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

Newsmax ^ | Tuesday, June 20, 2006

[devolve]

I  NEVER  PROMISED  YOU  A  ROSE  GARDEN

LONE STAR LIGHT & MAGICK

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[potlatch]

Devolve, I am running out of superlatives for your posts!!

Love the little 'clicky thing', lol.

[ THANK YOU ]

[defenderSD]

Hillary Rodham Rodham's statement that net neutrality is "so important to our democracy" doesn't make sense to me. The speed at which we receive content from various sources isn't important to democracy, as long as the speed is reasonable from all sources. It's the content itself that matters, and regulation of content could be the hidden agenda of the Senate democRATs: specifically, of course, extending McCain/Feingold regulations to cover all bloggers and websites at some time in the future. I believe the RATs are terrified as they watch their big liberal newspaper allies rapidly turning into just another group of large websites similar to FR, other major blog sites, and conservative magazine websites. The RATs are scared witless of a level playing field in the media that gives conservatives equal access to mass media.

This innocent looking start to web regulation could be ploy to ultimately extend McCain/Feingold restrictions on our 1st amendment rights to the web. This issue has to be watched very closely.

[potlatch]

Hillary wants to stop us from making fun of her carpetbagging

[IrishMike]

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

That's what I said in post #7.
I have no doubt that's the intent.
Your analysis is spot on, this is worth watching very closely.

Ping

[rwa265]

Just got this from my sister, and thought you'd all enjoy it.

Subject: Robot Bartender

A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender.

The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies "150" and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, mimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nanotechnology, and sexual proclivities.

The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool." He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man responds, "about a 100."

Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favorite fast foods, guns, and women's body parts.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "Er, 50, I think."

And the robot says... real slowly,





"So... is... your... party... gonna... nominate... Hillary... for...president ???

[IrishMike]

liked it,
thanks

[NeoCaveman]

Ping of possible interest.

[dixiechick2000]

ROTFLOL!

She never promised us a Rose Garden,
but she did promise to take things from
us for the common good.


"LONE STAR LIGHT & MAGICK"


I like that! ;o)

[firebrand]

There are rival Democrats to the left of Hitlery prowling all over my neighborhood trying to get other commies to sign petitions so they can appear on the ballot in September.

[firebrand]

about football, NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favorite fast foods, guns, and women's body parts

And it was a woman with 100 IQ, hairdos, clothes, weddings, showers, diets, and which politicians are the cutest.

[dixiechick2000]

LOLOL!

[juliej]

I hope they do get on the ballot and run against Her Royal Thighness.

[firebrand]

A friend of mine who is registered Dem but votes Republican has refused to sign any of them. She doesn't get it.

[AuH20Con]

until she can get those talk radio hosts and internet posters under control, she hasn't really locked things down

The Freeper Nation needs to understand that just because Hillary Clinton opposes something, that doesn't necessarily make it good. Or that if she's for something, that doesn't make it bad. Granted, most of the time that is true...

But not this time.

The thing is, a lack of Network Neutrality is exactly what will put the internet posters "under control" - or, wait, you didn't actually convince yourself that freerepublic.com was going to pay the extra money to be in the "fast lane" did you?

Sorry, that lane is reserved for those with cash. Never mind that all those companies already pay a premium to have their servers on T3 lines. Now the telecom and cable companies get to decided who gets through - and, in some cases - who doesn't.

Don't think it will happen? It already has. AOL has a history of blocking emails with links to anti-AOL sites in them. What's the next step? The Post Office starts opening your mail, and just "loses" any that mention UPS or FedEx?

Or maybe the liberals over at Roadrunner will make sure that MSNBC loads in a snap, but FOXNews.com slows to a crawl. Or doesn't load at all. What's often left out of the Net Neutrality debate is the possibility - really, likelihood - that services would not just run slow, but be denied out-of-hand. defenderSD: you say it's all good as long as speed is reasonable from all sources. News flash: it won't be. Time Warner wants you to stay with cable, they don't want you ordering DISH Network for your TV. Do you honestly believe, for a second that if you tried to access the DISH Network site through a T/W ISP that it would load at a reasonable rate? If at all?

There's a big difference between government meddling and the government just saying "hey, play fair."

In Canada there's never been Net Neutrality or anything like it. That's why one of the leading service providsers was able to block all their customers from viewing any sites favorable to the Union of their employees.

But... there's another reason I'm all for Net Neutrality. It's the "it's their wires, they should be able to do what they want with them" myth.

Their wires? Excuse me?

I seem to remember billions of tax dollars - out of your pockets - subsidizing those wires. Billions of dollars that were granted - not loaned. That's never being paid back. You and I paid for the broadband going into rural communities where the telecom giants didn't see a potential profit. You and I.

