Posted on 10/26/2009 4:43:01 PM PDT by Right to Arm Bears
The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Despite the lies, this isn't the government controlling the interenet, it's KEEPING THE TELECOMMS FROM DOING JUST THAT. They are trying to be the railroad barrons of the 21st century!
If this act get's past, the internet won't be a a place of equality, where websites that lack corpoarate funding can get out and make it big. NO, we will be living in an OLIGARCHY, where only the big companies can get their sites through and some telecom fat cat gets to pick and chose what websites you can see.
If McCain's bill passes and the corporate commies take over the internet, you can be sure that real news like Freep will be shut down.
Play Champions Online?
Would someone please explain to me what is wrong with it now? And has ANYTHING ever gotten better after the government put its foot in? McCain has confirmed my long suspicion that he is ga-ga. Everything is fine. Don’t mess with it.
This would be quite a sequel to McCain-Feingold!
Closing the last gap in the wall.
Net Neutrality will restrict your freedom. Giving government any say does that. The internet is best left the way it is without govt in our faces again. McCain is right this time.
The title of the article is somewhat misleading...and as with anything involving McCain...one must ALWAYS read the fine print...
McCain’s bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of ‘freedom’.
According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC “shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services.” Isn’t that what the FCC does? Isn’t that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?
Oddly, the bill also contains text stating that any regulations in effect on the day before the Internet Freedom Act is officially enacted are grandfathered in and exempt from the provisions of the Internet Freedom Act. The implication seems to be that if the FCC can formalize net neutrality rules before McCain can get the Internet Freedom Act signed into law, the net neutrality rules would still apply.
The Net needs to remain the way it is, and that’s what the FCC is proposing.
If it weren’t for “net neutrality”, we probably wouldn’t be here enjoying FR as we know it!
The fact that McCain opposed to it should tell us all it’s a good thing.
Net Neutrality ping
I don’t trust anything proposed by Juan McCain
Do you think Mark Lloyd wants to “keep everything the way it is”?
There is no problem with the internet now so why does the FCC need to do anything.
Welcome to Free Republic.
That’s what big government leftists are all about. They tax the living crap out of everything, and subsidize certain things (read: benefit their buddies) to make it nearly impossible for the average “little man” they claim to care about, actually make it. Liars and criminals is what they are.
You're right.
However, the telcos, cable providers, and other ISPs disagree.
The Internet is the way it is because of uncodified, unofficial "net neutrality."
Now, do I trust Obama's FCC? Not really. But do I trust the telcos, cable providers, and other ISPs? Nope.
To keep it that way, Sherman my boy.
Thanks :)
They’re offering to welcome the goverment camel’s nose into the tent.
I had never realized what a great defender of the Second Amendment the guy who pushed through campaign finance reform with John Kerry was. (It was Kerry wasn’t it? LOL)
McCain has shown a proclivity to make a mistake and back a good effort once in a while, but more often than not there’s a back door way to harm Conservatism when John backs something.
...waiting for the other show to drop.
When it does, I hope it’s on his head.
If this act get's past, the internet won't be a a place of equality, where websites that lack corpoarate funding can get out and make it big. NO, we will be living in an OLIGARCHY, where only the big companies can get their sites through and some telecom fat cat gets to pick and chose what websites you can see.
Can someone in a rational manner please explain what this Net Neutrality thing is really all about? Without the two seemingly contradictory statements such as the above? I see this all the time, one side saying that it's a 'good' thing and another side saying it's a 'bad' thing - and then both sides saying, well, that its both good and bad, or bad and good, or good or good, or bad or bad -
Please! Someone explain it properly without all the hyperbole!
Thank You,
-- MM
Call me suspicious, but it seems as if we do nothing, nothing will change.
If we pass the FCC bill, government (currently liberal) gets control, a bad thing.
If we pass the McCain amendment, businesses (that lobby congress) get the control, a bad thing.
If we do nothing, nothing changes, a good thing.
I vote to do nothing. If it ain’t broke..............
I don’t know a lot about the bill. I’m I being naive here?
Sounds like the best plan to me. If businesses move in the direction of screwing up the net, we can always take our business elsewhere... where we can. If not, THEN perhaps it may be time to protect the net through legislative or regulatory action.
Businesses (ISPs, telcos, cable providers) already have control.
Between a corporation and local govt, I’ll choose the latter. At least I can vote the bums out if they get out of line. Try doing that with a BARON.
The government needs a compelling reason to regulate. There is no compelling reason; none whatsoever. Regulations come with unintended, unforeseen consequences. The Internet is not broken, don’t fix it. When corporations actually start doing what you propose, and getting away with it, THEN there will be a compelling reason.
