Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Net Neutrality

  1. #1
    Banned New Member
    Join Date
    09 Jul 08
    Posts
    14

    Net Neutrality

    Thursday there will be a vote on Net Neutrality...

    How do you feel about the FCC getting their hands on the internet?

    Personally I have enjoyed the only place for actual Free Speech... do you want your internet censored?

  2. #2
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Mar 08
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaught View Post
    ... do you want your internet censored?
    HELL NO!!!!

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Jan 05
    Location
    Namibia
    Posts
    808
    Over my dead body!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!1
    "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

    Protester

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,802
    Keep government away from the internet.

    Just read the actual law and the analysis. This law isn't what it seems to be.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    ...Just read the actual law and the analysis. This law isn't what it seems to be.
    Are they ever? The first rule of lawmaking is give the bill a name that is exactly the opposite of what it really does.

  6. #6
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,802
    Monday, September 28, 2009
    Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral

    You don't want the government camel's nose under the tent of regulating the Internet.
    An Orange County Register editorial

    The phrase "net neutrality" has an ingratiating appeal. Net neutrality rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission would "prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information" over their networks, the Associated Press reports. Proposed rules also would "bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc. ... from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks."

    What's wrong with that?

    If we take the government at its word – always problematic at best – all Web traffic will be treated equally, and Internet users will have more freedom to download music, video and other services.

    But to bring about a utopian desire for virtually unlimited access over a limited resource, government would require broadband providers to operate in ways not necessarily in the best interest of the companies or their paying customers.

    Who doesn't enjoy access to the Internet's wealth of information and entertainment? But many have come to regard access as an entitlement. Indeed, FCC proposed regulations, open for public comment next month, are described as ensuring what "consumers are entitled to."

    One difficulty with government guaranteeing entitlements at the expense of others is the problem of those who abuse the free ride. Bandwidth-hogging services such as person-to-person file sharing and downloadable video from sites like YouTube and Google strain network capacities. Broadband providers legitimately claim they have a right to regulate such traffic over their networks, which may mean giving priority to their own services or charging varying rates.

    That's why large bandwidth providers such as Verizon and AT&T have opposed previous "net neutrality" proposals. Their networks would be abused. And that's why operations like Google want net neutrality mandated by federal regulations. They could offer services without sharing the whole cost to provide them over broadband networks.

    What's at stake is who gets control, and who pays the cost. We believe businesses, yes even big corporations like AT&T, have a right to control what they own and to operate without financial penalty imposed by the government.

    Although net neutrality purports to ensure fairness and competition, its government regulation would do the opposite, writes Adam B. Summers in The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education. "In the free market, competition ensures that customers receive the services they demand. Government control, by contrast, ensures that they receive whatever services the politicians and bureaucrats in power at the time deem appropriate."

    As the libertarian Cato Institute concluded, net neutrality's regulatory regime "would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors" as well as "encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets."

    Some may gain at first by government manipulation of the broadband market. But even they could later find themselves out of favor under ever-changing regulatory mandates dictated by politicians and bureaucrats responding to special interests.

    More government control of the Internet isn't neutral. It's the nose under the tent everyone will come to regret, save perhaps those politically connected interests who manage to "game" the system.
    Net neutrality not so neutral | government, services, internet, net, neutrality - Opinion - OCRegister.com
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #7
    Banned New Member
    Join Date
    09 Jul 08
    Posts
    14
    Judging by the lack of responses... I'm guessing most people don't even know what this is... that is too bad.

  8. #8
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaught View Post
    Judging by the lack of responses... I'm guessing most people don't even know what this is... that is too bad.
    Insulting comment. Maybe they know and they don't care to discuss it at this time. Best you stick to substance and not pass judgement on members' intelligence, or find a place more suited to the topic.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  9. #9
    Contributor ZekeJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jul 08
    Posts
    396
    Censorship will not be the result of a failed Neutrality, higher internet costs will be.

    There might be some unintentional censorship as some sites or people who use large amounts of bandwidth won't be able to afford increased costs, but in the end the whole issue revolves around money.

  10. #10
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,802
    Quote Originally Posted by ZekeJones View Post
    Censorship will not be the result of a failed Neutrality, higher internet costs will be.

