Posted on 02/11/2016 7:29:32 AM PST by Trumpinator
Fast Facts for Conservatives on Net Neutrality
Since its birth, the Internet has existed on phone lines which were covered under what are known as "common carrier" regulations, (or "Net Neutrality"), which prevented discrimination by network providers based on content or where a call originated. This principle carried over to the Internet and helped make it a dynamic engine for free expression and economic growth.
In recent months, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lifted "net neutrality" regulations off of the Internet, leaving the issue up to Congress to decide. It is currently being debated as part of pending telecommunications legislation.
"Net neutrality" policies helped create the most free and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace. This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to top.
Unless Congress acts, it will change drastically - for the worse. The new regulations will leave consumers with less choice and our economy with less innovation and competition. Without equality of access, such innovation would be diminished at best, or perhaps even begin to move to competing countries in the world economy.
The new FCC regulations set the cable and phone companies up to become the equivalent of the mafia to the Internet. Today, consumers dictate the evolution of the Internet. Under the new regulations, cable and phone companies will be making the decisions. And their decisions will not be made based on quality, but rather on who pays the most "protection money" to be protected from the competition of a truly free marketplace.
The Internet currently provides a megaphone for political expression by virtue of the fact that every site, no matter how obscure, is just as accessible to every individual as any site with a multi-million dollar budget. Every American has the opportunity to create their own site and say what they want to the entire world.
Conservatives had made many gains in recent years thanks to the power of the Internet. In terms of organization, it has become an indispensable tool. In political communications, it allows us to finally bypass the liberal media and to get our message out more effectively. These gains must be preserved!
Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from now allowing consumers to have access to speech that they don't support. What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, this could happen - and it would be legal!
Allowing Internet service providers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. But such things have already begun to happen. For Example: In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival web-based phone service (like Vonage, Skype, etc.). In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com [1] - and advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send email plan.
In a time when there is an increasing need to connect citizens with their political system, the Internet has begun to play this role in a big way. Now Congress is on the verge of allowing that newfound energy to be diminished.
Given that most Americans have just one (or at most, two) companies through which they can get broadband access, the free market principle of competition for consumer dollars doesn't enter the picture, just like the old "Ma-Bell" monopoly. Much like the trade-off involved in allowing a telephone monopoly was that the company had to provide equality of service, so too should it be with the Internet duopoly.
Consumers that are already paying monthly fees for broadband access will soon find out they don't actually have what they thought they were paying for. Americans won't have broadband access to the entire Internet, just the part that the cable and phone companies allow them to see.
Politicians that are sitting idle and empowering cable and phone monopolies to have power over what consumers can see on the Internet are some of the same politicians that would criticize countries such as China for not allowing its citizens to be exposed to the free market of ideas represented on the web.
Congress has wisely decided many times in the past to avoid stunting the growth of the Internet via new taxation. They should follow the same logic in this case and not allow the cable and phone companies to stunt its growth with new fees and content based discrimination. In the end, the losers will be consumers, businesses and those who use the Internet for political expression.
© 2015 - Christian Coalition of America - Roberta Combs, President - PO Box 37030 Washington, DC 20013 - 202-479-6900
The Coalition is a political organization, made up of pro-family Americans who care deeply about ensuring that government serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten, our families and our values. To that end, we work continuously to identify, educate and mobilize Christians for effective political action.
I thought treating ISPs as common carriers was already the regulation.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394682/posts
Net Neutrality scares me more than many other important issues. And I don’t trust the RINO’s in congress to protect the freedom of speech and usage of of the internet. They are not worthy of our trust because most are irritated that we upstart sheeple figured them out BECAUSE of the internet!
Never has is been more true --- the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Omugabe wants to shut the opposition up. No exchange of information for the stupid Constitutionalists.
I just found this.
I can spit nails!
