Posted on 06/17/2010 11:04:29 AM PDT by woodb01
Also, just about every single free-market economist opposes it. Just about every freedom advocacy group out there opposes it. If you think the government should be able to force every domestic shipping company to charge the same flat rate for every package - regardless of weight or size - that the post office charges for a letter, then you would love the Markey Net Neutrality bill.
thanks for the tip =
hope enough people are smart enough to hang on to their land lines...
I would much rather have a private company that I have recourse to (by using my feet) than the government telling private companies what can and cannot permit on THEIR lines (Yes, they ran THEIR OWN Fiber to my utility pole).
I hated Comcast so I went with Fios. When I start to hate Fios I will go with satellite. When I hate them all I will get a wireless connection, etc... Let the market work!
I have no such recourse with the government bureaucracy.
BINGO! I'm with the free-market folks.
The ISPs have put up astroturf advocacy groups. You might actually be listening to the ISPs themselves, thinking they are just freedom-oriented groups agreeing with the ISPs. Many groups that aren't actual astroturf have also been paid off by the ISPs.
you think the government should be able to force every domestic shipping company to charge the same flat rate for every package - regardless of weight or size - that the post office charges for a letter
What you just described is not net neutrality. The ISP astroturf organizations and the Democrats have been successful in confusing the issue to their own ends.
When we said “Free Speech”, we didn’t mean for you.
Now pay your taxes, we need a raise. :)
But that is what is in the Markey Net Neutrality Bill. That is what the FCC is calling Net Neutrality.
The Heritage Foundation
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
If you want to side with Markey, Frank, and the rest of the Massachussetts democrats and Pelosi and Reid AGAINST Dr. Sowell and Dr. Williams and the Heritage Foundation, be my guest. Maybe you're smarter than all those guys and can understand how they were all duped while the democrats managed to get it right.
The Heritage Foundation
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
If you want to side with Markey, Frank, and the rest of the Massachussetts democrats and Pelosi and Reid AGAINST Dr. Sowell and Dr. Williams and the Heritage Foundation, be my guest. Maybe you're smarter than all those guys and can understand how they were all duped while the democrats managed to get it right.
A lot of people have no recourse. The ISPs have worked out monopoly agreements in many areas. In addition, only a few ISPs have most of the US broadband market (even if you are getting from someone else, it's likely their upstream provider is one of these few). Should they agree to do these things, few people would be left with recourse.
In a free market, the ISPs would be scared of losing customers by violating net neutrality, but right now they don't have to be scared, so they can do pretty much whatever they want. Right now the only people being hit are those using P2P, and most of those are probably illegal, so the ISPs feel comfortable blocking or restricting P2P traffic (they don't like it when customers actually use the bandwidth they contracted and paid for). But the ISPs have stated their desire to do more.
I have no such recourse with the government bureaucracy.
As initially stated by the FCC, and before the Democrats got their hands on the issue, there was no need for more buraucracy. Under the rules, companies had to disclose their practices to customers (this is more a consumer protection move, not actual net neutrality), and not discriminate against the bits flowing across their networks on the basis of origin, content or application. The FCC would handle complaints of net interference, such as maybe Sprint slowing VOIP connections in order to push their own VOIP solution that just happens to be faster because it isn't throttled (thus trying to kill competitors like Vonage and Skype through ownership of the last mile). Reasonable QoS was allowed.
BTW, the first "net neutrality" law was already passed to manage an encoded, bit-based network across this country. It was passed in the 1800s, and said the telegraph couldn't give priority to some civilian messages over others, but had to send them first come, first serve.
This does seem like the dynamic at play here. I have to say however, that I fear the government, not AT&T.
If they piss off enough customers they will go to another provider and the company that was mucking about may change their policy.
Change in the free market comes faster than change in the government.
Exactly! Some providers will see it as a positive marketing strategy to NOT impose restrictions and sell themselves as the ‘neutral’ ISP...and they’ll take a lot of business from the ones who force their customers elsewhere! Not sure why the pro-gov’t takeover folks can’t understand this.
Of course, once the initial astroturfing takes hold, other people and organizations start believing them. Yes, there has been blatant astroturfing. There has been astroturfing from the level of creating new advocacy groups, to simply paying off existing groups to take the ISP stance.
And they are casting a wide net of payoffs, a recent opponent that signed a letter to the FCC was the Japanese American Citizens Leage. Oh, look at their site, "Website made possible by the generous sponsorship of: AT&T". They're trying to make it look like every small organization in the country is against net neutrality.
Maybe you're smarter than all those guys and can understand how they were all duped while the democrats managed to get it right.
I can understand how, as I said in the beginning, Markey's bill is not net neutrality. Just the fact that the Democrats are doing this helps the ISPs, because instead of us pushing real net neutrality, we are now opposed to it in the form that it is being introduced.
Planting some lead seeds .... Death by Obamagoons.
I think Sowell, Williams, and the folks at the Heritage Foundation are smart enough to have developed their opposition to Markey's Net Neutrality bill based on its own merits (or lack thereof) and the REGULATIONS and RESTRICTIONS it would impose on internet providers and users rather than just believing the alleged misrepresentations of astroturfers.
Given a choice between a mostly free marketplace (even one where the big evil ISP's have more power than the individual consumer) and ceding more and more regulatory power to bureaucrats at the FCC over the internet, I'll side with the option that does less to restrict freedom. Increasing the government's regulatory power inevitibly restricts freedom. Even LIMITED market freedom does more to protect consumers than increased government regulation.
How many satellite providers are there?
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.