Tea Party Groups Out AGAINST Net Neutrality

Following the release of Google and Verizon's controversial proposal on managing Internet traffic, which comes less than a week after the FCC abandoned efforts at a hammering out a compromise, Tea Party groups have taken a strong stance on the issue of net neutrality.

Specifically, they're against it. The head of one Tea Party organization says she is concerned that the policy would increase government regulation and power, calling net neutrality one of many "assaults on individual liberties."

As The Hill reports, "[a] coalition that included 35 Tea Party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification."

"Despite universal acknowledgement [sic] that Americans enjoy a free, open, and vibrant Internet, the FCC is relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime that would stifle broadband expansion, create congestion, slow Internet speeds, jeopardize job retention and growth, and lead to higher prices for consumers," the Tea Party groups' letter states. It concludes, "The Internet has never been a regulated utility and we urge you to keep it that way by rejecting so-called "Net Neutrality" regulations on the Internet and the proposed Title II reclassification."

Chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation Jamie Radtke told The Hill the tea party has been increasingly concerned with the issue of net neutrality. "It's starting to get onto the radar now," she said. "I think the clearest thing is it's an affront to free speech and free markets."

Where do others stand on the issue? See what executives, academics, and advocates are saying about the Verizon-Google proposal here.

Comments

[Yellowbird]

02:48 PM on 08/23/2010

Typical dummies. They are against net neutrality, which is the ONLY THING keeping their group alive.

Without net neutrality, they wouldn't have a Tea Party.

[peskime]

09:28 AM on 08/18/2010

Any doubt that the Tea Baggers are astroturf and nothing but self destructive serrvants for their corporate masters?

[noeffect]

01:56 PM on 08/18/2010

None whatever. It's a shame they don't know it.

[noeffect]

11:19 PM on 08/17/2010

Folks ought to get over the idea there's actual competition in the ISP market. What there is, is regions and zones, each dominated by a single carrier.

When it comes to broadband, it's even worse. There is one actual broadband provider in my town - the cable company. There's a kinda broadband operator, the phone company with DSL, but its reach is limited to no more than a mile or two from a main switch, and the quality is spotty. Depending on traffic, it can be really fast or really slow. Then there's a WiMax provider, which can only provide almost-broadband-like speeds a fair portion of the day in areas where there's dense cell tower coverage. Of course there is satellite, but due to latency and performance issues, this is fake broaddband. NONE of these rival speeds in places like Europe, South Korea, etc. Since neither cable nor DSL reach my house, and satellite did not work out, I have a single option, which barely reaches me - WiMax. Which is what? Wireless. The very kind of carrier Google and Verizon want to exempt from neutrality.

There used to be an abusive DSL provider in my daughter's town, and a good one. The good one left the market.

It's not as though customers can switch from the "regulated traffic" provider to the "neutral provider" any old time they want. Actual choice is not a reality.

Thanks, guys.

[MSaxe]

05:51 PM on 08/17/2010

If stupid came in a bottle, then the tea baggers would ______________________. (fill in the blank)

[jf1936]

05:16 PM on 08/17/2010

I grow so tired of this debate. This is so simple.

The internet has never been regulated. It's never been controlled. Look at the amazing progress that has occurred with no interference whatsoever from the government.

UPS, Fed Ex and the Post Office all offer faster delivery for an extra cost- what is so out of line about this principle? You want to pay to have your packages sent on an airplane instead of through a truck? Whoopee, pay more. Does that mean the person that can only afford to send it on a truck is somehow getting screwed?

The companies create faster services to cater to the large companies that can afford to pay them more money to send the information faster- what is the big deal? If verizon or comcast or whomever starts controlling content and blocking websites, they will be publicly scourged and there will be a giant backlash against them followed by millions of subscribers going to a competing carrier that does not engage in this practice.

That's how you keep companies in check- you leave a competitor chomping at the bit to capitalize on their misstep.

Or we could be idiots and give the government the power to control the internet- then what do we do when the next george bush or dick cheney buys the presidency??

[dartagnan]

05:30 PM on 08/17/2010

"UPS, Fed Ex and the Post Office all offer faster delivery for an extra cost- what is so out of line about this principle?"

Nothing -- but that's not the issue here.

"That's how you keep companies in check- you leave a competitor chomping at the bit to capitalize on their misstep."

Where are all these competitors you talk about?

[jf1936]

08:26 PM on 08/17/2010

explain to me how Fed Ex delivering packages faster for a higher price is different than Verizon delivering electronic information faster for a higher cost.

Broadband internet is heavily regulated as far as who may provide it, which is what is stifling competition. There are a handful of providers you can go with though- AT&T, Verizon, Charter, Comcast, directv has an internet service, and then there are plenty of lesser known local providers. But like I said, were the monopoly-protecting regulations removed there would be a huge number of competitors.

