Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/20/2006 12:07:00 PM PDT by freepatriot32
Remember the Big Bad Wolf? He dressed up as Grandma, hoping to fool Little Red Riding Hood long enough to eat her. Well, that's the same tactic some liberal groups and Democrats are using these days in Washington, D.C., to get government control over the Internet: Dress up a bad idea in familiar and comforting words and hope the American public will be fooled.
This very bad scheme is dressed up in the oh-so-sweet sounding notion of "net neutrality."
Those who coined the "net neutrality" term are hoping the words will make the public, and especially lawmakers, believe it's a good thing. But if passed into law, this e-Trojan horse could inhibit further development of the Internet for years, if not decades to come, putting America at a distinct technological disadvantage with other nations in the world economy.
There is a reason the Internet was once called the Information Superhighway, and a highway is a good analogy here. Think of those times on the freeway when traffic is heavy and best described as stop-and-go. Now, those who are willing to pay more have the option of taking a shorter, less-congested toll road or drive in a high-occupancy lane. For some, the additional cost will be worth it; for others, not. That's what choices are all about.
With the free market, you get lots of choices. With government you get ... well, things like the public school system.
Now let's look at "net neutrality."
Let's say you want to send a birthday card to your nephew, Ronnie. You put a 39-cents stamp on the envelope and drop it off at the post office. And away it goes (you hope).
Now let's say that instead of sending little Ronnie a birthday card, you want to send him a shiny new bicycle. If you support so-called "net neutrality," that means the government should require that the post office deliver Ronnie his shiny new bike for the same price it charges to mail him the birthday card. The post office would have to be "neutral" in what it charges to mail any given item.
The fact is, mailing a bike eats up a lot more resources than mailing a card; just as it eats up a lot more resources to deliver broadcast-quality movies through your Internet cable than it does to send a simple e-mail. What "net neutrality" proponents are basically saying is that they want the government to guarantee that you can send a bike through the mail system for the same cost as a birthday card ... which inevitably will mean the cost of mailing a birthday card will skyrocket.
"Net neutrality" is simply the camel's nose under the tent of government control over the Internet -- a line most conservatives and libertarians have refused to cross for more than a decade. The Internet has flourished thus far precisely because we've kept the government from taxing and regulating it. "Net neutrality" activists are courting multiple dangers by inviting government oversight now. For one thing, technology changes overnight, but government regulations tend to respond with all the speed of ... well, the post office or the DMV.
Passing legislation to regulate the Internet is an idea whose time certainly isn't here and should never come. The Internet is, indeed, the greatest thing since sliced bread (by the way, what was the greatest thing before sliced bread?). And the quickest way to screw that up would be to let the Federal Communications Commission get involved in it.
We need to find a noble Woodsman to take an ax to this Big Bad Government Wolf.
Chuck Muth, a resident of Carson City, is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He can be reached at chuck@citizensoutreach.com.
ping
Sorry, we're the American left, this is our ivory tower and we'll run it any way we want too - including regulating the internet.
Sure you can vote us out if you want too, but the activist courts will just pick up the slack.
Now pay your taxes, there are starving illegals who need the money.
I'd rather see the current Net completely destroyed than ANY goobermint get their dirty socialist, commie, fascist, lib-dem hands on it. We can always start another one.
As much as I despise some of what is on the net, I believe it must be kept free of ALL government control in any form, and that would include the UN and any similar organizations. I believe, pessimist that I am, that someday the only reliable truth will be found on the internet.
That needed to be said again. You got it right!
Look folks, be realistic. The Democrats have had enough of this "freedom" on the internet and talk radio. They used to have a pretty good thing going with the pimp MSM, which constantly pushed DNC views.
Of course the MSM is still the Dem pimp media, but now there are choices. The Dems will never let this continue. They are gonna fight, yell, and scream, about the "fairness doctrine" and how the internet violates McCain-Finegold.
They are gonna come after us, they must shut us down.
In general, utilities like telephone and cable television should be regulated locally.
Network neutrality requirements should be a decision for state and local franchise authorities, not the FCC.
The FCC is a part of the Executive Branch(i.e. George Bush).. and who was head of the FCC at the time?.. Colin Powells son Micheal.. Something stinks in Foggy Bottom.. and should be wiped and flushed..
The internet can't be regulated or controlled. It's impossible. But I'm sure this obvious point will be lost on the idiots in government, who will squander billions of dollars trying anyway.
I don't think it's the democrats per se, it's the federal government as a whole regardless of who the majority party is. Not only our federal goverment, but other goverments all over the world.
Whomever controls the information rules. The internet changed all those rules. It has to be kept open and free from government "regulation".
After Al Gore went to the trouble of inventing it?
Now let's say that instead of sending little Ronnie a birthday card, you want to send him a shiny new bicycle. If you support so-called "net neutrality," that means the government should require that the post office deliver Ronnie his shiny new bike for the same price it charges to mail him the birthday card. The post office would have to be "neutral" in what it charges to mail any given item.
What a BS example! The larger internet has a per-GB price, which your ISP pays; it's just like the current price-per-pound schedule used by the Post Office, UPS and Fedex. It's your ISP that chooses to give you a flat rate, figuring that lot's of small users generate a managable flow.
This is more like the bad old days of the ICC, where shipping a pound of gold would cost more than a pound of lead, based on the price of the product, not the cost of shipping.
I wouldn't mind if it was over separate connections, but what it means in practice is that if your neighbor pays more for high quality on-line porn, it will be taken out of the bandwidth available to you. The phone companies and cable companies will squeeze out the non-premium payers.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
"After Al Gore went to the trouble of inventing it?"
BWAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!
Steal my post will ya?
Hey traviskicks: Neal Boortz said Friday, on his radio broadcast, that Libertians are missing a great opportunity to gain status as a 3rd Party.
He feels that if the Libertarians take this Illegal Alien issue right to the Pubbies and the Dimorats; they could possibly win, or at least be on the track to becoming "THE" established third party in America.
What say ye?
Neal is just trying to offend his listeners most of the time, and get people stirred up enough to call and argue with him.
I don't think he is libertarian, not in the capital "L", or even little "l" sense.
He used to be fun to listen to, what with Belinda and Royal. Now it's just "Fair Tax" over and over. God only knows, we need a new tax system. But Neal has gotten carried away with the Fair Tax and has attributed to it virtues it doesn't have.
Backhoe has documented a bunch of the errors in the first Fair Tax book by Linder and Boortz.
Regardless of where he has "moved" politically, I agree with him. This would be a great time for a Third Party to rise to the occasion.
Many voters are more discontent with both parties now than they were in '80 when John Anderson ran or '92 when Ross Perot ran and '00 and '04 when Nader tried again.
Those who think they can regulate the Internet clearly have no understanding of how it works and runs! The Internet does not need government intervention and regulation, it needs freedom.
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.