    There might be some unintentional censorship as some sites or people who use large amounts of bandwidth won't be able to afford increased costs, but in the end the whole issue revolves around money.
    Of course it does. With it, comes government regulations on one more aspect of the free market. Federal government is grabbing power little by little. Our free enterprise model will eventually suffer a death by a thousand cuts.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #11
    Contributor ZekeJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jul 08
    Posts
    396
    Net neutrality is the hot topic because the providers want to be able to charge more for people who use more bandwidth. Until the providers started grumbling about raising prices, no one said boo about it.
    It's not censorship, in the end it's about restricting business. There isn't a single thing in that bill that restricts what is said and by who. If a business or some fringe wacko site can't pay its bill, its not the providers business to subsidize them.
    To put it another way, a print shop isn't obligated to print fliers for someone if they can't afford the cost.
    It all comes back to money.

  12. #12
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,802
    Quote Originally Posted by ZekeJones View Post
    Net neutrality is the hot topic because the providers want to be able to charge more for people who use more bandwidth. Until the providers started grumbling about raising prices, no one said boo about it.
    It's not censorship, in the end it's about restricting business. There isn't a single thing in that bill that restricts what is said and by who. If a business or some fringe wacko site can't pay its bill, its not the providers business to subsidize them.
    To put it another way, a print shop isn't obligated to print fliers for someone if they can't afford the cost.
    It all comes back to money.
    That's exactly right. I have a hard time trying to figure out if you're for it or against it.

    I'm against it because government will be able to dictate price points for businesses. Isn't that a form of censorship?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #13
    Contributor ZekeJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jul 08
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    That's exactly right. I have a hard time trying to figure out if you're for it or against it.

    I'm against it because government will be able to dictate price points for businesses. Isn't that a form of censorship?
    No, its restricting what a business will be able to charge.
    Personally, I'm against this bill in its present form. Business is business and the providers are not there to provide a community service.
    But on the other hand, if costs go up so much that businesses and consumers can't afford it, it will stifle the economy. I personally couldn't run my business without the internet and still make a profit.
    So in the end, some sort of compromise will have to be reached. It won't be pretty and not many will like it, but there will have to be a compromise.

  14. #14
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Of course it does. With it, comes government regulations on one more aspect of the free market. Federal government is grabbing power little by little. Our free enterprise model will eventually suffer a death by a thousand cuts.

    Precisely. "Thomas Jefferson anticipated this when he said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

    Took that from an essay called "Future Prospects for Economic Liberty" by Walter Williams, syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics, George Mason University.

    It's a short, but good read. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

    Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  15. #15
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,802
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Precisely. "Thomas Jefferson anticipated this when he said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

    Took that from an essay called "Future Prospects for Economic Liberty" by Walter Williams, syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics, George Mason University.

    It's a short, but good read. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

    Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
    Sir, his article pretty much sums up my entire belief system.

    What a government does is pretty much racketeering, if the same were conducted by another party. Government runs a ponzi scheme called Social Security yet we persecute a private party for running the same scheme, but on a much smaller scale.

    I know corporations don't have my best interest in mind. I don't have to give them money if I don't feel like it. I can't NOT pay the government when its thugs are at my door demanding me to pay for a service that I neither need nor want.

    I can sue a private party and might even win. But if I sue the government, even if I win, I lose. It will defend itself in court down to my last dollar.

    Mr. Williams even touched on the subject of why the world seems so wrong today. Capitalism is so successful that it has eliminated the most serious threat to the human race, all within the last 200 years. We no longer worry about starvation or pestilence. We are able to adapt to harsh environmental conditions with advanced technology made cheaply by capitalism. Without the threat to our very existence, we start to pay attention to boogeymen that in reality cause very little harm to us as a species. The religion of "global warming" is a great example.

    I think it was Ray Bardbury who said, paraphrasing here, "when evil has been eliminated, we will start to separate the good from the no-so-good."

    We're suffering from the same problem here. Our lives are too good, too comfortable. We no longer struggle to stay alive. Now we struggle to live well. Eventually we will struggle to live as easy as possible.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The end of the internet?
    By Ray in forum Computer & Gadgets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13 Nov 06,, 17:28
  2. RBI pegs GDP growth at 7.5-8%
    By santosh tiwari in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Jul 06,, 03:54
  3. Mandal II: Anti-quota pitch on Net, phone
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14 Apr 06,, 14:16
  4. Exxon's $10B net a U.S. corporate record
    By Ironduke in forum International Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28 Oct 05,, 15:57
  5. Opinions: "US rejects changes to net control"
    By Chris in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09 Oct 05,, 19:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •