NET Neutrality and Internet Restrictions Coming Soon!

Fox News ^ | 6/17/2010

[woodb01]

Without spending a lot of time going into the details, read this teaser from Fox News. 3 DEMOCRATS have decided to REVISIT Internet Regulations that were abandoned in 1992. Do I hear "net neutrality" and press restrictions coming soon? Only the REPUBLICANS opposed the action. Part of the Obama / Chavez plan to restrict dissent on the takeover by the hardcore left.

Are you ready? This is just the beginning...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575312742566475122.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

How long before Free Republic will have to close its doors?

[Richard Kimball]

The complete destruction of the American economy with insane spending sprees (like drunken sailors, or maybe more like HEROIN addicts looking to steal from Americans for their next fix).

[VRWCmember]

Opposed by Republicans isn't since they've been duped by another entity you've mentioned, the ISPs, who do not want the government to interfere with them milking more profit out of the last-mile by imposing toll-booths to companies that provide content. You failed to mention who else supports it, pretty much every content-providing company out there.

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.

[maine-iac7]

thanks for the tip =

hope enough people are smart enough to hang on to their land lines...

[frogjerk]

Do you want the government telling ISPs they can't do certain things, or do you want to be your ISP's bitch just because they have a monopoly on the last-mile?

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.

[frogjerk]

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.

BINGO! I'm with the free-market folks.

[antiRepublicrat]

Just about every freedom advocacy group out there opposes it.

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.

[Tzimisce]

When we said “Free Speech”, we didn’t mean for you.

Now pay your taxes, we need a raise. :)

[bamahead]

Google and other content-providing companies who would have to pay billions to the ISPs to get their content to you are at the forefront of pushing net neutrality.

Google is also in bed with the Government on a lot of other things...and they know they'll be able to buy their way around whatever content controls are imposed.

Bottom line is - what do you want? Corporate control of the internet, like you have now? Free speech unregulated, pretty much anything goes. Providers do have the authority to cap bandwith and filter traffic...but hey, it's their equipment.

Or government control. Where a Washington career union bureaucrat gets to assess what speech and content is acceptable and 'neutral' and therefore not subject to state review?

I'll take the 'captialist pig' approach, thanks.

[VRWCmember]

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

But that is what is in the Markey Net Neutrality Bill. That is what the FCC is calling Net Neutrality.

[VRWCmember]

The ISP astroturf organizations and the Democrats have been successful in confusing the issue to their own ends

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.

[VRWCmember]

The ISP astroturf organizations and the Democrats have been successful in confusing the issue to their own ends

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.

[americanophile]

It's unclear from the article what exactly they are trying to regulate. Certainly the regulation of content would be unconstitutional, and if I understand the argument of the proponents, it sounds as if they may be trying to provide additional access to the Internet, but we all know how the Left works - they always find ways of regulating the means in order to affect the behavior of people. I think any government regulation of the Internet should be approached with an abundance of caution.

[antiRepublicrat]

I would much rather have a private company that I have recourse to

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.

[americanophile]

"As far as any control over the Internet, it is an interesting choice. Do you want the government telling ISPs they can't do certain things, or do you want to be your ISP's bitch just because they have a monopoly on the last-mile?"

This does seem like the dynamic at play here. I have to say however, that I fear the government, not AT&T.

[GraceG]

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.

[bamahead]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

The Heritage Foundation Thomas Sowell Walter Williams

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.

[PA-RIVER]

Planting some lead seeds .... Death by Obamagoons.

[VRWCmember]

Of course, once the initial astroturfing takes hold, other people and organizations start believing them.

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.

[raybbr]

I am throwing the BS flag on this call! Satellite Internet is available EVERYWHERE! Even out in the sticks! You can get a phone line ANYWHERE, so at the very least, you have TWO options!

How many satellite providers are there?