Hillary Calls for 'Net Neutrality'(major attempt by the government to regulate the Internet)

Article also contains............................

But a group of 24 conservative organizations has formed the Internet Freedom Coalition (IFC) to oppose the legislation, warning that it would open the door to U.S. government regulation of the Internet, allowing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use this issue to sink its claws into the currently unfettered Internet.

Congress has found a veritable gold mine in taxing telecommunication services. The taxes we pay on phone and cellular services are absurd and are patly used to pay for other people's phone service (wealth redistribution) because they claim they can't afford a phone.

"Equalizing" the ability of all people to be able to have services such as phone and internet is a wealth distribution goal of the leftists and it should stop where it is. I don't want to have to pay for MY telecomm services AND someone elses because they won't get a job that allows them to be able to afford it.

However, the more salient question is this: If someone can afford a computer, why should I have to pay for their Internet service? And, if they can't afford a computer, why should I STILL have to pay for their Internet service?

There is no longer any doubt as to why the Democrat Party wants to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.

They need the troops home to make war on American citizens.

Mike, I'm still puzzling over this one. Generally, I figure more government equals "more bad ideas."

Just for the sake of argument, here's some of what I just found in the blog world:

Read it all. There's much we don't know.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/06/net_neutrality_.html

Net Neutrality is anything but Neutral

After reading Andy Kessler's take on net neutrality in the fresh Weekly Standard, it is painfully clear that the American people are getting the shaft, from both sides.

Hate to break the news, but your "fast" DSL Internet access is no longer considered high speed. In parts of the world, cell phones are faster. Have you wondered why Internet video doesn't fill your computer monitor and look like a DVD, but instead is pixelated dreck in a tiny one or two inch square? Well, Comcast is dragging its heels, too. With better video over the Internet, who would want E!, let alone the Style Network? Because of this Fred and Wilma thinking, the United States is 16th in the world in broadband use (behind Liechtenstein!) with East Timor catching up fast. The French may burn Citroëns, but they get 10 megabits for 10 euros--50 times your "fast" Internet access for half the price. That's just not right.

Betcha didn't know that. But Kessler doesn't think the net neutrality act is the answer. That would be like taking the slow boat to China (no pun intended.)

We'll never get 10 megabits to our homes, let alone the multiples of that speed that are possible and affordable today if these telco Goliaths keep covering up their crown jewels. As Dean Wormer might put it: Fat, drunk (on profits), and stupid is no way to go through life, son. But the answer is not regulations imposing net neutrality. You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved.

Here's an idea: Start screaming like a madman and using four letter words--like K-E-L-O. And fancier words like "eminent domain." I know, I know. This sounds wrong. These are privately owned wires hanging on poles. But so what? The government-mandated owners have been neglecting them for years--we are left with slums in need of redevelopment. Horse-drawn trolleys ruled cities, too, but had to be destroyed to make way for progress. How do we rip the telco's trolley tracks out and enable something modern and real competition?
Forget the argument that telcos need to be guaranteed a return on investment or they won't upgrade our bandwidth. No one guarantees Intel a return before they spend billions in R&D on their next Pentium chip to beat their competitors at AMD. No one guarantees Cisco a return on their investment before they deploy their next router to beat Juniper. In real, competitive markets, the market provides access to capital.
Without even being paid by the hour, I read through the Supreme Court's Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain rulings. Surely there exists some clever Silicon Valley counsel to twist the wording of the precedent. The telcos may want to treat the Internet like a shopping mall that they own, but the premises are looking awfully sketchy. So start with this line: "Economic underdevelopment and stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their removal cognizable as a public purpose."
Sure, property rights are important, but that doesn't mean we can't shake a cattle prod at our stagnant monopolists and say "update or get out of the way." The mantra should be "megabits to phones and gigabits to homes." We'll only get there via competition. Regulations--even regulations that look friendly to the Googles and Yahoos and hostile to the telcos--will just freeze us where we are today.
IN THE LONG RUN, technology doesn't sleep. You can't keep competitive King Kong in chains. But why wait a decade while lobbyists run interference? If Congress does nothing, we will probably end up paying more for a fast network optimized for Internet phone calls and video and shopping. But this may not be the only possible outcome. Maybe the incumbent network providers--the Verizons, Comcasts, AT&Ts--can be made to compete; threatening to seize their stagnating networks via eminent domain is just one creative idea to get them to do this. A truly competitive, non-neutral network could work, but only if we know its real economic value. If telcos or cable charge too much, someone should be in a position to steal the customer. Maybe then we'd see useful services and a better Internet. Sounds like capitalism.
What new things? It's not just more bandwidth and better Internet video--how about no more phone numbers, just a name and the service finds you? How about subscribing to a channel and being able to watch it when and where you want, on your TV, iPod, or laptop? How about a baby monitor you can view through your cell phone? Something worth paying for. And that's just the easy stuff.
We don't even know what new things are possible. Bandwidth is like putty in the hands of entrepreneurs--new regulations are cement. We don't want a town square or a dilapidated mall--we want a vibrant metropolis. Net neutrality is already the boring old status quo. But don't give in to the cable/telco status quo either. Far better to have competition, as long as it's real, than let Congress shape the coming communications chaos and creativity.

