Posted on 06/17/2010 11:04:29 AM PDT by woodb01
This is the original pre-Obama FCC view on net neutrality:
"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:
What you described, paying the same for a package despite the weight, has nothing to do with the FCC's net neutrality rules. Net neutrality is both of us pay the same if we ship the same size and weight package. The shipping company isn't going to charge you more because you are shipping chia pets because then you're competing with the company's chia pet business.
For the consumer protection clause, how would you feel if you had a contract with your shipping company. You can ship whatever you want amount per month. Then suddenly the shipping company cuts you off. You ask the shipping company why, and it goes like this:
"Because you shipped too much" they say.
"But there's no limit." you say.
"Oh, it's not really unlimited."
"So what's the limit?"
"We're not going to tell you. We're just going to cut you off when we think you've shipped too much."
That was IIRC Comcast policy until the FCC started looking into them.
Have you actually read the act? Quick question: What does it regulate?
My problem is that I like my Internet just the way it is. So far it has been the ISPs talking about changing things and the government talking about keeping it the same.
And don't forget, it's not like the government hasn't been involved in the Internet since the beginning.
STOP and ask yourself, has there been a problem with free expression on the Internet? No there has not.
Never in world history have a people been able to express themselves as freely as we can right now over the Internet and we all know it. That's why they have to create this bogus, non-existent crisis to stop it.
Next, ask yourself who is behind net neutrality. The Marxist-led group Free Press is behind it. Free Press, in case you don't know is a socialist/Marxist organization whose motto is: "Free Press. Reform media. Transform democracy."
Finally, ask yourself how taking the Internet out of the hands of private business and putting it into the hands of a far-left controlled government would “help” this non-existent problem.
Dude, spit out the Kool Aid. "Net Neutrality" is a direct attack on free speech on the Internet.
“How many satellite providers are there?”
There is one national brand, and several local brands (although they only re-brand the national company).
So, you have one national satellite provider and the phone company: at least two options for EVERYONE.
The BEST response I have seen so far is this, WHY do we believe that the government is going to make things any better at all?
What complaints are there that the internet in the United States anyway (not China) is not wide open with free speech?
Fact is Wi-Fi and various forms of Internet access are available EVERYWHERE! You can even go to a McDonalds to get access if you want!
The idea that some people are somehow restricted is a bunch of BULL$&@^. It may not be CONVENIENT for everyone, but WiFi and Internet access is available EVERYWHERE! And if you are cheap enough, it is FREE!
There is NO REASON for this net neutrality trash. It is nothing but a tool for the FASCIST DEMOCRATS to try to gain control of the only truly FREE medium there is. They do NOT like the power and the freedom of the Internet. They do NOT like the lack of control!
Yes - that’s what they say, but the regulation willl go much deeper than merely “cheap” and “available” access to the internet. It will include taxing, regulation, overseeing, deciding what is “fair” so that the party in power gets to tax their enemies and set up their own disinformation sites. This can be a catastrophe in higher costs. It’s just another means of “redistribution”.
How long before Free Republic will have to close its doors?
But it's not the question itself that is important. Right now FR pays its ISP for its access to the Internet, and I pay my ISP for my access. The ISPs want another payment: for FR's content to get to me. FR not being able to pay as much as Soros-backed liberal sites, may then have to shut down.
No, that is not the state today. But it is the state the ISPs have said they would like. So far the threat of net neutrality enforcement by the government has kept them pretty much in line. That's fine for me.
The open Internet we have now is what has enabled those with little money to get their message out just as well as the well-funded machines. It is why FR is so successful. The ISPs would end that.
They do NOT like the power and the freedom of the Internet.
This whole thing started because the ISPs saw Google and others making money hand over fist and started thinking of a way to get some of that. They figured that since they own the last mile to the customers, they could make any content provider pay for access to them. No pay, no play. This concept easily extends to anti-competition. Gee Skype, that would suck if your customers got bad service, how about you pay us for your customers to be on our networks?
That's when the lies about Google freeloading on the ISPs networks started, then when resistance came they started setting up astroturf groups and paying off others to stand behind their position.