Net neutrality covers a few concepts, but the two big ones I have seen are:
1. Internet service providers should be legally prohibited from blocking certain content to their subscribers.
2. Internet service providers should be legally prohibited to slow or block the connection of subscribers who use a large amount of bandwidth.
Supporters of net neutrality think that the FCC should regulate either or both of these concepts.
Or is the dissent of this regulation coming from those who just say: "Government HANDS OFF the Internet completely"? I would be on that side too ... :)
-- MM
“This would be quite a sequel to McCain-Feingold!
Closing the last gap in the wall.”
AMEN!
Let McCain block Net-Neutrality; it would be the first good thing he’s done in a while. If the libs pass net neutrality, it will be a slippery slope to Fairness Doctrine and other free speech issues. McCain also should move to undo McCain-Feingold.
I don’t either. Snake/Maverick McCain is a traitor to the conservative cause.
Anytime you give control to any govt entity you are basically giving up freedom for bondage of some sort. It is the same with health control which will lead to bondage. Freedom is never free.
Pros of Internet Regulation
A stringent internet regulation can help to curb the innumerable illegal activities over the net. Internet regulation will also help to prevent the large number of financial frauds, phishing, identity thefts, credit card thefts and many other illegal activities, which are possible because of the unregulated and unrestrained Internet activities. Although there exist several laws about child pornography or prosecutions of pedophiles, these issues are still rampant on the Internet. Internet regulation will also mean stringent policies over unjustified defamation.
*****************************************
This is what the “experts” are touting as the “pros” of internet regulation. And here is what I find rather scarey about the whole thing.
WHO decides what is legal or illegal if the government controls the net? Would an anti-government blog be considered illegal activity? Humana had a gag order slapped on it for telling its customers the truth.
What if grassroot political activity was outlawed? Would they stop our ability to organize, coordinate, communicate?
This administration wants every household to have access to the net. WHY?
1984 comes quickly to mind.
WHO decides what is or isn’t “unjustified defamation?” Look around Free Republic. How long do you think this site would last? bam thinks Fox is unjustified defamation.
What about email? Would that be monitored as well? Remember what was said about “angry” or “hurtful” emails and how they would intend to stop it, even in emergencies.
WHO is going to be forced to pay for net access for people who can’t afford it? Who is going to pay for the lines that need run into the hinterlands for one or two people a hundred miles apart? Who is going to be forced to pay for these people to own computers?
What if hate speech laws extended to the net? Religious sites would be forbidden. Anti-islam speech would be forbidden. Anti-homosexual speech would be forbidden and punishable by law. ANY site the government finds disagreeable could be verboten.
NOTING good ever comes from government CONTROL of anything. This is government control of free speech period. Not today, but who knows about tomorrow. remeber, the government didn’t want to control GM and Chrysler either.
WHO would be monitoring all these “activities?”
********************************************
Here are the “cons.”
Cons of Internet Regulation
A complete takeover by the government or even other telecommunication giants can lead to violation of net neutrality and will dampen effectiveness of this medium. It will be against net neutrality principle and will allow certain websites to limit their content to paid customers. Internet regulation will also tend to curb the freedom of expression, which is perhaps one of the most conspicuous factors that are instrumental in the success and popularity of this medium. For years the Internet has been an open source of information. A stringent regulation policy will mean limited access to the extensive source of information.
*********************************************
It seems to me the pros are not much different from the cons.
Personally, I want them to keep their hands off the net period.
Excuse the typos. My mind jumps ahead faster than my fingers can keep up sometimes.
So who do you trust LESS is the question.
Private enterprise, who are interested in staying in business.
Or government, who is interested in YOUR business.
Some words:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=25893
If you check out either, make sure you read the 2nd one.
That guy gets it. Gubermint control is gubermint control. And it always comes with all the bells and whistles of gubermint control.
Remember that your personal wants and desires do not play any role whatsoever in the formulation of the gubermint’s plans, once it usurps any power you willingly hand over to it.
Ordinarily, I trust private enterprise.
Ordinarily.
But there is only one telco here, and there is only one cable provider here...and God help us all if the bigger ISPs that make up large segments of the Internet's backbone start fooling around.
I desperately want to say "none of the above."
Then let's have full-on deregulation of the local telco and cable monopolies.
It really is a solution in search of a problem. When I think about whether government should step into regulation, I think of a single question - “Is there a compelling reason for the government to step in?” If the answer is “no”, then the government should stay out. If the pros and cons of regulation balance out, then the answer is simple - don't regulate. The reason is that there will always be unforeseen consequences, and these unforeseen consequences will always be bad, tipping the scale to the “con” side.
With your explanation, I believe that it puts me firmly into the "HANDS OFF THE INTERNET" column.
Thank You,
-- MM
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.