Net Neutrality Explained

It has been hard to get people to think about or research what Net Neutrality actually is. Also, few have noticed who is in favor of it. This video does a pretty good job of explaining it, except for free speech and government control aspects.

PS: If you haven’t heard of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling on healthcare see: The Canadian Supreme Court’s Ruling on Private Health Care. (2005) Text: Chaoulli v. Quebec.

10 thoughts on “Net Neutrality Explained

  1. Yeah,
    I am a big supporter of Net Neutrality and I know what it is. It is not government control, it is government regulation that protects the consumer. Huge corporations require regulation. The best discussion of both sides is on NPR.

    • No… Joey, you don’t


      what Net Neutrality is. How can you? Today no one other than government officials know, until they publish the new rules.

      If it is a good thing for people, why the secrecy?

      If you think you are getting accurate news from NPR… I recommend you add to your collection of news sources and start comparing. NPR is government funded.(Reference, reference, reference)

      Depending on how one analyzes the funding for NPR they get from 6% to almost two-thirds of their funding from the government or other government funded sources. As you examine more news sources you’ll start to find NPR’s omissions of news items and see the spin they place on what they report.

      That you say it is not government control and then use the word regulate in the same sentence is a rather self-defeating statement…

      • Even with government funding, NPR has the most balanced news available. They offer both sides of an argument. This is why the right has tried to take away their funding because they do not come out on top of most intelligent arguments, such as evolution, or global warming. I think the distinction between regulation and control is reasonable and for both we can enter a linguistic grey area. No one can ever change anyone’s mind anymore, but I will point you towards this particular show.|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=-&__utmk=171740456

        • You seriously need to get additional news sources. NPR is way not balanced. They have a heavy LEFT bias. An excellent example is the firing of Juan Williams and the Vertitas sting. The Examples of bias on the network’s bias are legion…

          Sun Sential,, Columbia Journalism Review, MRC News Busters (lots of examples), FNC – NPR People Admit Bias, CATO, Veritas Video showing NPR exec’s in their own words (this is a series of videos), and I have about 200,000+ more…

        • There is CONSIDERABLE evidence that NPR is highly biased and anything but balanced. The idea you have that they ‘come out’ on top on evolution and global warming is an indication of their and your bias. That those are the reasons for the Right trying to get them defunded is a false statement. If you can prove that is the reason, I’m interested.

          You seemed to have missed the point on regulation and control. Your point was lost because regulation is control. You may have some other meanings that you mentally assign to ‘control’ and ‘regulation’. But the English language definitions are the ones I use. It is not a matter of a linguistic grey area. It’s a matter of clear thought and being able to express meaning. We see FCC Chairman Wheeler spinning words to deceive people about what is coming and refusing to release the text of the rules to avoid clarity and public debate.

          Nor is it true that minds and people’s opinions can no longer be changed. True there are people that have closed minds and no amount of factual data will change their mind. But, that is not everyone.

          I’m not surprised that an avid NPR listener would think that NPR is balanced. What have they to compare it to? NPR listeners are likely to have difficulty changing their mind. Bias becomes cherished belief and cherished beliefs are strong and for many hard to give up. I prefer facts and reality.

          The definition of Net Neutrality given in the Kojo Nnamdi Show is what everyone thinks Net Neutrality is, or at least should be. If that is what it is, it would be great. While that is what is being sold, do the actual rules being proposed provide that? I doubt that because they are keeping the rules secret until AFTER they are adopted and then difficult to change. That strongly suggests they KNOW we won’t like them and that they are not good for the people.

          So, like ACA – Obama-care, which you couldn’t read until they make it law, they were saying we could keep our health plans and doctors. Once we saw the law and could do little about it, we found out we could not keep our healthcare plans or doctors and that it is going to cost a fortune. They lied and hid the truth to get it passed. What makes you think they are not lying now?

