House rejects Net neutrality rules

"Without Net Neutrality, liberal Internet becomes another virtually-exclusive power toy for the extremely wealthy"

We don't have "Net Neutrality", and we do have the liberal Internet you want. So what's the problem?

"it is extremely damaging to individuals, education, and small/medium business--especially those who rely on having decent Internet right now and tomorrow finding that they can't afford to pay higher fees"

Yeah. The broadband providers foresee huge profits by a massive loss of customers.

"Many sites that we frequent and enjoy would very soon easily become out of our grasp"

I can see the marketing slogan now--"Switch to our broadband service, and we'll block your access to hundreds of sites!"

"But the government imprimatur for your ISP to charge an arm and a leg to be able to choose where we want to go is pure insanity--especially economically."

And that's exactly what successful companies are into--economic "insanity".

"the robber barons"

No comment needed here. Your use of the phrase explains much about your understanding of liberty and economics.

Here are a few things for you to consider:

Your Internet services cost money.

Someone owns the equipment for those services.

Companies develop products FOR a customer base.

Johnnie in Hukatoo, Nebraska has broadband Internet access because of the companies "Net Neutrality" is trying to punish for "crimes" that have not been committed.

The reason so many common folk have high speed Internet access to FR a mere 20 years after Algore invented it is because these evil broadband companies are trying to maximize profits.

These companies, and their competitors, are currently planning expensive upgrades and new technologies for even greater bandwidth, but are balking in the face of "Net Neutrality".

"How? They invested that money based on the profits they make under the current neutral model."

Because they envision increasing profits through business models that "Net Neutrality" would make illegal. They also envision expansions in bandwidth and access that will cost money. Under your preferred business model, those increased costs would be passed on to end users like the poor student that some Net Neutrality proponents mistakenly claim to be protecting. What cable companies have actually been proposing is passing those costs on to high bandwidth consumers like Google, who profit heavily from those upgrades.

Net Neutrality exists. In fact, you're benefiting from it right now as we speak. Granted though it is merely tradition and fear of public outcry.

However, it is not guaranteed.

The telcos won't lose customers per se. Just those who want reliable liberal internet. Basically, not guaranteeing Net Neutrality enables the telco to say, "If you don't want restrictions as to what you can access, you need to pay us $XX per month. And then raise the cost enough to ensure a fat profit margin.

All considering that the Internet was a government invention to begin with, and remains regulated primarily at the behest of the United States.

I don't have a problem with companies making a buck. I do have a problem however with them using underhanded and shady tactics to achieve a profit margin. Guaranteeing Net Neutrality with the force of law erases this option, and those who do violate it to face fines.

Those profits came by charging people to access the Internet reliably and then ensuring service. The companies are allowed to adjust their access rates by themselves to a point.

But to charge people and webmasters to access more sites--and then tying service quality with it is simply wrong. Pure and simple. But if Net Neutrality isn't guaranteed by law, any greedy and unscrupulous Joe TelcoExec can hike rates or cut your service.

Doing this results in the modern equivalent of the "robber barons" that polluted the American economy from the Civil War to the Great Depression. Their business practices were a big part of the market hype in the Roaring Twenties--which in turn ultimately led to the Crash of 1929.

The biggest point with Net Neutrality is that your ISP/telco isn't supposed to care what you do on the Internet--just as long as you're using the service legally (paying for it and abiding by the terms of service and applicable federal, state, and local laws).

Just the sheer fact that Telcos are pushing for the green light to control and/or railroad you, their customer, in their own e-fiefdom should make just about any conservative boil over...

How much of this is gray? Seems to me there is an awful lot of internet connectivity NOT in the hands of the 'few major backbone providers,' and I don't know that 'everybody's traffic' goes through them at all. The internet was built to avoid traffic jams at tollbooths, and what will happen is that providers who want to charge sites for speedy upload will suddenly become less likely to provide service to those sites by users, so these providers will also be less attractive to users.

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.