What is Glenn Becks problem with net neutrality?
Does he just see Liberal conspiracies everywhere?
Net neutrality isn't about gov censorship. It IS about forbidding content based charging and NOT letting isp's control what websites you can and can't access. Like in Germany when T-Mobile decided to ban Skype because it was cutting into their long distance call profits.
The gov has to stick their nose into it so corporate America doesn't rape you on internet charges which is their current plan for the future.
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
He personally probably doesn't actually have a problem with it, he isn't a stupid man, it's just his shtick to profit off the lack of intelligence in others.
His problem with it is that he knows his loyal fan base won't research what it actually is and will allow themselves to be duped into thinking it's this horrible evil liberal conspiracy to control the internet.
edit: for God's sake look at the answers you've gotten, these people clearly have no idea what it actually is.
- DracoLv 79 years ago
Net Neutrality sounds like most of the Liberal agenda, from the Dream Act, to DADT, the FDA expansion on food products and so on. It ALL starts off innocently and with the sole intention according to them, the "benefit of the public". That's simply not the intentions. Socialism can't rear it's ugly head too conspicuously, for fear of being exposed. So, the "trick" is to get their "foot in the door", get some Law passed. Then, it's only a matter of business as usual for the Liberals, Obama and his minion Democrats, to ADD addendum's, revisions, deletions or expansions until they attain the control they want.
It's NOT just Beck either as the bleeding heart Liberals like to moan. The ultra Liberal Huffington Post and New York Times wrote editorials about the "potential" abuse of this Bill. The end result ? The FCC run by a Czar with the MOST socialistic ideologies since Van Jones, wants to eventually "charge" successful networks ( insert Fox ) a "fee", that will be applied to "less successful" network programs ( insert the failed Air America ) networks so that liberal socialistic ( but VERY boring ) programs can compete in spewing their propaganda.
Answer: Beck opposes the controls such a Bill would give to the wrong people ( Progressive Liberals ) with critical influence by the Government.
- taddeusLv 43 years ago
at the same time as you're astounding in the type you're describing the "internet neutrality" act, the certainty keeps to be that the government extremely has no company being in touch with it. that's the previous foot in the door argument. in case you enable even one infringement on the gadget that enables voters to talk freely then that is plenty much less confusing to get the subsequent one. And the subsequent one. etc. at the same time as what you're saying is in all probability (even in all probability) astounding and not the present objective, the undemanding premise of the foot in the door keeps to be sound. besides, that's the different provisions in the invoice that are debatable. working example it could enable the president to snatch administration of the internet for the duration of cases of national emergency - beats me how they could do so yet there that is. and needless to say that "emergency" is defined with the aid of the president. are you able to declare despotism? think of of it this way, could you prefer to have allowed Bush the authority to stick his nostril into the internet? In any vogue? i think that the respond to that's no longer in common terms "no" yet "hades no" to an incredible a lot of human beings. and that they could be astounding. the possibilities for abuse from this act are only too large to forget approximately approximately and could impact to many regulation abiding voters and should no longer be in the hand of ANY flesh presser from any occasion. So are they using hyperbole to drum up opposition. particular. Are they incorrect in how they're claiming the invoice as written could have an impact? in all probability, a minimum of in the quick term. yet they're commentators - no longer newsmen. And only like politicians, they're under no criminal accountability to report the completed certainty. in certainty, only like something of the main significant circulate media - who do declare to be newsmen - they tell the certainty from their perspective. those 2 are only portray a image of what the destiny could desire to look like if this invoice passes. And regrettably that is no longer a reasonably one.
- MartianLv 79 years ago
This is the very same czar of Obama who praised Hugo Chavez and his brilliant socialist movement, not once but 3 times. And on the one day he said it, Chavez had just closed the last free radio station.
Guess this mans views okay with the liberal crowd.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
who gets to decide what is neutral?
It's not a simple issue. Will it be ok with you when Netflicks degrades the whole internet with streaming video? A tiered system makes sense from a network design point of view.
On the other hand, who gets to rate the importance of various services?
How can it be insured that's neutral?
One problem with net neutrality is that nobody is quite sure what neutral is.Source(s): Here's a fair article discussing both sides of the issue: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutralit...
- Anonymous9 years ago
And just who exactly gets to be the ones who censor the internet? Don't you find that just a little disturbing?
- Joe in texasLv 79 years ago
The internet is working just fine without government control.
Why do they have to stick their nose into everything?
- Anonymous9 years ago
do you like Rush Limbaugh ice cream, it taste like crap, but you get a lot of it
- NuclearsuntanLv 69 years ago
Both political parties have thier nutcases. Right=Beck Left =Maddows/Olbermann
- ?Lv 49 years ago
I guess you are for Government control over everything in society, right?