Skip to comments.Google: We Want Net Neutrality to Redistribute Your Wealth to Us
Posted on 11/01/2011 7:16:46 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
We have often discussed the incredible peril Network Neutrality poses when placed in the hands of government its the incredible economic and First Amendment damage that can (and will) be done by the federal Leviathan once it gets its Net Neutrality tentacles around the World Wide Web. Nearly as pernicious, are the private big companies who benefit from big government generally and the incredible Big Government power grab that is Net Neutrality specifically.
Theres the pro-Net Neutrality Media Marxist groups and theres the $1 million Google in 2006 gave to MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org then:
"...funneled at least $100,000 (in) "Net Neutrality" money to its operations in Pennsylvania (where MoveOn is organizing against Sen. Rick Santorum)."
Why, when you can instead talk a reasonably good free market game (and hire center-right lobbyists aplenty), wouldnt you go along with your existing cadre of leftist lobbyists? This eleventh hour pseudo-conversion should fool no one. This is your father's Google. Well, your older siblings. It is the same company that gave a million-simoleons to MoveOn.org the Daddy Warbucks and Godfather of the Net Neutrality push that swam proudly with the pro-Net Neutrality Media Marxists.
The same Google that was and remains President Obama uber-philic, who in return compliantly rammed through Net Neutrality, is going to force you and I to pay for Googles profuse Internet bandwidth use so that they dont have to.
Google’s motto: We do evil.
Say you dump HBO to save $$$ but you like HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series. These days you can acquire “Game of Thrones” over the Internet and display it on your HDTV
The issue is not what NN does, but rather what it *will do*.
Everybody in the regime themselves are talking in terms of the future. They aren’t done yet.
DennisW nailed it with his post 5. Where this is dangerous is when these companies couple with the government, which has a whole different agenda.
The ISPs *may*(and I don’t strongly believe this) have pure intent, to combat those who free-load off of their pipes. But what they’re doing is turning to marxists in order to solve “the problem”.
This is a huge threat to all of our personal liberties, especially considering the marxists in all of their words and writings behind the scenes are making it clear that their real goal is a ploy to attack free speech.
I’ll put it to you like this: People were smart enough to get ahead of Obamacare before it became law, instead of sitting on their laurels and just shrugging their shoulders and doing nothing. Net neutrality is the same kind of threat.
Obamacare now is not as big of a threat as what it will become. Dittos net neutrality. Right now the NN regs are relatively bland, but this is a whole different animal.
If and when the time comes and they successfully silence us all, then you will be powerless to fight back against it.
If MoveOn.org is stupid enough to be wasting their money organizing against Santorum, I feel a whole lot better about our prospects already.
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers’ access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication.
Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even block out competitors. (The term ‘net neutrality’ didnt come into popular use until several years later, however.) The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate, especially in the United States.
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, considered a “father of the Internet” and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.
It is fascinating that “Big Business” often as not (and more often) just LOVES Big Government. It’s a big help to have laws created just to hinder and eliminate your competition...
THE “Corporatism” that so riles up the followers (not leaders) of the Occupy Wall Street mob....is built and fostered by their nationalist and socialist “progressive” Democrat party. Yes I did purposely bring up FASCISM.
The people I’ve spoken to who favored ‘net neutrality’ are “left of progressive”... the same bunch who worried two years ago about the US having control of too many ‘rare earth’ elements...
First they came to impose Net Neutrality and I was silent because that sounded good to me.
Then they came for Free Republic and I was silent because I’m really just a doper lib who could care less about bad free speech FR style.
Then they came for Google and by then it was too late.
Ah, there ya go, trying to inject facts into the discussion. Tsp, tsk, don’t you know better? :)
There is no such thing as 'freeloading' on the pipes. You pay your ISP for access, and the big download sites pay for their end by the GB transferred. And the two ISPs balance the load and costs out via the interchange points.
Now, it does cost more to engineer for low-latency, low-jitter networks so you can see the latest Victoria's Secret model jiggle down the runway with every pixel correct. So there is a problem in how to manage the flow of such traffic against more trivial google search screens that need decent response. Another issue is the question of live shows vs background downloads of movies to be watched later.
But that's a pricing problem, not a free-loading problem. Since the phone companies have a hard time breaking the desire to charge dime-a-time for everything, and a quarter for anything you really want to do, it will take decades to get the pricing model sane. Theyd'd much prefer to get paid by a value tax on the content they carry than just on a bits-transferred basis.
Is it freeloading on the highways if I get more stuff via fedex than you do?
The marriage of corporations and government is what nazi germany was, nationalist socialism.
And this country is walking down the aisle, NOW, with the myriad of pieces of “socialism” all around us. I can name SS, DeathCare, public schools, nationalized student loans, the MERS mess, and on and on. What ISN’T socialized?
Any one who thinks we are still capitalistic is nuts. Just like those commies in OWS.
With the prospects of growth and real GDP below 3%, where else is there room for MORE profits but to FORCE MORE from the people, which ever way they can???
How is it that the corporations are going to survive without FORCED increases for the “favored” companies? There is no other “growth” out there.
Don't look here, where net neutrality (where traffic flows without artificial restriction, the original state of affairs that allowed the Internet to become what it is today) is purposely confused with a host of other issues such as the Fairness Doctrine.
Google probably pays more for bandwidth in a year than all of us will earn in a lifetime. YouTube alone is thought to account for hundreds of terabytes per day, for which Google pays its ISPs. The Google home page is hit so much that four years ago it was calculated that making the background black would save 750 megawatt hours per year on users’ monitors. And Google pays for that bandwidth. In addition, Google has been buying up tremendous amounts of dark fiber in order to provide for its own communications needs.
What the consumer ISPs don’t like is THEIR customers using the bandwidth THEY PAID THE ISPs FOR by downloading Google, Netflix and Hulu content. Phone companies that provide broadband don’t like the idea of free VOIP competing with their costly options. Cable companies don’t like the competition of Internet-based TV and movies.
The gravy train is coming to an end for them. They can’t keep suckering their customers forever, charging X for services and hoping to only have to provide X/10 at any one time.
Good, let the gravy train end. And let them compete.