Does Anybody Still Give a #(^&! About Net Neutrality?

PC World ^ | May 5th | Lisa Greim

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who would like very much for all branches of government to abandon their efforts to regulate anything, ever, ripped into FCC Chair Julius Genachowski Thursday for allegedly doing President Obama's bidding on net neutrality.

Issa denied that large corporations dominate the Internet access business and accused the FCC of wanting to "regulate everything so it's good for the consumer"--as if that were somehow a bad thing.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

That is a bad thing. I really don't need to go any further than "EPA" to explain why.

The federal government these days doesn't regulate so that it can be a good and faithful referee of the game.

They regulate so that they can control the moves of both teams on the field, and in the end, it's you and I who get hurt the most.

[Onelifetogive]

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who would like very much for all branches of government to abandon their efforts to regulate anything, ever...

Stopped right here. Why read the writing of someone so stupid?

[Flycatcher]

Sounds like reporterette Lisa Greim wants to be “regulated.”

[org.whodat]

I thought the GOP would use the continuing resolutions to roll back this crap, now I think they are more interested in planning where they will jet off to and play golf on there next vacation. This congress is no different than the last republican congress. Other than they are not building any roads into Hastards property at the moment.

[BitWielder1]

... "regulate everything so it's good for the consumer"--as if that were somehow a bad thing.

It IS a bad thing when they make regs on the PRETENSE of it being "good for the consumer" when it in fact makes the product more difficult to deliver and innovate, thus more expensive.

We have a pretty good system of content neutrality already, try to block something that a customer wants and you'll get a lawsuit.

This is a case of "It works fine, keep the gov't mitts off it!".
Sure it can be improved but that's already happening.
It's called market demand. ISP's are all happy to provide the service if they can get paid for it without the gubmit telling them what to do and how to do it.

[SengirV]

Enjoy not being able to access what you want on the internet. You like Netflix? Too bad, pony up an extra $20 a month to make it somewhat usable, if at all. Verizon/AT&T/Comcast will come up with a similar product that is 10 times worse, and you’ll be forced to use their service instead.

I don’t understand why you folks are soooooo eager to get rammed up the corn hole by the telcos. The system we have today is such that NEITHER are in control of the CONTENT of the internet. Why should that have to change? The only ones pushing to screw with the internet based on content is the telcos. If the telcos would have stopped their desire to ruin the internet as we know it, this would not be an issue.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

————We have a pretty good system of content neutrality already, try to block something that a customer wants and you’ll get a lawsuit.-—————

I think Genachowski(sp?) made it clear he doesn’t think that lawsuits are enough. I’ll have to take a look around and see where I saw that earlier.

I agree with you. Lawsuits are enough.

It keeps the telcos in check, and keeps government off our backs at the same time.

I don’t trust any of these groups. Government, telcos, and even lawyers. But at least this way all the power is separated. And with that view, I know my liberty is safe.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

-—————I don’t understand why you folks are soooooo eager to get rammed up the corn hole by the telcos.-—————

Because I don’t want to be ‘rammed up the corn hole’ by the telcos.

I can sue telcos for bad activities.

How can I sue government for overstepping their bounds?

[SengirV]

This is a case of "It works fine, keep the gov't mitts off it!"/

Sure it can be improved but that's already happening. It's called market demand. ISP's are all happy to provide the service if they can get paid for it without the gubmit telling them what to do and how to do it.

That is where you are wrong. It's the ISPs who want to slow down communications between their customers and the content providers. It's the ISPs who are truing to extort content providers so that the content provider's info is not shunted off to the Siberian path to the end user. It's the ISPs who are looking to lock out services like netflix and hulu so they can sell a crappier home grown version.

You are on the right track, saying that the system today works just fine. But it's the ISPs who are eagerly pushing through legislation to allow them to RUIN the internet as we know it, to fleece their customers to unimaginable levels. Yet most folks here fighting for the telcos have no clue that this is the desired outcome of the telcos/ISPs. People are actively fighting for the telco's right to ruin their internet experience. It's mind bogglingly absurd.

[vpintheak]

Lisa Griem, retard.
If I know anything about the government, it’s waste and criminality. What would happen, is some congress-critter gets a whole bunch of money to force another company in to get a contract, or they stand to make a lot of money if that company gets the contracts.
No one needs to look any father

[ShadowAce]

[VRWCmember]

accused the FCC of wanting to "regulate everything so it's good for the consumer"--as if that were somehow a bad thing.

Yes is IS a BAD thing because government agencies RARELY achieve their beneficial intents with their consumer protection regulations (unless their intent really is as malevolent as the results usually are).

[RightOnTheBorder]

You can always change internet providers as the only means they have to keep customers is to offer a better deal than the next guy. Once the government steps in it is their way or the highway.

When we have accepted govt control over the internet, how long do you think it will be before the telcom lobbyists get the government to change the law so that they can control speeds? How long before the government figures out how to monkey around with speeds to it's advantage? How long before internet speed and connection is used against conservative sites?

In a free market, there is always an economic alternative to poor business practices. With government control, like everything else, you have to beg some politician or bureaucrat for what you want or need.

[TheOldLady]

Free Republic Will Be In Serious Trouble
Without Your Donations

Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

Artificial Intelligence Lazamataz is fading fast.

[OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings]

I don't want the government anywhere near the Internet. The teleco's and free market can handle the Internet just fine without anybody laying down unnecessary rules and regula



Net Neutrality is not the Fairness Doctrine.
Net Neutrality means that all bits are created equal.

[Tublecane]

“Net Neutrality is not the Fairness Doctrine.”

You can say that, but no one really knows what it is yet. If history’s any guide, it could easily turn into a de facto fairness doctrine. Look what happened to superficially neutral donation disclosure requirements. How long did it take for politicians to use the information for punishment and reward? Early next morning, or did they push it off ‘til after a light lunch?

[BitWielder1]

People are actively fighting for the telco's right to ruin their Internet experience. It's mind bogglingly absurd.

That's a blatant misrepresentation. People are fighting for the GOV'T NOT to ruin their internet experience.

Blocking content won't last because it does not make economic sense in the long run.
If a customer is unhappy with their ISP, they can complain, change ISP's or sue.
I'd rather file a denial of service complaint against a company than against a poorly written gov't law.

[BitWielder1]

Net Neutrality means that all bits are created equal.

Net Neutrality means that he gov't can decide that some bits are more equal than others.

[OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings]

No, we do know specifically what it is, because that's what we have right now. Do you like the Internet the way it is? Congratulations! You're a fan of Net Neutrality!

If I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that we would get an actual law codifying that there shall be no tiered internet structure and no favor given to any set of bits over any other set of bits, I'd be a lot happier.

As it is, I'm waiting for the Free Internet For A Strong America Law to specifically do the opposite of what it's called.

Can't wait to have to spend an extra $40 a month just to get what I've got right now. The best part is, the Internet was built with our tax dollars, it operates on infrastructure built with our tax dollars, and we're going to wind up getting taken to the cleaners just to use something that's already ours.

The Europeans have blazing fast Internet without getting screwed. I refuse to believe that we can't do better.