6 GOP Senators(Including Vitter) are Introducing an Amendment to Block Net Neutrality Policy (1 Viewer)

[Norwajun]

Much as I suspected (and you as well), all five co-sponsors have direct financial ties to AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. The most monetarily vocal opponents of net neutrality.

Where do I start? I'm going to start spamming the mailboxes of Congress. I'm going to fight these ******** tooth and nail. Enough is enough. I'm changing my party affiliation tomorrow. Non-affiliated. The hell with all of 'em.

 

[SWJJ]

This is a very good example of rich getting richer.

Big media and their lobbysists are working members of Congress. If they buy enought support and get their legislation supported, then those with the money to spend will be able to buy priority for their traffic on the net and limit the banwidth of other players.

Deeper pockets=preferntial access to the network.

Information control issues here as well.

This will limit the amount of information available to lower income people.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Just more justification of why we need to get rid of lobbyists and ALL campaign contributions from businesses.

I honestly wouldn't have pegged you as taking this position. I would implore most people in that same boat to keep a close eye on this supreme court case than:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-dc-court-contributions,0,7735919.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html?hpw

It will have huge ramifications for the way the electoral process is conducted and how much influence corporations are going to have on that process.

 

[Norwajun]

Okay, I've started sending out email to everyone I know, linking to the articles in this thread. I even enlisted my wife to start getting the message out. Her address book probably has contacts in the thousands...

You start messing with all these women's facebook, and the pics of the vampire boy from Twilight and they're gonna pop.

Hell's a comin', boys...

 

[IntenseSaint]

I honestly wouldn't have pegged you as taking this position.

If you have read most of my posts in threads I have statted this position more than once... I have always despised the lobby industry. How they even call it an industry is beyond me cause all the manufacture is BS.

 

[IntenseSaint]

Okay, I've started sending out email to everyone I know, linking to the articles in this thread. I even enlisted my wife to start getting the message out. Her address book probably has contacts in the thousands...

You start messing with all these women's facebook, and the pics of the vampire boy from Twilight and they're gonna pop.

Hell's a comin', boys...

Yeah attach a pic of Edward Cullen with a little disclaimer.

Edward says:

It will go viral. Women and their sparkling vampires.. Who would have thunk it.

 

[The Mongoose]

Well, here's the problem.

(Before going any further, let me first say that I agree with blackadder; this seems to be a payola issue. The rest of what follows is mostly theoretical. I believe our system to be more corrupt than any of us truely realize. We play the parlor game of pretending esoterica matters, when in truth it's simply about who gave money to who).

The throttling back and pay-for-extras that have been attempted thus far have been rejected by the market. In principle, the solution to companies attempting such policies should be competition.

As Bronco noted, however, there are barriers to entry in the field. There are only a few ISPs, comparatively speaking, and their networks were funded in part with government dollars (at least that's my understanding of it).

While on the surface net nuetrality seems like something everyone should support, it's still dangerous. It's allowing government a foothold and measure of control over something where it previously had none. While the current level of control seems innocuous, it's setting the precedent that the government has the right to stick its nose in this business.

Nothing with government ever stays innocuous and harmless. Time will pass, and government will continue to creep.

My specific problem with this issue is the barrier to entry for competitors. There doesn't seem room for a Netflix to come along and kill the Blockbusters of the ISP industry if they decide to collude to rake us over the coals. Then again, I never would have predicted Netflix owning Blockbuster the way they have. So who knows.

I'm torn. The government regs seem harmless at this point, and I despise the ISPs for even considering such policies. I have to believe, though, that we've built enough history that customers won't stand for throttling back or other usage fees, and that some competitor could come in and make a fortune offering real Internet service.

But then I go back to the fact that most of the infrastructure is owned by only a few entities, and that worries me.

In the end, I don't trust that these politicians have our interest in the front of their minds. I don't want to see the government gain a foothold and implicit authority and stewardship over the Internet.

I think I'd rather take my chances with the ISPs. But they are dirty dealers themselves, and quasi-governmental.

 

[RazorOye]

One thing I hate most about the republicans is most of the elected variety seem to have their head stuck up their rears when it comes to understanding education.

the same could be applied to more topics and most politicians

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Well, here's the problem.

(Before going any further, let me first say that I agree with blackadder; this seems to be a payola issue. The rest of what follows is mostly theoretical. I believe our system to be more corrupt than any of us truely realize. We play the parlor game of pretending esoterica matters, when in truth it's simply about who gave money to who).

The throttling back and pay-for-extras that have been attempted thus far have been rejected by the market. In principle, the solution to companies attempting such policies should be competition.

As Bronco noted, however, there are barriers to entry in the field. There are only a few ISPs, comparatively speaking, and their networks were funded in part with government dollars (at least that's my understanding of it).

While on the surface net nuetrality seems like something everyone should support, it's still dangerous. It's allowing government a foothold and measure of control over something where it previously had none. While the current level of control seems innocuous, it's setting the precedent that the government has the right to stick its nose in this business.

