The Net Neutrality Lies Never Stop

Seeing all of the unbelievably dishonest arguments being made against net neutrality, I have to wonder if the people making them really are this clueless or if they’re just shameless liars. Sandy Rios of the American Family Association provides a perfect example:

Like other conservatives who have criticized the proposed rules , Rios doesn’t seem to grasp the meaning of net neutrality, but that didn’t stop her from accusing the administration of using the internet proposal as part of a plan to “take down” Fox News and “go after” Rush Limbaugh.

“They want to manage the content, they want to control what goes into the internet,” Rios said. “Thank God for the internet, thank God for our ability to communicate to you through our Facebook pages and through AFA and our alerts and everything. And this all is being threatened.”

What Rios lacked in an understanding of net neutrality she made up in a strong, personal feeling that the Obama administration will crack down on free speech: “Certainly we know that the president and the administration is willing to do whatever they can to stop the flow of information to the American people, we know that that’s true.”

This is so overwhelmingly contrary to reality that it can only be the result of rank dishonesty or willful ignorance. If anything, the exact opposite is true: Net neutrality will protect the free flow of information on the internet by preventing ISPs from blocking or slowing down content from sites they can’t extort for money (or just disapprove of). Net neutrality maintains the internet the way it has always been from the very beginning. It doesn’t establish government control over the flow of information in any way whatsoever.

Are they really this dumb? Or are they just lying?

"Like Lyekka, angels are smooth around the bend."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."
"Maybe Republicans...and Trump didn't try grab their pussies."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"No. Trump and Moore haven't asked for investigations of themselves. You are upset because it ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • U Frood

    You would think FOX would understand, having to deal with the cable companies to get their various channels sent to all the TVs of their listeners.

    That would assume the speakers on FOX News were being honest, though.

  • John Pieret

    Are they really this dumb? Or are they just lying?

    Dumb people don’t lie?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Are they really this dumb? Or are they just lying?

    Yes.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, treating all the bits the same is Socialism. Argument over.

  • BobApril

    I really think they are too dumb to understand the issues – this is just knee-jerk anti-government/anti-Obama whingeing. To be sure, there are some legitimate concerns – even the EFF can’t seem to make a decision on whether to support this or not. But this ridiculous claim by Rios is utterly disconnected from any actual problem in the real world.

  • Trebuchet

    As number five says, they don’t care about the issue, all they need to know is that if Obama is for it, they’re against it.

    And as usual, Ed’s presented a false dichotomy. They’re dumb AND lying.

  • Mr Ed

    Net neutrality is about keeping things neutral. If Google invests $500 million in infrastructure then everyone wishing to have a website would be required to invest $500 million or the government would force them off the internet. On of my personal favorite arguments.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Thank God for the internet, …

    She misspelled “Gore”.

  • abb3w

    @0, Ed Brayton

    It doesn’t establish government control over the flow of information in any way whatsoever.

    I’m not sure I’d go as far as “in any way”. I’d agree, it’s not intended to; however, the current approach is by reclassify broadband access as a telecommunications service, and that may have unintended and arcane consequences.

    The one concern I’ve seen which might be legitimately founded is that reclassification may impact data-asymmetric services — EG, YouTube, where sending a small request (on the order of 100 bytes) triggers a disproportionately sized and informative return (potentially millions of times larger). While FCC’s exercise of “forebearance” may prevent it, current rules might have potential to add a considerable cost to providers of such.

  • sinned34

    This is a perfect example of why I like to say that I’m too much of a nerd to be religious. I don’t understand how any conservative Christian with a semblance of knowledge about net neutrality could ever listen to one of these charlatans in the future after seeing the rank ignorance that they espouse about this subject.

  • dugglebogey

    “Thank God for the internet, thank God for our ability to communicate to you through our Facebook pages and through AFA and our alerts and everything.”

    The “and everything” means porn. Thank god for all the porn. Thank you god!

  • Chiroptera

    And death panels for grandma!

    Or was that a different Obama policy initiative?

  • http://onhandcomments.blogspot.com/ left0ver1under

    U Frood (#1) –

    You would think FOX would understand, having to deal with the cable companies to get their various channels sent to all the TVs of their listeners.

    Not necessarily. Some of the loudest anti-capitalist voices are those who got rich through capitalism (e.g. the Rockefellers, Detroit automakers, Microsoft, etc.). Once companies achieve dominance or a monopoly in the marketplace, they do all they can to eliminate and prevent competition, whether by legal or illegal means.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Are they really this dumb?

    For many of the rank and file, I bet yes. It’s from Obama, and it’s government regulation, and thus it must be bad. It’s a no-brainer for them. Double-entendre intended.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @abb3w

    Fascinating. Thanks for the link.

  • ‘smee

    abb33w @ #9 says “The one concern I’ve seen which might be legitimately founded is that reclassification may impact data-asymmetric services”

    AFAIK (and I am NOT a telecoms expert , the reclassification means that ALL users of the Title II service are required by law to have the same, unfettered access according to the level of access [aka bandwidth] that they purchase from the service provider. In other words, all users must be dealt with “fairly”. It’s a perfectly reasonable proposition to expect to pay more for a service provision if your requirements are greater: I (expect to) pay more for 100/30 than for 50/3, and would expect to pay still more for 100/100, or (say) 100/10000!

    This should NOT stifle small business access: If I pay for symmetric 100/100 (adequate for the majority of small system upload) I should get that, and title II means the service provider cant arbitrarily cap my bandwidth.

    They will, however, start to include more formal DATA TRANSFER caps as part of their normal service: COMCAST already do so in most of their products. I’m not against this in principle (I think pay-as-you-go is generally reasonable, and that heavy users should generally pay more than light users). However, I don’t think that the marginal cost per gigabyte is high enough to fully justify the currently operable caps, nor the ‘overage’ charges.

    Unfortunately the BIGGEST challenge still remains – the fact that most localities have a single broadband “choice”: LLU should have been part of the rule change. I can only hope that it follows quickly, after the legitimacy of this change is settled in the courts.

  • Michael Heath

    left0ver1under writes:

    Once companies achieve dominance or a monopoly in the marketplace, they do all they can to eliminate and prevent competition . . .

    You’ve got it mostly right but with a twist. More importantly, any competent business school grad is aware of this fact though most tend to avoid or deny this reality.

    Instead what happens is business sectors, not necessarily specific companies, become cash cows in a well-established market. They then have ample funds to create barriers to entry for competing sectors to encroach on their cash flows; largely through their buying politicians.

    Paradoxically, the business sectors who most need government support that would best support long term economic objectives, have the least cash and therefore the least political support – at least with Republicans.

  • abb3w

    @16, ‘smee:

    AFAIK (and I am NOT a telecoms expert , the reclassification means that ALL users of the Title II service are required by law to have the same, unfettered access according to the level of access [aka bandwidth] that they purchase from the service provider.

    I’m not an expert on this either; and yes, that is the primary effect.

    Contrariwise, the link I provided earlier suggests that the means used (reclasification) to achieve this primary effect has secondary implications, due to different regulations that apply to services that are in this other classification category. While the link does not seem definitively authoritative, it does seem rational, provides links to some of the regulations which seem to support its thesis.

    Nohow, the risks from this seem less immediate and likely than those from ISP shenanigans.