Posted on 06/17/2010 11:04:29 AM PDT by woodb01
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that “net neutrality” is desirable in some form.
“Why doesn’t a private company like Verizon have the right to tell the end user what ports they allow or don’t thru THEIR network?”
Can we say “vertical monopoly”?
Utilities are granted “natural monopolies”, and have therefore been subject to regulation, specifically, they are not allowed to use their monopoly position to exclude competitors at other levels of service. It would be like a local telephone company not letting some long distance companies connect to their lines.
Do you think the cable company that your township signed on with should be allowed to block Freerepublic, and force you to use their favorite news blog (with ads)?
Aside from some recent encroachment, it is the current state. So the question is whether you think the Internet is desirable as it is. Aside from the basic concept, there are questions such as how much role the government should have in keeping it as it is, and whether the government can be trusted not to go further beyond net neutrality.
Leave the Internet alone, there is no problem here.
No, that is not true. ISPs always dictated what went over their pipes. They do not run IPX, nor X.25, etc... they run IP. Also, the vast majority of ISPs were too lazy to filter unnecessary traffic over their pipes. When the Internet exploded and subsequently all of the pitfalls that came with it (worms, spam, viruses, trojans, mp3 lawsuits) then ISPs had to start blocking and filtering.
Verizon ran the cable to my house after I asked for it. They did not come into my house UNTIL I contracted them to do it. I could have stuck with my twisted pair had I wanted to.
They deserve a return on the outlaying of huge amounts of capital.
Guess what, I change my provider then. I go satellite, I go FIOS, I go carrier pigeon if I have to.
Now you're talking even pre-OSI protocols. Even then, they just let the bits flow.
When the Internet exploded and subsequently all of the pitfalls that came with it (worms, spam, viruses, trojans, mp3 lawsuits) then ISPs had to start blocking and filtering.
I should have restricted my comment to what the FCC says -- legal content. Also, blocking the port a trojan uses in the middle of an attack falls under reasonable network management.
But so far if you got a video from Google, Netflix, Hulu or whatever, the ISP treated those sources equally. If you were using PGPfone in the 90s, ISPs didn't single-out that you were using VOIP and slow you down because the creators didn't pay them extra.
Verizon ran the cable to my house after I asked for it. They did not come into my house UNTIL I contracted them to do it.
Verizon already ran it through your neighborhood.
They deserve a return on the outlaying of huge amounts of capital.
Of course they do. In many places that return is a monopoly on providing broadband. In the 90s they got billions in breaks and concessions from the government in order to build out their networks to 40 mbps to the home, a promise they didn't deliver on. Do you deserve a return on the outlaying of the huge amounts of tax dollars?
You act like they're your friends. Remember, in the mid 90s companies like Verizon tried to get Congress to outlaw VOIP. They don't want it on their networks because it competes with their services. Do you think they should be able to cut off VOIP? What other service? Eventually they own most Internet services. By their nature they are common carriers. Do you think they should be able to restrict what you talk about on the phone?
I agree. That applies to the ISPs too.
there is no problem here
The ISPs have stated their desire to create a problem.
You act like the government is your friend which is much scarier.
What you don't seem to understand is that Internet access is not a necessity nor a public utility. It is a luxury where I can choose to purchase it from one vendor or another on the terms of the contract. I've already voted with my wallet by changing from Comcast to Verizon. When Verizon becomes the bad guy with regards to my contract I will sever the relationship and go with some other carrier/technology. That is how the free-market works.
>> Your ISP sees you as its property.
We have choices. I say let the market place figure it out.
I would agree if we had a free-market, non-monopolistic situation currently. But we don't. A large number of people in this country do not have a reasonable broadband alternative to their local last-mile ISP.
>> A large number of people in this country do not have a reasonable broadband alternative to their local last-mile ISP.
Is it a Constitutional right to have broadband, or broadband alternatives?
Don’t get me wrong - it would be great for everyone to have hi-speed internet access, but wouldn’t it be better to have less govt involvement in our lives?
I said common carrier, like the telephones, not a utility. In any case, even water and electricity weren't considered necessities at one point.
When Verizon becomes the bad guy with regards to my contract I will sever the relationship and go with some other carrier/technology.
You may have the option. Not everybody has a realistic option. I have to do work stuff via VPN, so the local satellite carrier is a no-go, and POTS is too slow. I am stuck with Time Warner Cable or AT&T DSL where I live. The last place I lived even DSL wasn't an option (too far from the nearest switch), cable was it.
You also forget that once one of the carriers enacts such restrictions to enhance revenue then all of the big ones will follow. You could switch, but you'd just be switching to the same thing. You are going to end up with an industry policy that destroys the competitiveness of the Internet.
No. Is it constitutional for the federal government to tell an interstate carrier it has to abide by some basic rules concerning interstate commerce? I'd say yes.
Don’t get me wrong - it would be great for everyone to have hi-speed internet access, but wouldn’t it be better to have less govt involvement in our lives?
Economically, high-speed access is a lynchpin for massive economic growth in this country. So, yes, it would be good to have it as widespread as possible. And for that economic growth to occur, the ISPs need to keep their hands off the content, not introduce anti-competitive practices or create a ghetto-net for those who can't afford to pay extra.
As far as the government is concerned, I am not an anarchist. I recognize that some government regulation is necessary in order to prevent some abuses. The key is to use the least-intrusive, least-micromanaging regulation possible (as opposed to, for instance, stating that a frozen pepperoni pizza has to have 20 slices of pepperoni).
The current net neutrality rules considered by the FCC are not micro-managing, and simply state a broad concept of an open Internet that currently exists for the most part.
Thanks for your comments, but I respectfully disagree with the fundamental aspects of your position.
Uniform fairness will never be achieved. I would rather suffer the imbalance of the marketplace than the mediocrity and constraints of govt control and enforcement.
The govt should focus its energy on the responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution.
This isn't about fairness. It's about one industry using its position to milk money out of every other aspect of the Internet without providing any added value, in the process stifling communication and innovation.
As far as the government stepping in, the government's already in this, from the moment it started development of the ARPANET, through incentives and breaks for the carriers to establish services, to local governments giving monopolies to ISPs as incentives to establish local service. A strictly free market solution cannot work where no strict free market exists.
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.