If nothing else, this fact should make you mad: Your ISP sees you as its property. You are an asset to be leveraged for profit against those providing you your content over the Internet. This of course will make those Internet services more expensive for you.
“If I’m not mistaken, the FCC was slapped down by the federal courts for trying to implement Net Neutrality.”
NWObama is taking care of the Supreme Court by manning it with moronic automatons. They will l do what he says for the New World Order. They will make the decisions he wants.
The bolshies are hell-bent on tearing the US apart. They’re taking this tack in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on net neutrality? God help us. How many times have these fascist pigs crossed the proverbial Rubicon already? At some point, even the left is going to wake up.
Why doesn't a private citizen have the right to run their PC/internet connection the way THEY want? They PAID for it. I hope they stick it to some of the more selfish carriers. We've been down this road before. Better to be ruled by (small) govt than ruled by the global corporation.
BTW, where do you think that WiFi access comes from? The Internet Fairy? My local coffee shop has free WiFi. Cool, I can go there to escape Time Warner Cable, which provides broadband to my area. Uh-oh, they get their Internet access from, wait for it ... Time Warner Cable!
If you get your WiFi through McDonald's as you suggest, you're getting it from AT&T, the company McDonald's buys access from.
The moral of the story is that if the ISPs decide to clamp down, it's not as easy to escape it as you think.
>The same reason they can’t decide what words get spoken over their phone lines, or Sony gets to decide what gets played on its radios. They own the hardware, but do not get to determine what gets said with it.
No, no, NO! When you buy a Sony radio YOU OWN THE HARDWARE. Period.
anti-Republicrat, you missed the whole point. Internet access IS available, and the “crackdown” on the Net has NOT happened.
The ONLY reason the FCC would even consider any discussion about Internet regulation is to CHANGE the current state. My point with McDonald’s access is simple, TODAY anyway anyone has pretty much free access to post and distribute or comment or engage in any kind of Internet enabled speech they want.
There is NO REASON for the government to get involved at all. Beyond the current Telco regulations there is NO REASON for any FCC intervention.
So, the biggest freedom of expression engine and vehicle the world has ever seen in its history suddenly needs FCC intervention?
This is plain insanity... Anyone who thinks otherwise is doing more than drinking Kool-Aid. This is scary, stop engaging in the blatant anti-corporate communist, fascist, government control clap-trap. For whatever problems might exist today, the Internet WORKS just like it is! Any government regulation will only damage that.
It is in discussion because heads of ISPs have made public statements that they want to change the current state. They began a program of demonizing content providers as freeloaders in order to garner public support for their change. They also began throttling traffic based on protocol without notifying customers.
For whatever problems might exist today, the Internet WORKS just like it is!
Good. Then help oppose the ISPs in order to keep it that way.
of course i is!
One of the provisions of the bill that most conservatives found objectionable was that it would require ISPs to "treat all content equally", and the wording was such that the FCC could easily have ruled that the ISP could not differentiate between a streaming video and a text message.
Unfortunately, I am not able at the moment to locate good references to the bill itself, nor to some of the more in depth analyses that I read of the bill. I think the internet is working pretty well today as it is, and I don't think we need to give a bunch of marxist federal bureaucrats more power to regulate it.
IBD Editorial: A Power Grab Called 'Net Neutrality'
WSJ Article: Democrats Tell FCC to Push For 'Net Neutrality'
Good. Then help oppose the ISPs in order to keep it that way.
You trust the FCC and a democrat controlled congress to implement new regulations and increase the power of the FCC to command and control the ISPs to keep the internet working like it does today more than you trust market forces to do so? There is a good deal of competition, and ISPs are investing millions if not billions of dollars into higher capacity. This competition and a desire for return on investment is a much better force to improve internet service than increasing the regulatory power of the federal government.
Do you seriously believe this administration is interested in free expression on the internet?
Free expression for liberal dems, yes.
For folks like us freepers, hell no.
This bill is purely a fact-finding bill. It imposes no regulations.
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.