Replies

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.