Posted on 10/05/2007 3:11:31 PM PDT by HandsOffTheNet
Excerpt from Alex Epstein's excellent article "Reject the Latest Push for 'Net Neutrality'"
The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet's ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity--or network priority. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be "neutral" with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be "neutral" with its coveted advertising space.The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others--but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.
It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks--in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.
(Excerpt) Read more at digg.com ...
Fail.
Google pays Verizon (or some other provider) for internet access. I pay Verizon for my Internet access. Will Verizon lower our charges if they go to a two, three or four tiered level of service?
The scary thing us conservatives must think of, it’s open season on us right now, they are going after Sean, Rush, the Soldiers, in print and on TV. If we allow Verizon, Sprint, etc the right to regulate the content of the internet, they’ll be attacking us here.
Imagine what happens when Soros buys a stake in a few backbone companies.
I’m fuzzy on the whole net neutrality thing.
On one side it seems like some corporations want to inhibit chunks of the Internet they can control, unless people fork over money, which seems to be like setting up a toll road on a public highway.
On the other side, it seems like if you build a giant network for paid subscribers, and non-paying outsiders want to use your resources for free, like squatters who think they have a right to live on your land.
Now, I’m not saying that these are good analogies, I’m sure they’re not, but it’s very hard to tell who is in the right, and who are just paid spin artists trying to convince us that night is day.
Advice:
If you’re going to front here at FR for the landline telcoms, create a screen name that doesn’t directly implicate yourself in the pr campaign.
Bigger government always has problems, always.
Sometimes it is needed anyway, because the alternative is worse.
So far I haven't seen a serious problem with ISP's (in this country ... nevermind Burma or China) censoring the internet.
I do see serious problems with excess power in Washington, D.C.
So I must take the rather libertarian, capitalist, position on this for now - free markets are usually best, except when proven otherwise. We have no such proof ... only some fear mongering (such as "Soros") ... justifying government intervention into ISP control over the pricing and structuring of their own products.
Welcome to Free Republic.
I disagree with you.
Net neutrality is like phone neutrality. Nobody should be listening to my calls and deciding how much to charge and whether my call gets through based on what I say on the phone.
Totally disagree. I pay my ISP for bandwidth. Want to stifle netowrk services, allow these ISPs to selectively choose what traffic they want to prioritize. I happen to like my vonage phone service. It has worked well for me, 3 years now. Think I’ll get as reliable service if my ISP time warner, who offers voice service, can lower the priority of those vonage voice packets? What’s next, if I wanna listen to Rush via streaming, well that’s just gonna be a little extra. It’s a slippery slope. Just give me my connection, and let me decide what I use that bandwidth for. Trust me, if there was not a profit just as it is, there would be no ISPs. This is akin to telling me because Ford built a road, I can only drive my Chrysler 10 mph on it.
It one thing to get a government granted natural monopoly's to provide Internet service pipe to me...
But it not free market to grant a monopoly's on the part of the Internet where there is no natural monopoly, I.E. The content I can get over the Internet
The Free Market works both ways... If a business is not happy being given a government granted monopoly to be a Internet service provider to me then give the monopoly up and go out in the free market as a Internet Content provider
Bottom Line it a bunch of BS for an ISP to try and control the content I will get over the Internet bandwidth I pay for
Soros? Think the Chi-Coms who already have Google.cn censored for unfavorable political discourse.
There is no phone neutrality now. Some customers are charged more for phone service than others. And it is commonplace to charge for phone service based on usage.
Isn't your phone service better now that the telephone industry was deregulated?
It would be like the power company saying to you. Okay, you pay your bill and buy whatever appliance you want but if you don’t buy the appliance recommended by us, were only going to provide 55 volts instead of 110. After all, they are our transmission lines and the toaster you chose happens to be made by a free loading company that isn’t paying us to provide power to your toaster.
Is that with net neutrality or without net neutrality?
Would be true if you had freedom of ISP. I don’t. Far far from it.
Internet service is a highly regulated monopoly in many if not most cases.
The argument fails on this point.
Without net neutrality, I think, you can’t trust politicians to name something so it doesn’t do the opposite of what it sounds like.
2) His website raped my ears with an incredibly annoying advertisement.
3) Dollars to doughnuts you registered today in order to pitch your website Mr. HandsOfftheInternet. PROTIP: You won't get internet fame by posting stuff from your website on FR.
Well played, sir, well played. XD
>> There is no phone neutrality now. Some customers are charged more for phone service than others. And it is commonplace to charge for phone service based on usage.
Isn’t your phone service better now that the telephone industry was deregulated?<<
Phone charges are not based on the content of speech which is what non-net neutrality would allow.
That's not my reading of the issue. NN is about charging more from those who use more bandwidth and from those who have deeper pockets and are willing to pay more. Net Neutrality would prevent ISP's from charging whatever the market will bear and will instead force a uniform price structure. It's not about charging you based on what you look at. Though you may have to pay more is you do a lot of BitTorrent.
ISP's and other bandwidth providers ought to be able to seek to maximize their profits just like anyone else.
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.