Posted on 06/17/2010 11:04:29 AM PDT by woodb01
Now as far as this relates to actual net neutrality, an ISP could treat both differently. Video requires a constant bandwidth and decent latency. An email requires neither. Any halfway decent network manager would treat them differently as part of QoS. The last rules I saw had a clear exception for reasonable network management of this type.
Just like all those people who wanted *free* healthcare, but didn’t think about the FREEDOMS it would cost them in the long-run, eh? Do you REALLY honestly think it will be *free*? Do you think companies will have an incentive to produce better/more products and services? What about the billions spent developing the infrastructure — do you believe the government has the right to simply TAKE said infrastructure that it doesn’t already own? And, finally, haven’t you paid attention to the numerous bills put forth by the Dems for YEARS? Specifically, the ‘fairness doctrine’. Well, this is the *fairness doctrine* on overdrive!
SO, first off you need to get it out of your head that there is ANYTHING free in this world! NOTHING in life is *free* someone out there paid for it through hard work, and sweat equity at some point. Whether what you are receiving is made *free* by OTHERS’ income taken as tax dollars, or you receive it *free* because the government STOLE it from private companies SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE paid for it. Again, NOTHING in this world is EVER really *free* (or without cost of one sort or another).
Is your receiving free internet access (when if you really wanted it *free* you could go to your local library) really worth the restrictions it will place upon your *internet experience*? I’m guessing you want *free* access to the SAME content, speed and services, and information you currently enjoy through your arrangement with verizon otherwise you wouldn’t pay for it, even if you are a *small-time user*. The thing is a GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED entity providing *free* internet will definitely NOT be uncensored... Again, reacquaint yourself with the *fairness doctrine* if you have ANY remaining false conception of WHY the Democrats want this — it’s NOT to provide a *benefit* it is to GAIN MORE CONTROL at the expense of your freedom of speech and expression — as well as the police and such not having to go to court to get ISPs to turn over information on their clients. THAT is perhaps the most frightening part — basically what will amount to wiretaps 24/7 on EVERYONE...
I honestly can’t understand how you would think this is all bullshit, or even close to being a ‘positive’.
I think this is worth pinging our fearless FR leaders over.
I thought it was solely conservatives, through their increases in basic homeland security and restrictions on mass illegal immigration and curbing of abortion, who were the ones against personal freedom. I guess through eliminating school choice and fighting gun rights the far left felt they had not caught up far enough with that good ole crazy religious right, so they will now turn to censoring the Internet to fully catch up. /s
This “new revolution” isn’t moving at all, if you ask me. IMHO, this new revolution should of happened already, while Ronald Reagan was still POTUS.
Either, an actual, successful revolution by a majority of non-leftists, or an actual, successful civil war by a majority of non-leftists would definitely end this abuse of power by the left.
Short wave radios may soon be registered by the government or made illegal just like in Nazi Germany.
What I meant is that it could because a hot revolution if push comes to sholve.
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.
Right now I'm getting 25mb download and 20mb upload for about $35 per/mo thru one of the evil big corporations. When I don't like what they start blocking or start screwing with the connection I will leave and search the free market for a better deal.
BTW, where is this fictional (small) govt you speak of? It does not exist so therefore your argument is vapid.
Why are you advocating the destruction of the free market in my area because you don't have as many choices as I do? Because that is what is going to happen with this "Net Neutrality" garbage.
Because they are a Common Carrier
English common law traditionally has characterized public transportation businesses as “common carriers”—a subcategory of “common callings.” Such businesses were distinguished from ordinary ones in that their services were available to the general public. In addition, the quality and cost of those services were of special significance to social and economic life. Under the common law, the courts imposed three distinctive obligations upon common carriers: (1) they had a duty to serve all who applied for their services, (2) unreasonableness in their rates of charge and operations was prohibited, and (3) they were held to liability standards far stricter than those applied in general business law.
Why are you advocating the destruction of the free market in my area because you don't have as many choices as I do?
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 made discrimination against small markets illegal
Just keep in mind that "actual net neutrality" and legislative "net neutrality" will probably bear NO RESEMBLANCE to each other at all. Or maybe you think Pelosi and Markey and the rest of the marxists who want to take control of every aspect of commerce are for some reason trustworthy in this one exceptional area.
One, from a historical perspective, ISPs never dictated what goes over the pipe. That is the open nature of the Internet, what made it successful.
Two, Verizon didn't lay that cable to your house on a purely free market basis in the first place. In fact, depending on where you live, your local government could have given Verizon a legal monopoly in your area in order to encourage Verizon to make the big investment in laying that cable.
I said something like this back in the beginning. The ISPs, together with their astroturfers and parrots, and the Democrats want to muddle the issue to their advantage. But this bill itself just orders the FCC to determine the current state of neutrality. And I'd say it's pretty good. The ISPs have been holding back their plans under the threat of regulation.
If it exists in your area. In fact, nobody in my area provides a deal nearly as good as what you already have.
Bills that direct bureaucrats to "investigate" or "determine" what is happening in an area that they want to increase regulation simply amount to a pretext of a study in order to implement a takeover. Just the list of who's pushing this bill should be a clarion call to arms for every freedom loving technophile.
And if the "net neutrality" advocates succeed in taking over the internet, nobody ever will. Oh you might get your free internet service, but it will suck!
They've been working on that for a while, with the CDA and COPA.
What you got happened under a neutral Internet.
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.