Skip to comments.Net Neutrality Survives Challenge (The marxist scheme lives on)
Posted on 11/11/2011 8:03:23 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
WASHINGTONSenate lawmakers failed to pass a resolution Thursday to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's new rules which prevent Internet providers from deliberately blocking or slowing traffic.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Net neutrality is not about internet traffic!!!!!!
the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control
any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself
Who were the GOP Rinos who jumped the fence, Snowe and Collins?
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.
Why do you oppose net neutrality?
This has been a conflicting personal issue for me, On the one side is my belief that government regulation is a last resort when all else fails to protect the people as a whole.
However, I fear that we are headed down the same path as what has happened with banking. Several large firms controlling access and content and lobbying on their behalf against small business and average citizens. The banks became too big too fail (I do not subscribe to that notion) and we the taxpayers bailed them out and in return got Dodd-Frank that is designed to destroy small,banks and give the big banks more clout.
Net Neutrality is fine as long as the government allows markets to thrive and protect competition at the local level.
2. Because there is no monopoly on access to the internet, so nobody is really limited.
3. Because it is a shared service, and what one person does affects the neighbors. The rules on how to handle this sharing between neighbors when they are using applications with wildly different needs for throughput, response, and latency are still being discovered. The initial case is MetroPCS which limited video to just that from youtube which used special compression. If you want to see other video sites, use a different cell provider with other data plans.
If we get to infinite bandwidth, absolute net neutrality will be possible but also inevitable, no regulation will be required. Until then, it's not really possible, and we need to let the market figure out the next best approach. The FCC is interfering where it is not needed, and where it has no authority.
The issue in question is not discriminating on content, but on delivery mechanism. The internet is NOT public property, so there's no 1st amendment issue. The FCC should stay out of it.
We are still learning how to provide lots of bandwidth, and how to best use it. Let the market work it out.
Congress, in which all enumerated legislative powers reside, has been reduced to the pitiful condition of vetoing laws it never passed.
Ah, the standard internet service provider talking point. And also wildly incorrect. Net Neutrality does not have any effect on the cost of service. It simply says that the provider cannot slow or impede service based on content. If you pay for a high speed line, then everything comes in at that speed.
The providers want to charge more for content they do not already profit from or don’t like. In effect, repealing net neutrality would be very bad for the consumer since it would put the provider in the position to decide what data you can have and what you can’t and how fast it comes,
Use Comcast as an example. They own NBC. So if you get your internet from Comcast, without net neutrality, they could decide to slow down data coming from competing networks to force you to NBC sites, which would artificially inflate traffic and therefore ad rates. Thus the need for the neutrality.
For free marketers on this issue, don’t forget that it was government regulation in the first place that gave local cable and phone companies monopoly service rights to communities. That initial government interference was material to the strength they now have to price selectively in any market to squash attempts at competition.
While there are competing technologies begining to develop the existing companies are using government lobbying to prevent competition on all sorts of open internet services. If I were permitted to pay the expense of running a fiber optic cable from a local data center to my home using the existing poles shared by various utilities, and install a super Wi-Fi device and sell or just give away services to anyone in range the free market argument would have a lot more strength even given the advantage they have because of being allowed to establish a dominant position in the first place through regulation.
Unfortunately, I’m not able to do that and they will use every lobbying tool from fcc interference to supporting land use law restrictions to overstating costs for use of some of their right of ways.
The cable companies that provide internet also have every incentive not to install ultra-capacity lines that would allow people to take internet services only and bag their cable subscription...internet services with a wide open option of who to buy content from.
They’ve also been far from supportive of communities who are willing to pay for wiring all the homes in their community with fiber optic cable for instance using every political tool at their disposal to prevent that. People willing to pay their own freight still scare them.
Basically a free market needs open access to consumers. I can get on a public road and drive to either Wal-Mart, target or Costco to buy my toiletries, yet I have no good alternative to Comcast and Comcast is doing what they can to not compete with improved services but to compete by restricting entry by others into their markets using government as one of their tools to prevent competition.
From what I can see, no republicans voted with the progressives. Surprisingly. Including Snowe and Collins.
But Saruman(R-AZ) didn’t vote at all.(for whatever reason) Even if he had, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
—————Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle that advocates———————
No it doesn’t.
Net neutrality advocates marxism. It’s supported by marxists, pushed by marxist allies, Soros dollars, and marxist special interests/lobbyists.
Thanks for the great post.
Things to do today;
Thank a Veteran!
Donate to Free Republic.
Click here or mail checks to:
Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
The closed form of internet (AOL, etc) feel due to market forces. Those forces are still there.
The claim that netflix is free-riding is bogus, as both netflix and the netflix user pay for their end of the connection. I'm not saying the ISPs are angels.
But the government is worse.
Next thing, you'll want them to allow you to bring your own beer to the ball game.
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.