Posted on 03/03/2007 2:16:23 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
Do not forget retaliation against their enemies like Drudge and Free Republic.
I say forget NN laws. I RUN a broadband service, and if the big guys start in blocking x or y or z, then that's just that much more opportunity and advantage for me.
Does any remember that fairness in broadcasting proposition not so long ago, in which a particular media (A.M. radio for instance) had to have an equal portion of opposing views? Can anyone name any democrat sponsored legislation in the last generation which actually benefitted citizens other than the political and legal class? That alone should make one wary over this Net Neutrality boondoggle.
>>I agree with the above and wish to add that you cannot trust these people to act in good Faith. They mean us harm.<<
I picked my position on net neutrality without having any idea how Hillary felt about it and frankly her support (as well the opposition from Freepers I respect) are the reasons I am reexamining.
My father is also a conservative and retired from AT&T and then Bellsouth. He was against neutrality for phone lines 30 years when we used to talk about it- he used two examples.
1. Two people sign up for new phone service. One is in an apartment building and the phone company just has to turn their phone on. The other live our in the country and the phone company has to run a mile of new cable. The phone company in Georgia had to charge them the same even though costs were different.
2. A company signs up for phone service saying they are one type of business but in fact use the line to run a phone sex business or a local connection for a long distance company.
Dad felt the phone company should be able to charge more if they had higher costs - I agreed. Dad felt the phone company should be able to disconnect the phone if the business was immoral or if it competed with AT&T interests- I thought that was asking for abuses. If AT&T had been allowed to kill of any new long distance company we would likely be paying much more today for long distance.
Now the same issue arises on the internet.
I have a cable modem from Comcast - they have been given a government monopoly on cable service in my area. As I understand it, if I go to Youtube, Comcast wants to be able to charge Google money. If I use my cable modem for a service I could have gotten from Comcast (like phone service) Comcast wants to charge me and/or my phone company of choice extra.
Since the individual segments of the internet are privately owned it seems likely to cause all sorts of conflicts of interest and to stifle new uses for the net if each segment charges not based on packets of data being sent but how much money the the user has or what line of business they are in ...
That said, I'm going to keep an open mind - I certainly don't like the idea of being on the same side as liberals and against conservatives and in general I am deeply suspicious of new government regulation.
>>I say forget NN laws. I RUN a broadband service, and if the big guys start in blocking x or y or z, then that's just that much more opportunity and advantage for me.<<
I'm curious...
If Comcast owns the cable in my area and AT&T owns the phone wiring how will you be able to sell me broadband service if they block traffic to and from competitors? Am I missing something?
The Fairness Doctrine was discussed in connection with talk radio for the obvious reason that liberals were not having as much success as liberals. I remember.
Well the INTERNET masses are resisting , and the podunk anti freedom of speech forces are on the march.
The internet freedom to research, assemble and speak gives the lie to such mass manipulations,and it prevents the restoration an otherwise Brave New World system of politics, which BTW liberals in both parties prefer, while the PEOPLE do NOT.
And our greatest sin was to put the John Kerry and Howard Dean campaigns on the slippery slide to the truth, and prevented these two clowns from a machinated chance at the White House. I cry such volumes of crocodilian tears!
The annointed Obamas, Giulianis, Clintons, Deans, Mccains all fear us. They cannot lead the people, so they try to effect a coupe by legislation? They will rue the day.
Bump for Grass Roots resistance and triumph over these POSs. We kicked the Brits out for the same crap in 1776, and these Hos are next.
BUMP.
Kind of like the FAA "funding crisis" where the plan is for the airlines to take over Air Traffic Control and squeeze General Aviation out of the skies. It's identical to what's going on in Europe and Canada, where GA is nearly dead.
Just like "carbon neutral", sounds all warm and fuzzy.
I have to say several years ago when this "net neutrality" came up, my first instincts were that it would allow for more freedom on the internet, turns out it's just the opposite. The government wants to get in to the regulation business with the internet and the content within.
Well, I'm sorry, but that cannot be allowed to happen. This is exactly the same sort of crap the United Nations wants to be involved in.
Microsoft just delivered an ultimatum to Yahoo to sell or face the consequences.
Soon, just MS and Google will run the Net.
Gore may end up being in the catbird seat, after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.