Tell Hillary to Keep Her Hands Off the Internet!!

Funny Website ^ | June 7, 2006 | FreedomWorks

[bstein80]

Check out the new website on Hillary's attempt at a federal Internet grab!

http://www.neuters.net/

What is Really Going On Here?

Net Neutrality legislation is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist.

That’s why the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" (H.R. 5417) is opposed by nearly every conservative and free market organization, from FreedomWorks to the Heritage Foundation to the CATO Institute.

As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), and opponent of the bill, declared, "This is a regulator's dream, but an entrepreneur's nightmare."

The idea driving the pro-Net Neutrality camp is that some companies may want to block users from competing web sites or services. Like most socialist notions, the idea of Net Neutrality protections is appealing. After all, most people want unfettered access to Internet sites and services (Although some people may prefer a family friendly ISP—and Net Neutrality mandates may eliminate this kind of choice from the market.)

So what’s the problem? Well, while the idea of Net Neutrality sounds reasonable, it will be far-reaching and disastrous in practice.

First, it is unclear how exactly broadband providers would comply with the vague rules in H.R. 5417. Second, it locks in a single network design, instead of allowing alternative services to develop.

Most importantly, Net Neutrality mandates will be the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent.” Once federal regulators, politicians, and business lobbyists have regulatory leverage over the Internet, the Washington parlor game will ensue. And the Internet will never be the same again. Growth, investment, and innovation will all decline.

There are, or course, some problems today. Existing federal and state laws limit competition among broadband providers—especially in cable broadband. Congress should act to bring in more competing broadband providers. Letting the market give consumers seven or more broadband choices will eliminate concerns about any one provider abusing its market power.

The Internet is growing—over a billion people are online worldwide-- and the people and firms who constitute the ‘Net community should be free to continue to build and innovate. There is no cause for new federal regulations that will neuter the Internet.

Please join us in telling Congress: Don’t Neuter the Internet!

[Wuli]

No sorry, it is not called the Tony Soprano business model, in fact it is the standard business model of the world. If you don't care when your letter gets to its destination, you put a regular stamp on it. If you want premium delivery service, you pay for it. Which method youi choose depends on the content and the priority, to you, of that content. Yes, many (most) forms of business have multi-tiered, multi-layered business plans, providing different standards of service that reflect the priorties that people place on those services.

If content providers want to radically increase the content volume and technological requirements for that content volume, to "deliver" new prodcuts to their content customers, those companies that provide the systems for delivering that content are, legitimately going to require that those highly lucrative content providing companies pay, directly from their wonderful revenue sources to help fund the developments on the backbone that will make their products possible. Its not a tax, but a legitimate business expense; but it will be a tax on the telecoms alone if you and other socialist minded nerds start trying to regulate it.

Google and Ebay have gotten rich off of your land-line fees to the telecoms which have continued to be the major funding source of the backbone and are now the diminishing source of the revenue that has made the backbone possible. They are now very mature and robust companies who can now afford to pay their own way instead of living off of you.