Posted on 12/28/2010 7:55:02 AM PST by george76
American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda. The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world.
By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users...
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
21%? 21%? Well, that’s pretty much a majority — let’s roll!! [/Obama]
That 21% is probably people in government housing and going to receive free broadband service. Get rid of the ghettos and you get rid of the problem.
That and some of the far left who blindly think it won’t affect them.
There are actual freepers who think that the government should guarantee them “free” service (i.e. prohibit their ISPs from charging more for services than for basic access). To them, it is inconceivable that they should have to switch carriers, it is much easier just have the feds step in and dictate how to run ISPs and guarantee that everyone will have the lowest common denominator service such as reduced bandwidth because the stupid neighbor’s kid next door will have unobstructed access and full speed for his online gaming and porn downloads.
I haven't seen that. So far I've seen those of us who don't want the ISPs to be able to interfere with the Internet-based services wer contract with other companies for. FTR, I currently pay extra for an above-minimum data plan to support the bandwidth those services consume, and have no problem continuing to do so.
To them, it is inconceivable that they should have to switch carriers
Go for it, in those places where switching is a viable option.
In my area switching is not a viable option which is one of the reasons I want my ISP to charge more for services that I don’t want or need. It simply would make my service usable rather than what it is now, unusable during “gaming” and movie downloading hours. The idea that they could add more bandwidth is a nonstarter, there are not enough subscribers.
Most net neutrality advocates don't want that either. The Internet is a very different creature from broadcast TV and radio, and thus has very different regulatory needs.
Regulatory needs? Why, yes, the Internet has regulatory needs. The whole system would be screwed if anyone could use any IP address. Instead, their assignment and use is regulated. Anyone could claim any domain name and point it anywhere without regulation, so domain names are regulated too. Regulated by whom? Formerly the US government, now organizations under contract by the US Department of Commerce.
That and some of the far left who blindly think it won’t affect them.
True that! The vast majority of us would gladly stand up for the free speech rights of leftist dirtballs like Kos and Michael Moore, no matter how ridiculous or destructive their message. If they silence us they’ll quickly find out that nobody else will.
“American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda.”
Isn’t the above true for ANYTHING the government “regulates”?
Here ya’ go.
FCC, CBS Continue To Battle Over Janet Jackson Reveal
Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing its earlier decision on FCC’s fine of CBS
By John Eggerton — Broadcasting & Cable, 12/27/2010 9:22:46 AM
The FCC, backed by the Justice Department, says that broadcasters give up full First Amendment status when they get a government license, and so should be subject to government regulation of swearing and nudity when kids could be watching.
That was the gist of the FCC’s supplemental brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing its earlier decision that the FCC’s $550,000 fine of CBS for Janet Jackson’s partially exposed breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show broadcast was arbitrary and capricious.
Broadcast spectrum is limited, web sites are practically unlimited.
Red Lion Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC.
You piece it together. I’ve already explained it too many times.
I have pieced it together - long ago.
My fear of government control over the internet is much greater than the prospect of minor network management tweaks by ISP’s and cable operators.
It would be the latest version of “license to publish.”
Sounds like your local ISP has over-subscribed its limited capacity. Normally when a company knowingly over-sells its ability to deliver on a product, we call that fraud.
Obviously you didn't. Go back and read the case.
All I have to bolster my position is the entire history of governments and their relationship with those who speak out contrary to the latest political fad.
They never give up. Ever.
Okay, so you won’t go by law and precedent, just your gut feeling, which apparently trumps law and precedent. Got it.
The ISP merely has to limit bandwidth hogs to make good on their service promise. Or we can use your solution and have the government run everything.
The 21% are the die-hard socialists that hate America, reject the Constitution and despise the founding Judeo-Christian values that made America exceptional.
That includes imam obozo.
Define "bandwidth hog." The ISP made a service promise to the "hogs" too. They promised X Mbps 24/7 in exchange for monthly payment. How is using the service you pay for being a "hog"? This isn't kumbaya commune sharing where some should voluntarily cut their use so others won't be slowed down, this is commerce where you pay for a service and expect to receive it. The "bandwidth hog" terminology is an invention of the ISPs to try to place the blame for their inadequate infrastructure and/or unrealistic billing methods on the customers.
The market solution that preserves the openness of the Internet is to re-tier the bandwidth-based service plans or to bill by gigabytes instead of megabits. Such tiering is not a net neutrality issue.
Or we can use your solution and have the government run everything.
That's not my solution. Strawmen and misdirection, the cornerstone of net neutrality opponents.
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.