Posted on 10/19/2009 8:28:10 AM PDT by Shout Bits
Because privileged government-created monopolies are trying to shake them down, and they are quite correctly petitioning the government to protect their property rights.
Dunno how much the government monopolies paid the author to churn out this tripe, but I hope it was a fair price in exchange for the sacrifice of his dignity and reputation.
What, may I ask, is “hyporcacy?” Possibly “hypocrisy”? The dictionary or a thesaurus is our friend.
Nonsense. Most ISPs in Europe and East Asia -- operating under higher taxes and stricter regulation than the US -- do that just fine. Maybe the executives have to get by with just a half-dozen Lexii, but their customers actually get the service they bought and paid for.
Fixed it for you.
I'm paying for internet bits, not bits excluding those which compete with my internet provider's paid services. It shouldn't matter to the cable company's ISP division whether I'm receiving a gigabyte of a television show so I don't have to bother with my cable subscription or getting a gigabyte from Windows for the latest upgrade. The bandwidth costs them the same no matter the source. But they have, and without net neutrality will start doing much more, stomped on competitor's data.
Net neutrality ... same crappy service for all. One of the consequences will be, you will not be able to buy better, faster service, you will use and pay for the same crap for all.
No, you can still have tiered service under net neutrality. The ISP can sell 128kbps & 1GB/month at a different price from 10Mbps & 1 TB/month service. They just can't decide that some packets' sources are either competitive with their paid services so get downgraded/lost or provide a kickback to the ISP to get higher priority.
I consider the lack of net neutrality to be like Microsoft Internet Explorer preventing downloads of a Linux distribution or a copy of Firefox or even looking at Apple websites because they are competitors.
“Hyporcacy”?? Sounds like a serious condition, but I have no idea what it is.
THis was a great article to explain what “net neutrality” really means.
I had mistakenly thought it just meant that service providers had to give other internet information providers equal access to their networks, so Comcast for example couldn’t provide it’s own high-bandwidth movie downloads but block movie downloads from Netflix.
A service provider aught to be allowed to enter into freely agreed-to contracts with their customers. If I want to pay less for my service, and am willing to exchange download bandwidth, I should be able to do so, and if Comcast wants to limit my neighbor to the contractually specified bandwidth so that my downloads aren’t held up, more power to them.
If I don’t like them, I can switch to FIOS, or have a T-1 line run to my house. And if Comcast illegally blocks me when my contract doesn’t allow it, the government can support me by enforcing my contract, not buy increasing regulation and interfering with my right to freely associate with private business in the manner I choose.
The answer to excessive regulation is not MORE regulation, but less.
I see no reason why any ISP would improve their system under net neutrality ... same crappy service, get same money from all customers.
Internet innovation goes out the window ... net neutrality is government run internet, and intentionally rationed.
Internet providers have the right to do with their property (networks, routers, switches etc) what they want. However, full disclosure should be required.
What is the point of Net Neutrality? Seriously, I’ve never heard anyone tell me why. Why bother? Unless, of course, it’s a Trojan horse. Which no doubt it is. But at least the Greeks gave the Trojans a reason to accept the horse. What the heckfire is the rationale for this garbage?
ISPs are talking about charging web sites (more) money in order for their sites to be "fast" to the customer (that's you).
Net Neutrality is pending legislation (I think), or at least the concept, to ensure that ISPs cannot block, or slow down packets from other ISPs, or web sites that have not paid them payola to keep the sites fast.
Net Neutrality will ensure that Comcast will continue to allow dishnetwork.com to be responsive to customers who may be shopping for an alternative to cable TV, for instance.
Fixed it for you.
To prevent politically-favored industries from leveraging their government-granted monopolies in order to impose even greater government-enforced strangleholds on their competitors.
Basically, the situation ISPs would like to create is equivalent to Ford buying a monopoly right-of-way with a few strategically-placed campaign contributions and then imposing higher tolls and lower speed limits on non-Ford vehicles.
You should stick to writing your own opinions, rather than embarrasing yourself by “fixing” other people’s clearly articulated opinions.
That way you wouldn’t look like such a arrogant, self-absorbed jerk. Unless that’s what you are going for, in which case I congratulate you on doing it so well.
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.