Read it all. There's much we don't know.

Posted by Pamela aka "Atlas" on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 12:58 AM in Blog Affairs, Economic Excellence | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Net Neutrality Debate

I admit I’m conflicted on the “net neutrality” debate and having a hard time deciding which side to back. I’m in favor of internet innovation and capitalism, but feel slightly queasy about trusting cable/telco companies not to abuse the power of a “tiered services” internet.

Here are two pretty good summations of the debate:

1) The pro-neutrality argument, at The New Republic: The Bush administration prepares to wreck the Internet. (Yes, inflammatory headline, but well written piece.)

2) The editors of The National Review give the anti-neutrality arguments: Unplug New Regs. (Shouldn’t that headline be “Loony Left Mau Maus the Internet?”) link: 74 comments --for those interested in diving deeper into these murky waters, Jaron Lanier's Digital Maoism is highly recommended.

I think Hillie probably has her own version of what she calls net neutrality, and a reading of the fine print will be essential.

I think Hillie probably has her own version of what she calls net neutrality, and a reading of the fine print will be essential.

Rest assured, anything Hillarrhea!® favors, I view with great suspicion ( Winnie ther Poo, circa 1954 )-- I lean towards the "if it's not broke, don't try to fix it" school of thought.

I believe it's a back door to regulate 'content'
......... FReepers

I'm not exactly sure about this still reading on it. I am almost always against gov't control of anything. Hillary's support of anything makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up in warning, especially when she says shes here to help and preserve democracy.

Clinton writes: "I want to tell you a little bit about Net neutrality, why I believe it’s so important to our democracy, and what you can do to help.”

Rest assured, anything Hillarrhea!® favors, I view with great suspicion ( Winnie ther Poo, circa 1954 )-- I lean towards the "if it's not broke, don't try to fix it" school of thought.

Yeah, me too :)

And now that I think about it, if it were broke and did need fixing, the last poeple I'd want doing it are pols.

You've been watching this a while, great posting.
I still think it's an end run to control 'content' regulate access, control 'political' sites...ie-freepers

here is more for your records....

All Online Traffic May Not Be Equal
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/20/174610.shtml?s=te

Net Neutrality Compromise Floated
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71188-0.html?tw=wn_index_9

And now that I think about it, if it were broke and did need fixing, the last poeple I'd want doing it are pols.

Besides the truth of my tagline, my Dad taught me many things, and one thing he like to point out ( being an engineer by profession ) was that "the main thing wrong with the State and Federal Capitols was that they were 90% lawyers, and a lawyer's answer to any & every problem was to pass yet another law."

Thank you- links copied & saved.

Besides the truth of my tagline, my Dad taught me many things, and one thing he like to point out ( being an engineer by profession ) was that "the main thing wrong with the State and Federal Capitols was that they were 90% lawyers, and a lawyer's answer to any & every problem was to pass yet another law."

We need more engineers to run for office :)

We need more engineers to run for office :)

Years and years ago, I saw a stat in the Wall Street Journal that has always stuck with me-- that in America, we graduated 10 lawyers for every engineer, and in Japan and Germany, the reverse was true. Not to drag this post far off-topic, but we really need tort reform in America- switching to the British "loser pays" system for lawsuits would be a good start...
( Like that old joke- "What do you call a thousand lawyers drowned in the depths of the sea?" "A good start...")

And just so no-one misunderstands, even honest people need a lawyer at times, and even the guilty are entitled to defense- I'm just saying that we are over-lawed, over-taxed, and over-regulated nearly to death.

I was uninformed and unsure of which side to come down on on this issue.

Hillary! cleared that right up for me...

China is just the place for Hillary and her internet censoring

Hillary continues to think up new ways to try to sink her claws into her most vocal detractors -- those with the freedom to communicate on the internet and talk radio.

She's already got the major media sewn up, but until she can get those talk radio hosts and internet posters under control, she hasn't really locked things down.

I 100% agree.
As I opined to Dusty post #7
..."I believe it's a back door to regulate 'content'
......... FReepers".......

Sites such as FreeRepublic are the ultimate targets.

IIRC, Carter claimed to be a "nucular" engineer.

Don't forget sales taxes on e-commerce!