But I revert back to my first question, you simply brushed it off saying "that's not the issue here" - please explain the difference

[noeffect]

05:43 PM on 08/17/2010

If you want FedEx, you go to their store. If you want UPS, you go to their store. IF you want the post office, you go there.

If you want to go to the internet that shows you little, cheap, home-made sites just as fast as big, commercial well-funded sites, where do you go, once net neutrality is history?

There's only one internet. No one is competing with it.

And yes, it IS regulated with a stop-gap regulation RIGHT NOW, keeping the well-funded from pushing the hobbyist off the stage.

[jf1936]

08:29 PM on 08/17/2010

there is not one internet PROVIDER is the point. That's like saying there's no competition among airlines because there's only one sky. No one owns the sky- they own the planes that fly you through it.

the vast majority of Fed Ex customers do not go to a fed ex store- fed ex picks up their packages. As does UPS and the postal service.

What is the difference between charging more to speed up delivery of packages and charging more to speed up delivery of information? I don't understand the contradiction here.

[ruolivert]

05:11 PM on 08/17/2010

I think the title of this article is misleading. The tea party aren't against net neutrality theyre against the government enforcing net neutrality. the net neutrality battle is over the FCC recclassifying broadband to give them more regulatory control over the companies that provide broadband internet service.

[dartagnan]

05:27 PM on 08/17/2010

"The tea party aren't against net neutrality theyre against the government enforcing net neutrality."

Fine. So how do they think net neutrality is going to be maintained? Do they think it will just happen naturally through the magic of the free market? If so, they need to familiarize themselves with the particulars of the Google-Verizon deal.

Or do they just not care? If so, they need to stop pretending they support net neutrality.

[noeffect]

06:13 PM on 08/17/2010

They're nor against civil rights, either. They're just against the government enforcing them.

[OldPirate]

04:58 PM on 08/17/2010

Why aren't the baggers all up in arms over the internet "kill switch"?

Isn't that the issue they should have their panties in a bunch over?

[zelduh]

07:15 PM on 08/17/2010

Yes. They do not understand what is at stake.

[moutonnoir]

07:18 PM on 08/17/2010

They dont care either - their agenda is mostly just grandstanding with ultra right wing nonsense.

[eilish]

04:44 PM on 08/17/2010

All you have to do to advance your cause is something with big words and phrases that sound positive and the baggers fall for it.

[RSU]

04:50 PM on 08/17/2010

For others, all you have to do is mention the word "baggers" to get them to fall all over it.

[eilish]

04:52 PM on 08/17/2010

I live in AZ in a small town and know personally and speak to those who call themselves tea baggers nearly every day. The ignorance is sad, the rigidity and inability to listen to or recognize opposing arguments is astounding no matter how much documentation and fact is presented.

[lumpy gravy]

04:42 PM on 08/17/2010

teabaggers are only for or against whatever their corporate overlords tell them they are for or against.

[JNarragansett]

04:59 PM on 08/17/2010

Is that what your progressive website told you?

[dartagnan]

05:16 PM on 08/17/2010

It's what my powers of observation told me.

[RSU]

04:38 PM on 08/17/2010

Both advocates and proponents of Network Neutrality have valid points, and yet, neither one should be allowed to regulate the Internet.

The onset of the Internet has changed our world forever. It has brought instant information and technology to anyone who can connect. It is ever changing, ever growing, and ever evolving.

AND THAT MUST NOT STOP


The bottom line here is that the Internet is far too important to everyone and it should not be regulated by any government or private enterprise based on content.

Any attempt to regulate the Internet, to control data, or to allow or disallow content can only serve to slow development, impede evolution, and stifle growth.

This is the time to keep the government in check, to keep it from keeping the Internet from the people.

Likewise, businesses who seek to regulate, control, or impede traffic, should also fall to competitors who do not impose those same limitations on its customers.

On this issue, I stand firmly against both the government who would only ruin a good thing as it does with all things, and against any group who seeks to control the content I seek to keep myself informed, up to date, and enlightened.

If there were ever an issue where we all should have common ground, this is it.

The Internet does not any belong to business, nor does it belong to any government.

It belongs to the people of the world and we all should unite to protect it.

[noeffect]

04:41 PM on 08/17/2010

Net Neutrality is the government saying this: "The internet exists for the public benefit and may not be commercially manipulated or structured to disadvantage anyone."

You have a problem with that?

[RSU]

04:48 PM on 08/17/2010

Of course not, however net neutrality government style, is the heavy hand of bureaucratic control, approval, and denial. It always is, it always will be, and it should not be in the position of saying what can and can't be done with the Internet.

