without health problems that couldn`t shovel their sidewalk is lazy. I just got a kick out of your comments on here about internet control when a site you are an administrator on bans people left and right when their opinion differs! I too am sorry for the off track comment and I am done now.

It's funny how this discussion has devolved into debating the merits of government intervention. Obviously we all have the common sense to agree that too many rules and too much legislation is not a good thing. But everyone here seems to have forgotten that the government is here to serve and protect us (yes I realize that this sounds like a joke). But it's actually true, and this is one of very few circumstances in which we, as average consumers, should embrace government interference.

Net neutrality is a great thing! All it does is to ensure that ALL INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET IS TREATED EQUALLY!! Without neutrality, your ISP can slow down your connection at will. They could basically force traffic to sites of their choosing. Everything that you see on the net would be filtered through what gives TW or Comcast or Verizon the most ad revenue. It would really suck! My personal opinion is that the big ISP's basically just want to kill Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Howard, I'm really surprised that you are so indifferent to it, considering that it directly affects your business. I know that you are a proponent of smaller, less intrusive government (as am I), but don't you want to assure that The Batavian will always be accessible to folks without their preferences dictated to them by a corporation?

I think you've recapped it neatly, Sean.

What happens when net neutrality does not exist?

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-n…

In a nutshell - one of the members of the ISP oligopoly (ATT, TimeWarner, Comcast) determines whose signals get to your house, and how much they pay. That is not free flow of information - that is not what we've become accustomed to.

Why is it that I constantly hear such a loud defense of some massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of everyday people by the left? You know, the people who protest against restrictions on abortion as being too intrusive of women's bodies?

It seems the only place they don't want the government having absolute control is in the uterus (Unless we're talking about the Chinese Policy. Then it may be an even split between the Crypto-Fems and the Fundamentalist Progressives...). Every single other part of their lives and bodies are apparently just peachy for complete and universal government control.

Big Government, like Big Business is bad for the people. Always. And for all the same reasons.

" (Unless we're talking about the Chinese Policy. Then it may be an even split between the Crypto-Fems and the Fundamentalist Progressives...)"

Satire? lol

Scott, there is a wealth of satirical gold to mined from the left's pretentiousness.

"I just got a kick out of your comments on here about internet control when a site you are an administrator on bans people left and right when their opinion differs! I too am sorry for the off track comment and I am done now."

And I suppose you're one of those silly people who think their first amendment rights are being violated because you were banned from the other forum, right?

Ever hear of private property for public use?

That means that though public use of this, or any other sight which offers user interaction, is contingent on abiding by set rules the sight wishes and remove a user's access for violating those rules.

It's no different than a restaurant's right to refuse service to anyone.

With that said, what does your rant have to do with the article we're all commenting about?

Just as I thought, nothing.