Nothing with government ever stays innocuous and harmless. Time will pass, and government will continue to creep.

My specific problem with this issue is the barrier to entry for competitors. There doesn't seem room for a Netflix to come along and kill the Blockbusters of the ISP industry if they decide to collude to rake us over the coals. Then again, I never would have predicted Netflix owning Blockbuster the way they have. So who knows.

I'm torn. The government regs seem harmless at this point, and I despise the ISPs for even considering such policies. I have to believe, though, that we've built enough history that customers won't stand for throttling back or other usage fees, and that some competitor could come in and make a fortune offering real Internet service.

But then I go back to the fact that most of the infrastructure is owned by only a few entities, and that worries me.

In the end, I don't trust that these politicians have our interest in the front of their minds. I don't want to see the government gain a foothold and implicit authority and stewardship over the Internet.

I think I'd rather take my chances with the ISPs. But they are dirty dealers themselves, and quasi-governmental.

Just so I got this straight, your cool with letting ISPs telling you what you can and cant browse because your scared a regulation from the FCC to ensure anti-competitive, fair-play policies will lead to a full on government control of the internet?

It seems by this token of logic, its only a matter of time before the FCC regulations about no curse words on radio or network TV leads to the government re-casting the next season of The Bachelor, now featuring Bill Clinton.

 

[IntenseSaint]

Just so I got this straight, your cool with letting ISPs telling you what you can and cant browse because your scared a regulation from the FCC to ensure anti-competitive, fair-play policies will lead to a full on government control of the internet?

In defense of Mongoose here I don't want anything to change with the NET as it stands now. No government control and no meddling by isps on what flavor bandwidth I am using.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

In defense of Mongoose here I don't want anything to change with the NET as it stands now. No government control and no meddling by isps on what flavor bandwidth I am using.

Which is what net neutrality would accomplish.

 

[Superfan]

I never forget being in downtown New Orleans in the bellsouth datacenter. I asked this is the Shreveport telephone server? Yes. This is the Jackson Mississippi server? Yes. Well, all incoming and outgoing calls come through this right? Yes. Well if i call from Shreveport to someone in Jackson, it has to come through here first? Yes. So why do you charge long distance? Because we can.

 

[The Mongoose]

I'm on shakey ground. I know this.

If the ISP market didn't have such barriers to entry, I'd flat out be against any regulation of any kind.

Everything is just so corrupt. I don't trust those ISP bastages not to collude. I would love to see some brash start-up own all their faces off by providing a better, cheaper service. Wireless too. Especially wireless.

And I have no doubt that the pols opposing net nuetrality are doing so because of donors, or worse.

Likewise though, the Internet has done just fine thus far without significant regulation. I don't want to let the wolf in the henhouse out of fear of some paper boogeyman.

Has throttling worked so far? Do you believe the consumer will stand for it? Is the consumer ultimately powerless without the hand of government?

I don't know the answers to these questions. On the surface, net nuetrality seems like something we'd be crazy not to get behind. But historically, I think we are safer dealing with market forces rather than government.

Again though, I'm fairly conflicted, mostly because I don't know enough about the tech to be able to predict a competitive environment or not.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I'm on shakey ground. I know this.

If the ISP market didn't have such barriers to entry, I'd flat out be against any regulation of any kind.

Everything is just so corrupt. I don't trust those ISP bastages not to collude. I would love to see some brash start-up own all their faces off by providing a better, cheaper service. Wireless too. Especially wireless.

And I have no doubt that the pols opposing net nuetrality are doing so because of donors, or worse.

Likewise though, the Internet has done just fine thus far without significant regulation. I don't want to let the wolf in the henhouse out of fear of some paper boogeyman.

Has throttling worked so far? Do you believe the consumer will stand for it? Is the consumer ultimately powerless without the hand of government?

I don't know the answers to these questions. On the surface, net nuetrality seems like something we'd be crazy not to get behind. But historically, I think we are safer dealing with market forces rather than government.

Again though, I'm fairly conflicted, mostly because I don't know enough about the tech to be able to predict a competitive environment or not.

On the contrary, Net neutrality is promoting a competitive market, the absence of sound regulation is what will lead to an anti-competitive market in this instance.

This measure ensures that companies have to become more competitive and innovative because they can't use anti-competitive manners to one-up their competition.

I see where your coming from, but honestly, arguing against net neutrality is arguing against competition and quality innovation.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

If a company wants to charge by bandwidth usage what is the problem with that. It seems very free market to me, well as long as there is competition that is. If one company has bandwidth limits and another has a different package with different limits or does not have limits at all that give the consumers options with more variance... unless of course there are consumers that would benefit from being charged that way because they only use their connection for email once or twice a day. As long as the consumer has options and those options have to compete for the consumers business All of the power is in that consumers hands with no need for legislation.