Why is Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh describing Net Neutrality wrong?

this is definitely one of the weirder things that I've heard from Limbaugh and Beck. They keep describing Net Neutrality as some internet version of the fairness doctrine? I've heard it from both of them multiple times and it's not like they don't understand that that's wrong, in fact it's almost counter intuitive.

As a quick description to the people who don't know what Net Neutrality is. We have Net Neutrality right now. It's the thing that prevents your ISP from discriminating connection speeds. So basically right now youtube.com and wikipedia.org are all treated the same when going through your cables and getting to you.

Now a few big name ISP's particularly Comcast(boooo) are lobbying, and putting a lot of money into getting rid of Net Neutrality so that they can sell Internet like TV. What they want to do is sell you internet so you can get the "basic package" and get all the big sites like twitter and wikipedia and yahoo of course at normal speeds. But whenever you try to go to some more obscure sites(lower on Alexa) sites the internet will be slow and your ISP will be able to decide if you can even get on some of these sites. For example if you have comcast maybe Comcast will decide that the AT&T site will move veeeeeeerrrrry slooooooowly. To the point that it's unusable.

So obviously you can see that the internet is fine the way it is, this is just a power play by the big companies to try to get more money out of you. So if you want to get on the smaller sites like maybe your own small business website you'll have to pay for the "Premium Package"

Now, I bring this up because I heard Glenn Beck saying the other day that Net Neutrality was going to work like the Fairness Doctrine, he gave the example of if you went to his website glennbeck.com or whatever a pop up to mediamatters.org would come up. That's not true at all. As I described above it's not Neutrality in the philosophical sense it's neutrality in an electronic sense. In fact it could be bad for Glenn Beck since Comcast has removed it's advertising from the Glenn Beck show they might decide that they want glennbeck.com to move veeeeery sloooowly.

It's impossible for this to not have been explained to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, at least 1 person has emailed them to tell them that they're explaining it wrong and misleading their viewers. I thought it was simple ignorance the first time I heard it, but the people who work on the Glenn Beck Program are smart enough to know what they are doing. So why are they deliberately misleading the people who put trust in them?

Update:

You didn't read what I said Primo.

Update 2:

@Blood N Iron I promise you all that was written above was written by me and I did hear it on the Glenn Beck program, just google what Glenn has said about Net Neutrality and you will see I'm right. I'm willing to believe that it might just be ignorance, Net Neutrality can be kind of confusing if you haven't done a lot of research about it.

15 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Because they're stupid and will say anything to get their gullible and stupid audience to support their sponsors.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Glenn Beck Net Neutrality

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    While you may be correct in how you are describing the "net neutrality" act, the fact remains that the government really has no business being involved with it.

    It's the old foot in the door argument. If you allow even one infringement on the system that allows citizens to speak freely then it is far easier to get the next one. And the next one. And so on.

    While what you are saying is possibly (even probably) correct and not the current goal, the basic premise of the foot in the door remains sound.

    Besides, it is the other provisions within the bill that are controversial. For instance it would allow the president to seize control of the internet during times of national emergency - beats me how they could accomplish that but there it is. And of course that "emergency" is defined by the president. Can you say despotism?

    Think of it this way, would you like to have allowed Bush the authority to stick his nose into the internet? In any fashion? I suspect that the answer to that is not only "no" but "hades no" to a great many people. And they would be correct.

    The possibilities for abuse from this act are simply too large to ignore and will affect to many law abiding citizens and should not be in the hand of ANY politician from any party.

    So are they using hyperbole to drum up opposition. Sure. Are they incorrect in how they are claiming the bill as written could have an affect? Possibly, at least in the short term. But they are commentators - not newsmen. And just like politicians, they are under no obligation to report the entire truth. In fact, just like the rest of the main stream media - who do claim to be newsmen - they tell the truth from their perspective. These two are simply painting a picture of what the future could look like if this bill passes. And unfortunately it isn't a pretty one.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    not sure but I don't think you get it. the concerns are that internet providers may be able to block Internet applications and content. there are THREE Net Neutrality Laws you are only looking at one of them.

    Please read;

    Passage of Net Neutrality Laws Establish First Internet Rules

    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/47882...

    #2 is that nobody can block “lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices,” on broadband Internet.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    They are doing it on principle.

    They believe any and all regulations on industry are wrong

    even the ones designed to PREVENT censorship and corporate favoritism.

    But this argument doesn't go over well since the average conservative doesn't want his internet censored by ANYONE, not just the government. (Rightfully so.)

    Therefore the talking heads have to misrepresent it as government censorship

    when in fact it grants the state no such ability.

    If they didn't misrepresent it, conservatives might go against the corporations who are the ones actually regulating the internet. And the powers that be don't want that.

    • ?5 years agoReport

      Sounds more like you're just another totalitarian Big Government pig who hates the idea of the government not controlling what other people say or do, and hides that fact behind pathetic conspiracy theories about Corporate Boogeymen.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Strega
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Because the people they mislead don't understand when they are being taken for a ride. I for one would like things to stay the way they are without paying more to access certain content or one site over another, and if we need a regulation to keep it that way then so be it.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Glenn and Rush are 100% correct. They don't want big government getting in the way of big corporations that want to regulate the internet.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    So, private internet providers are NOT going to come under government regulations?

    You're assuring us that once the government has a degree of control of the internet, it WILL NOT lead to a growing control? Like it has in EVERY THING else it has "dabbled " in?

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • J C
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    You answered your own question in the last paragraph. Their ability to mislead and even outright lie to their listeners isn't new to anyone. Why should this subject be any different?

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Daniel
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    They are just like politicians they work for the people who pay them and will lie to fool the fools.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Because the lack of Net Neutrality = profits, and they are shills for corporations.

    Edit: If net neutrality caused a monoploy there would be one already.

    Net neutrality is no control.

    What is with the misinformation here?

    • ?5 years agoReport

      The only misinformation is coming from you Big Government shills. No doubt you're also one of those deluded scumbags who thinks Obamacare magically gave free healthcare to everybody, everywhere.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.