Now, mind you, I was opposed to the government giving away my money to big corporations. But what's done is done. I expect a return on my investment. You and I paid for - and continue to pay for - those lines.

But instead, it's you and I who are going to get screwed. And it's got nothing to do with squelching free speech or any of that - it's about what it's always about, money.

It's a simple formula:

ISP charges internet Business "A" money to be on "fast lane" pipe. Business "A" incorporates new expense into price of product. Price goes up.

ISP charges Business "B" lower rate and puts Business "B" on "slow lane" pipe. Business "B" keeps prices level.

Naturally, in a free market, you would take your money to Business "B", right? Maybe it even gives an advantage to mom-and-pops?

Only problem is you can't load BusinessB.com on your computer. Which means you have only one choice - BusinessA.com and their higher prices. Free Market? No such thing in this scenario.

So in the end it's not a question of a Free Market - where companies who can pay more get better service. Anyone who's ever worked in retail or wholesale knows - every single expense is passed on to the consumer. At the end of the day, it's you and I who wind up paying for amazon.com's "fast lane" access.

It's not a question of government regulating business - it's a question of one business - your ISP, whoever it may be - regulating all business on "it's" wires. Maybe AT&T wants to start their own bookstore. Suddenly, you can't load amazon.com anymore. Maybe Comcast wants you to only use their search engine. Good luck loading Google, Yahoo, or any other one.

Maybe Roadrunner strikes a deal with Microsoft, who wants you to buy their new portable mp3 player. How convenient is it for them that you can't load the iTunes store anymore?

Of course, in the end, the big ISPs could stop us from even having this debate if they wanted...

I know, most of you think this is some Democrat's cause. But it's for your protection. There's such a knee-jerk reaction against anything that smells like "regulation" - but sometimes, you have to draw a line.

If we truly deregulated the whole thing, that would mean ending government subsidies as well. Let AT&T control "their" wires. And let them pay for "their" wires. Very quickly you'll find that areas with few customers - rural areas, primarily - will lose service. Lines blow down during storms... How many customers do we have in Kalamazoo? Sorry, not worth repairing.

And of course, rural areas tend to be... remember those red/blue maps? Give you one guess which color.

If you're truly for a Free Market, then you've got to be for ending corporate welfare as well, which means New York City and San Francisco get internet service. And the Heartland gets screwed. Hey, it's their wires after all... Probably half of you have internet service because in some way the government - federal, state or local - put some kind of money (yours) into getting it to you. So maybe we have a right to tell AT&T and Comcast to play fair?

We pay for faster internet service at home. Businesses pay for faster service on their end as well, T3 lines and the like, so they can get more service out to more customers. Of course, that cost is passed on to you. It was your money that set up those wires in the first place. Now the "wire-holders" want more of your money - not big businesses' money - your money. Because in the end, the consumer pays for everything. That's Economics 101.

We're getting to the point where all electronic delivery systems - that means internet, cable, and even your phone - will be delivered on the same lines. That means if there are bottlenecks, even your phone calls could be dropped. Sounds ridiculous, but anyone with a cell phone knows it happens already. What, you didn't realize that's why calls drop half the time? it's not just service coverage, it's bottlenecking.

Now imagine that it wasn't a "wait your turn" system - but that big businesses always got to cut to the front of the line. You might be waiting all day to call Aunt Millie.

It all sounds like far-fetched "slippery slope" stuff. But we're halfway down the slope already. And picking up speed.

[defenderSD]

Welcome to FR. That's a good screen name; Barry is still very popular here in Arizona. I didn't quite follow everything you're trying to say in your post, but in general I trust corporate Telcos to deliver information to me more than I trust Hillary Rodham Rodham and her henchmen. I wouldn't want to see her in the White House pushing Telco regulation through congress using any and all tactics to legislate new internet regulation. One thing you'll quickly discover is that HRC and her "husband" are unpopular at FR.

"I seem to remember billions of tax dollars - out of your pockets - subsidizing those wires. Billions of dollars that were granted - not loaned. That's never being paid back. You and I paid for the broadband going into rural communities where the telecom giants didn't see a potential profit. You and I."

Do you have a source for this statement? I don't remember any big subsidies to pay for rural broadband. I remember that many people were pushing for more government funding for broadband which never happened. They kept pointing to European countries and Japan and saying "they have a government program to support broadband so why don't we?" I'm here in the Phoenix suburbs and I've only been able to find one DSL service provider in this area. All the big DSL providers that serve the west coast (Earthlink, Verizon, AT&T Yahoo, etc.) apparently haven't even reached Phoenix yet.

I think there is some shifting of revenues from the big urban areas to pay for service and repairs in places like Kalamazoo, but generally the Telco industry is very cost-efficient and is largely unsubsidized by government (much less than agriculture, for example.)