          Back to the bias issue and the reason for wanting NPR defunded. The examples of bias at NPR and PBS are legion. Examples and analysis can be found here:
          Columbia Journalism Review,, Bernard Goldberg, Ethics Alarms & Ethics Train Wreck, Forbes – the science, Wall Street Journal, Sun Sentinel, MRC News Busters – large collection of examples and they dig into NPR policies, FNC – NPR people admit they are liberals, A Voice for Men – sexist too, Media Research Center – collection of polls and studies, and I can do thousands more. These are the reasons most conservatives and many Libertarians want NPR defunded.

          Most embarrassing are the Veritas videos. Some sites try to discredit the videos as cherry picked editing. But, the complete unedited videos are available.

          Oh… about that ‘intelligent arguments’ comment… I very seldom see liberals engage in ‘intelligent arguments’. (National Journal)

          • You see, this could go on forever. I can find sites to counter your sites, etc. So, I just suggest everyone listen to the NPR story and decide for themselves who makes the best argument. I was at least happy to see that you did not give Fox News as a trusted news source.

            • It can only go on forever when you can’t challenge my points and ignore them moving to new points. That is not a debate. But, debaters have a name for it: Lateral Arguments. Saul Alinsky recommends it as an effective tactic for winning. But, it is not a tactic for finding the truth or coming to a reasoned conclusion or consensus.

              I addressed your Kojo show point and each of you misstatements. You have made no rebuttals.

              I provided backup for my points and positions, you didn’t. I assume you can’t.

              FNC is a good counterpoint to NPR. Listening to both you get more of the news and diametric views. One also being able to see the bias of both sides. But, if those two were your only sources you would miss a huge amount of news and be poorly informed.

            • I never said I wished to debate you because it is not worth my time, I merely said you were wrong, and you are. The sorry part is that you attempt to delude others and your tactic is intimidation. You started this discussion by writing that no one understands Net Neutrality, but implying that you not only understand it but have the right answers. Net neutrality regulations are necessary and the right thing to do. I will leave you alone to your own debate by what ever rules make you happy.

            • When you can’t backup your opinion you resort to calling names and personally attacking your opposition. You are going right down the list of Saul Alinsky’s debate tactics. You apply the basic tactic of misquoting me, another Alinsky tactic.

              You implied a willingness the debate by answering the comments being exchanged. You possibly may not recognize what debating is. I find many liberals are so out of touch with reality they have trouble with normal conversation and the exchange of ideas. You are providing a good example of being out of touch.

              You ascribe to me a desire to delude. But, I’ve backed up my positions with evidence, which you have yet to address. I’ve also used intellectually honest debate tactics. Saul Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that the point of debate and purpose of his tactics, which you are using right down the list, for radicals was to sway those ignorant of the facts. He was promoting the idea of deluding/tricking people. Since you’re following his set of debate rules, what are we to think of you?

              I never wrote ‘no one CAN understand Net Neutrality’. I wrote that we cannot KNOW or understand what Net Neutrality, as described in the FCC’s 332 pages of proposed rules, because they have not been released to the public. Basic Alinsky, misquote the opponent. Nor did I imply I have the answers. I did show that by looking at other actions of this administration we have good reason to be suspicious of their motives.

              While you say Net Neutrality regulations are a necessary and the right thing to do, you can’t even tell anyone what the rules are. You are arguing for the unknown. You appear to be going on blind faith. This appears to be your unfounded religion.

              You have no idea whether these Net Neutrality rules are necessary. If you did you would have said. Nor do you seem to have any idea why they may be the right thing to do. So, I suppose what the rules actually say doesn’t matter. I believe if you did you would have said so. As it is you seem to be going with what someone told you and you never questioned them on their reasoning. I bet you would make a good cult member.

              Take your ball and go home.

  2. This argument could continue forever. You reference one site, I reference an opposing site. I am at least glad that you did not site Fox News as a reliable news site. I simply suggest the people listen to the NPR show and decide which argument made the most sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *