Posted on 11/24/2010 5:58:44 AM PST by PJ-Comix
I’m thinkin’ farming regulations, anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws (let the free market sort out competition)...
It just got popular with the recent TSA outrages. It's been around since Bruce Schneier published "Beyond Fear" in 2003. Note that in a strict sense security theater isn't necessarily bad. It achieves the goal of actual security if the false security still thwarts the bad guys. For example, fake surveillance cameras at stores to deter shoplifters. But I think the TSA is a perfect example of security theater that makes things worse, doing nothing but making people mad and wasting resources.
I guess the question is whether or not you are satisfied with the carriers conduct so far, or would you rather have the government "nationalize" the carriers. Hugo Chavez anyone?
THAT'S the problem. Information about their misconduct and collectivist legislative CRIMES is getting out. Cockroaches and criminals prefer the dark.
The same thing we are doing about TSA molestations, OBAMACARE forced down our throats, etc. BAAAAA BAAAAA
Seriously, do you think rules/laws matter to these people? I think we have more than enough evidence to make the case that this isn't the case.
Seroiusly, if the FCC were to adopt a rule which conflicted with federal law, why would anyone think they had to follow it?
Thats right 0 gave up the rights just after he took office right?
Right now, you can hear Obama on Uranus.
Nope, nothing’s happened. It is surprising that he didn’t do it in the name of “better relations” with the rest of the world.
Only until we regain power. Then they're shut down forever.
(I don't think this is a good thing.)
Only until we regain power. Then they're shut down forever.
(I don't think this is a good thing.)
There are a few times when maintaining tight control of a mission-critical national-security-relevant resource is a good idea. Not that the current administration represents our best and brightest managers by a long shot. But it beats hell out of the UN or China or Indonesia or some consortium of Islamist radicals. And don't think that wouldn't happen if we give it up...
The internet was originally developed to provide critical communications necessary to defend America in times of attack, and resist damage if hit. It would be foolhardy in the extreme to deny the very real possibility that the internet may yet play a critical role in saving America from her enemies.
So in other words, you aren’t afraid of any net neutrality boogey man at the FCC? My worry is that once the FCC gets its grubby mitts on the internet there will be much deeper interference and regulation. Also it seems to me the mega-ISPs like Comcast and ATT are not so leftist or Democrat. While Google and Apple are big Obama supporters and benefit from net neutrality because they are or will be (Apple TV) in the video streaming business. Those who profit from sending out high bandwidth video streams like Netflix and Amazon might also be big Obama/Democrat supporters.
I am not that opposed to a Comcast or ATT getting some revenue for allowing video streams pass through their “pipes”
> So in other words, you aren’t afraid of any net neutrality boogey man at the FCC?
Not nearly as much as I am worried about what happens when content control is changed from the original internet concept of "must-carry -- allow all content to pass" to the NON-net-neutrality concept of "carrier may censor by fee any content they don't want to carry". Like FreeRepublic, for instance.
The original concept of neutrality is what allows the internet to function in its mission-critical national defense role, as the communications network that stays up in event of attack on America. It is absolutely essential that the internet function properly if America is attacked. Net neutrality attempts to PRESERVE that critical functionality.
Non-neutrality, as proposed by the carriers, threatens to destroy the internet. Neutrality is the status quo that makes the internet work, for cryin' out loud. What the "net neutrality" regulation does is guarantee the ORIGINAL purpose of the internet -- to carry all traffic equally without censorship.
Contrary to the prevailing opinion here, what the lack of neutrality can do is block you from conservative sites like FreeRepublic. A lot of people have this upside-down, because they are seeing it from the carrier's perspective, rather than America's or the users' perspective.
Do I like that the government has to act in this way? No, I hate government intervention and regulation. But this is one of those rare circumstances where it is justified.
Minor quibble:
> While Google and Apple are big Obama supporters
You should include Microsoft in that list. Microsoft's actually a much bigger supporter of Obama/Democrats than Apple. Look it up.
Non-neutrality, as proposed by the carriers, threatens to destroy the internet>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah but the reason for carriers push for non neutrality is they want to extract a little toll from the high bandwidth pushers of video through their pipes. Free Republic is as low bandwidth as one gets these days and not a factor for the Comcasts of the world
When net neutrality hits, I’ll say, “It’s been nice to have known y’all.”
PING!
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.