Posted on 12/26/2011 5:13:23 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
I think this excerpt from a comment on the Hot Air article summarizes Congress’ latest attempt to control the internet very well:
“Politicians cannot stand watching the internet go unregulated and untaxed. It drives them insane.”
And that’s exactly correct. The internet is one of the most free places on Earth, as an interchange of ideas, open source media, news, and educational content. It became that way not as a result of any single government’s efforts, but as a collaboration between the world’s brightest minds seeking profit. In other words, it was birthed as the purest form of a free market.
And that, quite frankly, drives politicians crazy. With the FCC’s moves to enforce ‘Net Neutrality’, and the most recent SOPA bill, we see a trend: The established rulers of this world are refusing to give way to the freedom of the internet. (and its 1.97 billion users) From large copyright and patent holding companies, such as Warner Brothers, to politicians and bureaucrats who are no longer needed to keep us informed or safe, the internet is the greatest threat to old power and big money.
You see, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook, and their user submitted content pose a big threat to such companies and politicians. For middle man media companies because user generated, open source or ‘some rights reserved’ content is a big threat to their bottom line. (who needs to purchase a theater ticket or DVD when you can view free content, directly over the internet, the same day it was filmed?) And for politicians, like the cosponsors of SOPA, internet videos pose a threat, because it exposes their thuggish ways to the public eye.
(Excerpt) Read more at nephewsam.net ...
The sentence you reference is my informed opinion taking into account the regulatory history of the FCC; the action of FCC administrators since inception; the writing of communications “experts” who support net neutrality; the history of communications regulation; and the inevitable tendency of government to control human inter-communications.
Government wants control. Always has, always will.
You're not talking about bloggers are you?
Here is the first portion of the Wikipedia article on the subject:
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.The bold part is my emphasis. The full article is at: Network neutrality.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" didn't 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.
The article also presents some of the arguments against Net Neutrality, and it does seem things like Quality of Service issues must be addressed. However, I don't think it should be done at the expense of the principles outlined above.
As to the government being involved, it already is. The government (DARPA) invented the Internet. It is true that one dynamic is that the government wants more power/control/money, but it is the job of us as citizens to require it to behave responsibly and in our best interest. Don't let some perversion of the idea of Network Neutrality distract you from its desirability.
Some are bloggers, I’m sure.
But mainly I’m speaking of those who go, see, hear and report who, what, when, where, and why. That’s what I do and I refer to my Wordpress site as a newsblog.
“Official” or “licensed” media often report only what they’re told to report.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement over the role of government regarding the ability of human beings to freely communicate among themselves as they see fit.
The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.
The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.'
The disagreement is over the term "Net Neutrality". I don't care whether or not government is involved, as long as "Net Neutrality" is preserved. So far the ISPs have mostly been all right, although the interference with peer-to-peer software is very troubling.
I suggest you use more precise terms to articulate your view, such as "FCC-enforced Net Neutrality", or better yet reference a specific piece of legislation.
(BTW I guess you advocate terminating the USPS and going the complete privatization route, eh? We wouldn't want the government involved in "private communication"...including all those pesky laws about tampering with mail. Right?)
Excuse me, but what does SOPA mean?
Absolutely. With today's technology and transportation systems, the USPS is little more than an anachronistic jobs program for Obama voters. You'll want to read some history about how the original postal systems served the King as an intelligence network used to spy on the populace and report back. See here the very first "net neutrality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Penny_Post
I expect rural mail customers would rather strongly disagree with your characterization. With no USPS the commercial carriers would charge an arm and a leg for rural delivery.
I think you're also missing the point that one of the strengths of the American system is that the government is as much bound by laws as the citizens. For literally hundreds of years Americans have used the US Mail with little fear of spying.
I also observe you glossed over the necessity of laws dealing with mail tampering, which would have to be in force whether or not the USPS is delivering mail.
I don’t disagree with laws against “mail tampering.” Laws also are needed to prevent unwanted surveillance of electronic communication by individuals or government.
As far as rural citizens and mail delivery, why are they entitled to subsidized service? They pay more for fire insurance, since they choose to live remotely from organized fire protection.
The government being involved is the problem in a nut shell. As I see it, government control over private communications is the antithesis of conservatism.
Writing is actually very different as it relates to the internet. Most writers/reporters, established or not, want people to read what they have written and use various methods to attract people to their sites, sites with ads or donations requested .
Except for some older works offered with ads, the music and movie copyright holder are not trying to give their current work away free of charge on the net. What eventually becomes of youtube will be interesting to watch. Youtube probably helps unknown performers, but established stars, not so much.
In the market place, quality can have more than one meaning, and I clearly said movies and music that appeals to a significant number of people. The net won't help products that have no commercial appeal, whether or not some might think they exhibit quality.
How much “quality” has been suppressed because it couldn’t find a way to be recognized via the former monopoly of newspapers, TV, radio and magazines?
Not much. There always been avenues for someone with talent to get a shot. Shows like American Idol will probably give more singers a chance than the internet because the net will become so flooded with no talent wannabes that the few with real talent will be difficult to fine. And those entities you named have never been the only avenues for people to seek recognition, and they weren't monopolies.
i dont care who ya are, thats funny right there...
oops, no i supposed i and FR owe royalties to larry...
-——————The disagreement is over the term “Net Neutrality”. I don’t care whether or not government is involved, as long as “Net Neutrality” is preserved.-——————
You should. Because “Net Neutrality” is a red herring in order to get government involved.
The less government is involved, the more neutral the internet will remain. Look at every other sector of American life. The more government involvement there is, the less neutral it is.
This thread contains the definition of net neutrality, according to them:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2746787/posts
-—————————one of the strengths of the American system is that the government is as much bound by laws as the citizens.
i dont care who ya are, thats funny right there...-————————
In theory, it’s a correct statement. In practice, it’s laughable to most of us Freepers because we don’t believe the media and we pay attention to the details. We make it a point to know what the media doesn’t want us to know.
But for most other Americans, they don’t even know because it isn’t reported in the first place.
You act at the moment you find out that your car has been stolen, not at the actual moment the car gets stolen. But what if you never found out your car was stolen? Welcome to the average NY Times reader. Their liberty gets stolen daily, and the media never reports it. So why would they act on it?
af_vet_rr said: It's scary how easily Free Republic could be shut down under SOPA and Jim Robinson would have no recourse.
.
It's scary how easily Free Republic could be shut down under SOPA and Net Neutrality and Jim Robinson would have no recourse.
There, I fixed it. After all, you and I as freepers say a lot of un-neutral things.
I think there should be copyright laws, what with this set of laws, under SOPA, what exactly is stopping the govt and businesses lobbying the govt from abusing the copyright laqws from shutting down sites they dont like ? What is stopping them from eliminating FR, any websites that praise Christianity, any sites espousing genuine conservative or libertarian or classical liberal (as opposed to modern liberal) ideals ?
That is what posters here seem to be terrified of, and perhaps legimiately so. I have heard that only sites that flagrantly violate copyright laws, like MP3 tunes or blinxtv or Pirate Bay are in any real danger and also that everything except wikipedia could get shut down. So it is hard to tell what it’s gonna do, but where are the checks to stop the govt from trying to shut down any internet sites that interfere with their support ? Where are the checks on the power of the entertainemnt industry ?
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.