Likewise to businesses who seek to impose its own controls for profit. The open internet should be just that . . . open. I can see paying my way for access, but that same business should not be in the business of controlling what I see on the Internet.

[jbouti]

12:28 AM on 08/18/2010

Wow !! Well said.RSU This is something feel strongly about. You hit the nail on the head.

NE "show me the bill" use your brain and think about it. Some people can actually think of what may come without congress telling them first.

"The people" can only act through government".@ dart read what you wrote here.Have you ever heard of private enterprise and non-profit organizations? "The people" can do quite a bit without doing it "through the government." BTW when they "act" nothing remains free.

[warren stickney]

04:38 PM on 08/17/2010

Of course they are! This bunch doesnt understand what the tea party was about in the first place. Since many of them only get info from FOX they have no knowledge of the issue excepting Glenn Beck saying its bad and shedding a fake tear!

[Chernynkaya]

04:23 PM on 08/17/2010

These corporate shills are too ignorant to even realize who and what they are shilling for.

They don't even understand what makes a "free market" and haven't a clue about "free speech." They are a human echo chamber for RW media. What saps!

They talk about the glories of the "free market," but they assume it means a market in which everyone has a fairly equal chance to compete; where the prices of goods are determined by supply and demand. What the Reps really mean by free market means is an unregulated, privatized market.

That would lead to essential goods and services, like defense, law and order, education and medical care be provided by private enterprise. Monopolies would be common due to the lack of regulation, and drive small companies out, while preventing or discouraging new competitors from entering the market. The MONOPOLY WOULD SET ARTIFICIALLY HIGH PRICES AND RESTRICT OUTPUT TO RAISE PRICES. Consumers would be exploited through high prices, poor quality goods and poor levels of service and supply.

Nothing could be done about this due to the limitless, unregulated nature of a Free Market; any attempt at preventing this would often be in vane as the monopoly can be so powerful it can manipulate the government as well as the market. In short, America would be Walmart, only much more expensive.

[noeffect]

04:38 PM on 08/17/2010

A completely unregulated market and total commercial liberty has only one possible ultimate conclusion.

Through consolidation, there would eventually be a single corporation that owned and ran everything. And the government would be its lapdog. Everyone would work for the corporation or not work, all wages, prices and product choices would be dictated by the almighty corporation, and all law would be written and enforced to benefit the corporation, by the corporation. The corporation would own the schools, the roads, the military, the air, water, land, and everything under the land. The CEO, corporate directors, members of the board and vice presidents would essentially be gods. We're just about 2/3rds of the way there, now.

If the baggers have their way, this process of government of the people by the corporation and for the corporation will only be completed that much faster.

Too bad they don't realize it. Otherwise, they'd be on our side.

[JNarragansett]

05:02 PM on 08/17/2010

Name me one company that was able to obtain a monopoly without the use of government force. If you're talking about using government force to control economic matters, it isn't a free market.

I suggest picking up some F.A. Hayek. You can learn that emergent order is different from central planning, and you may learn that using government force is the action of a directed economy rather than a free one.

[uthandabantu]

08:33 PM on 08/17/2010

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

/s/

"There'll be one corporation selling one little box it'll do what you want and tell you what you want and cost whatever you got" - Greg Brown

[ghunt]

04:22 PM on 08/17/2010

Hey, it's that white privilege movement again.

[moutonnoir]

07:26 PM on 08/17/2010

I prefer to think of them as 'white entitlement free loaders'

[leyvadaniel]

04:13 PM on 08/17/2010

I am seriously convinced that the t-baggers are actually ploting to destroy America. I believe that there are serious domestic terrorists behind this "group". I am hoping that REAL Americans see the danger that these people pose to life, liberty and the persue of happiness.

[gramma61]

04:32 PM on 08/17/2010

They can't see far enough ahead to recognize the long term ramifications of things.

[zelduh]

04:32 PM on 08/17/2010

It is not the the t-baggers, but the people who program them, who are rotten. The the t-baggers are simply their tools, and the the t-baggers will be thrown to the curb when no longer needed.

[dartagnan]

05:23 PM on 08/17/2010

Bingo. Like sheep to the slaughter.

[ghunt]

04:10 PM on 08/17/2010

Why does this not surprise me. Teapartiers seem to consistently emerge on the wrong side of any issue.

[Derek Elliot]

08:08 AM on 08/25/2010

Not really. They realize that when the Feds get their hands on anything, stagnation is near. For example, the multiculturalists in Washington will assure that women and minorities are given special considerations on the web - look for affirmative action programs, quotas and set-asides on the internet should net neutrality become law of the land. Teapartiers main objective is to restore constitutional law. What is wrong with that?