No further comment...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3395604/posts
Feb 11, 2016: Economic Libertarians Will Have a Friend in Ted Cruz
Jan 22, 2016 - FR Thread - Breitbart: Ted Cruz on Net Neutrality: ‘Obama Is Salivating to Regulate the Internet’
Sept 30, 2015: What No One Seems to Know About Ted Cruz’s Past
Nov 10, 2014: Cruz: ‘Net Neutrality Is Obamacare For The Internet’
May 14, 2014: Ted Cruz bill would ban ‘FCC’s latest adventure in net neutrality’
Jan 13, 2004: FTC Policy Planning Director Ted Cruz Appointed Solicitor General of Texas
“....Mr. Cruz has led the Office of Policy Planning since June of 2001. The Office assists the Commission in developing and implementing long-range policy and legal objectives, advises on cases raising novel or complex legal issues, and directs the FTC’s Competition Advocacy program. In addition, Mr. Cruz has chaired the FTC’s State Action Task Force, Noerr-Pennington Task Force, and Internet Task Force. He argued successfully for the agency in In re Buspirone, 185 F.Supp.2d 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), a major Noerr precedent that cleared the way for continued antitrust scrutiny of anticompetitive conduct that could frustrate the sale of generic pharmaceuticals to consumers. And, he organized a ground-breaking three-day public workshop at the FTC examining possible anticompetitive efforts to restrict competition on the Internet.
Prior to his tenure at the FTC, Mr. Cruz served as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, as Domestic Policy Advisor to President Bush on the Bush-Cheney campaign, and as a law clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court....”
July 17, 2002: FTC to Host Public Workshop to Explore Possible Anticompetitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on the Internet
On October 8-10, 2002, the Federal Trade Commission will host a three-day public workshop to explore how certain state regulations and private business practices may be having significantly anticompetitive effects on e-commerce. Some private estimates suggest that the potential costs to consumers of these anticompetitive restrictions “may exceed $15 billion annually.”......
“”Similarly, some private companies have engaged in conduct that may raise antitrust issues,” the Notice continues. For instance, some dealers do not list prices for certain items they sell online; others refrain from selling certain items in their product line over the Internet at all, and urge competitors to follow suit. Again, some or all of these restrictions could be justified as procompetitive, or they could prove anticompetitive upon closer examination.
“Robust competition is vital to our economy, and reducing the barriers to e-commerce dramatically could increase competition and benefit consumers,” said FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris. “E-commerce has tremendous potential, especially if anticompetitive barriers to dynamic new forms of Internet competition can be understood and eliminated,” added FTC’s Director of Policy Planning Ted Cruz.
1 posted on 2/11/2016, 2:52:53 AM by Cincinatus’ Wife
Per the Christian Coalition facts: Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from now allowing consumers to have access to speech that they don't support. What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, this could happen - and it would be legal!
I understand but was merely pointing out that I don’t trust the RINO’s in congress to come up with legislation that will truly protect speech (especially conservative speech).
It is not involved in speech - Net Neutrality would prevent favoritism (faster access speeds, etc) being assigned - easily checked so it would prevent silencing of web voices. All voices will have equal bandwidth access/opportunity.
Taxing the internet has zero to do with Net Neutrality.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/17/net_neutrality_is_the_next_con
Thanks, there’s a lot of disinformation circulating about net neutrality, and it’s made worse by those who don’t understand the technology issues and infer sinister motives even when they don’t exist, or at least are far down the list.
I posted pro net neutrality points from a Christian group. and on the other hand Rush Limbough is a druggard who admitted he carried water for the Bush’s - was cought gping on sex romps in the Dominican Republic (boys or girls, Rush? or both?) - he probably gets payola for all I know. Sorry, I have 2 college diplomas and 25 years in the private sector. I will keep my own council. I posted pro net neutrality points from a Christian group.
I tried to post from a Christian pro family conservative point of view why Net Neutrality is a good thing. All arguments against Net Neutrality seem to me to distort the truth and are trying to fool conservatives (see Rush Limbough’s anti Net Neutrality argument which I think is bogus and maybe even paid for disinfo).
Thank you for posting your true conservative credentials for all to see.
"I have 2 college diplomas"
No proofreading at your college?
Fat fingers on a tablet while at the airport. Best I can do.
I want the government’s hands off the internet. They will try to use it to control what you can and can’t access and post, regardless of what they now say.
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.