Posted on 05/17/2006 10:31:42 PM PDT by Cacique
Does anyone really think that the people in charge like a free and open internet? They want to control the flow and content of information and the way the internet is structured right now is contrary to their interests and goals.
When congress, the senate and SCOTUS dump the campaign finance reform act I may consider trusting them with my access. Until then, don't fix what ain't broken.
GOVERNMENT-CREATED monopolies (e.g. the local phone and cable wiring-franchise owners) most certainly are a bad thing. Allowing them to leverage their government monopoly into content preference is Russian-style crony "capitalism".
As Congress considers major legislation affecting the nation's telecommunications structure, particular attention must be paid towards maintaining the Internet as a medium accessible to all, so that the free market might continue to determine which goods, services and ideas prosper.
For many years, those few companies whose hardware comprises the "skeleton" of the Internet have had to operate under the concept of Network Neutrality. That is, when selling their services, they had to treat all customers the same… all purchasers of a particular amount of bandwidth paid the same and were given the same level of service.
The result has been a vibrant and competitive marketplace, full of innovation and a definite positive force in our nation's economy. Moreover, unfettered access to the Internet has given rise to an explosion in grassroots activism all across the political spectrum. Every blogger is a potential Patrick Henry, and every grassroots association has the means to disseminate its point of view.
It would be a shame if a handful of major telecoms were free to pick and choose which individuals and associations were the recipients of quality service – and which were left out in the cold. Without even ascribing a political motive to their actions, greed alone will skew the Internet marketplace if companies can deny superior quality of service to those who choose to use the products of competitors.
In the case of grassroots outside groups like GOA, equal access to the hardware, software, and bandwidth that comprise the Internet is essential to a free marketplace of ideas. Indeed, that is what we have had all along, and the result has been every bit as significant as the development of the printing press.
That marketplace has thrived even though we are essentially dealing with a government-supported oligopoly here. As long as government is setting the ground rules, those rules must include forced neutrality in order to ensure that the market will determine which goods and services prosper. It is not enough that the FCC be empowered to set "policies" as such policies would be subject to the whims of future administrations. Rather, the concept of Network Neutrality must be codified as black-letter law.
GOA urges you to insist upon Network Neutrality when revamping the nation's telecommunications infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Larry Pratt
Executive Director,
Gun Owners of America
To give you an analogy. I ran a congressional campaign in my district two years ago. We had little money so we basically papered cars to get our message out. Under NY state law you could not put anything on windshields, so we became craetive and my guys taped our small flier to the side rear view mirror. Come election my candidate got twice as many votes as any previous republican in the district.
Do you know what happened then? The only republican state senator in our borough pushed a law in the state legislature closing any and all loopholes so that now we can't go near a car. You would think a republican would be happy at our industriousness in challenging a democrat. NO NOT AT ALL. The SOB wanted to make sure it wasn't used against him. God forbid someone should challenge an incumbent. God forbid another republican gets elected in Brooklyn and takes the spotlight away from him. That RINO SOB makes sure there are no other republicans elected here one way or the other.
I posted those links to show that there was "another side" not because I thought they made the perfect argument.
Net neutrality can bring a lot of "greedy corporations" type of rhetoric; I just wanted to show that there were reasonable arguments against for and against this legislation.
I tend to favor some form of "net neutrality" but see that such legislation could have its own pitfalls.
bttt
That's what RINO's are best at.
I agree with both of you. When I said there were no such things as monopolies, I meant in the sense that they were bad and should be regulated.
Yes, and a government imposed monopoly, whether public or private is bad. In fact, it is rather interesting, IMO, that people accept government imposed monopolies, but are 'horrified' when people voluntarily and temporarily choose a private one.
The best example of this is Canada, which would throw people in jail if they paid privately for health care, without going through the government system. Luckily, their Supreme Court recently overturned this decision
In our country we have Medicare and SS, government monopolies, and people don't even have the option of not choosing it.
I'm not quite sure why there is this discrepency of public opinion....
btw, this is my favorite article on 'price gouging':
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2004/09/14/12996.html
Sowell nails it. :)
Congress, Telecommunication Companies and ISP’s Seek to Destroy the Internet
I usually don’t discuss politics in public, especially not on my blog. But there’s an insidious campaign going on in Washington right now that I’ve got to bring your attention to.
Congress and Internet service providers like the cable and telephone companies are conspiring to turn the Internet from a free, wide-open smorgasbord of information into a very limited and expensive format that resembles cable TV.
And I’m not talking about some threat that’s far in the future. This is being voted on right now.
At the end of April, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 42 to 12 in favor of a new bill called the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act.
What’s this all about?
The COPE Act would allow ISP’s to give preferential treatment to some customers and for some content allowing them to charge additional fees for the privilege. They’d also be able to block or limit access to websites that refuse to pay or that they don’t particularly like.
So the Internet would become like cable television where networks like CNN, Fox and ESPN pay the cable companies huge fees for access to their customers. Companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, AOL and Comcast will decide which websites you’ll see based on who pays them the highest fees.
An amendment to the bill, the Net Neutrality Amendment, which would have preserved the same equal treatment among Internet users we enjoy now was rejected by the committee 34 to 22. This despite heavy support from companies like Google and Amazon.
If the COPE act passes, smaller websites like yours and mine could be blocked or made to load so slowly that nobody would bother to visit.
That means no more level playing field. It would prevent the opportunity for an individual or small company to create the next eBay.
What upsets me even more about this is the telecommunication industry has launched their own grassroots misinformation campaign attempting to make the Net Neutrality Act look like the villain.
They’re running ads online, in print and even having telemarketers call consumers. The campaigns appear to be run by anti-censorship and consumer watchdog groups with slogan’s like “Don’t let the Government Ruin the Internet”. In reality, the groups are secretly run by companies like AT&T.
The logic they’re presenting is that ‘evil’ companies like Microsoft and Google are wasting all our bandwidth and that cost is going to be passed on to consumers. They suggest that a bill is in Congress to force Google and Microsoft to pay more for Internet usage.
Never mind that the reason sites like Google, MSN and Amazon use a lot of bandwidth is because they’re popular with consumers.
The usual “big business is evil” stuff is funny considering most of these groups are privately organized and backed by AT&T.
This is not some hypothetical threat. There are already examples of what happens when net neutrality disappears.
Some cable companies have played bandwidth games with competing voice over Internet phone (voip) providers so the competition’s quality suffers prompting customers switch to the cable company’s voip offering.
Here’s another example…
In April, AOL blocked all emails referring to a website called www.dearaol.com. That website was hosted by an advocacy group that opposed AOL’s proposed pay-to-send email scheme.
And these are just a couple of examples. There are many similar stories.
This isn’t a problem caused by one particular political party It’s a money grab by members of Congress in both parties.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Bobby Rush, the democratic congressman that is co-sponsor of the Cope Act (and who blocked the Net Neutrality Amendment), received a 1 million dollar grant from AT&T, one of the parties that will benefit the most from the COPE act.
The other co-sponsors are House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) and Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton (R-Texas).
There are bills being introduced to counteract this but they need our support. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) has introduced a bill that would reinforce Net Neutrality. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) is co-sponsoring a bill in the Senate to promote Internet Freedom.
We all need to take action fast to prevent the COPE Act from moving forward and help these new bills become law. I recommend you visit SaveTheInternet.com, sign the petition there and contact your representatives in Congress.
The COPE Act is real. It’s a huge threat to Internet marketers, bloggers, other website owners and anyone using the Internet.
Please take a minute now to visit this site:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Bill Hibbler
E-Commerce Confidential
It doesn't matter anymore. Our democracy is a sham. They are shoving an immigration bill down our throats that will double the population, lower our wages and provide cheap labor for the large corporations, moneyed elites and plutocrats. They will control the internet and feed us what they want us to see. Elections don't man a thing anymore. Polls show that most people of both parties oppose these measures. Yet the elites know what is best for us. They will give it to us and we will like it. In the meantime the sycophants of the GOP will tell us our leaders are saints and can do no wrong. Western Civilisation is finished, destroyed by greed, avarice and apathy.
Yeah, I guess your right. Time to end it all, to give up, to collapse. Maybe a suicide pact, since all is lost, no reason to live, no reason to fight.
Yup, your right.
Wow, this is why I love FR, such positive people here!!
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.