Republicans Move To Block Net Neutrality Rules

[enewmen]

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Oh my goodness....do my own eyes deceive me? Someone actually made sense on the internet! I am American and I agree 100% with what you just said. No one ever seems to discuss the problems of having an economy that is based on the tertiary/services sector. While I certainly hope that all of humanity can advance themselves - I also am hoping that my fellow citizens develop their math and science skills so we can maintain our competitiveness.[/citation]

I'm confused with your logic. If labor was worth the same anyplace in the world (as you think it should be), then SHOULD the U.S. government spend as much as possible on public education? So Americans can develop math, science, etc to maintain the competitiveness.
I'm an American working in Singapore. Engineers get paid more here vs. cost of living.

 

[enewmen]

My kids will also get a better public education here than in the States. So, they will be more competitive in the world njalterio described.
my 2 cents worth....

 

[Fusion777]

Net neutrality protects the free transmission of information. In theory, market forces would competitively provide access for us all without government intervention, but as another poster pointed out - ISP's for end users are often times in a monopoly-like position. So you could see net neutrality as an anti monopoly measure if you like, even though it's more than that.

For example, it's conceivable a provider could shut off all your skype access, and surcharge you for your "fatty" netflix access. The surcharge I could almost live with, but de-prioritizing skype and similar "free" services is unacceptable. And as time goes on, more and more compelling free services will show up. As long as there's a place for them to live.

But the argument really isnt should we have free skype (or equivelant). I think everyone agrees we should. Question is, do we need laws to protect it?

I believe we do. We are in a new era of internet access, which demands new protective rules. Yes, it disallows ISP's from some extra money making opportunities, but the internet's purpose isn't merely a facilitator to make money. It's an important social fabric which rises far above a regular economic argument. Indeed, the free flow of information is key for businesses too, who may rely on the lower cost internet services provide than some alternatives. VoIP anyone? So really, we can distill the argument to:

1. Allow net neutrality so that non-ISP businesses, education and social communications may flourish
2. Disallow net neutrality so that ISP's may profit more, and stifle everyone else (who isn't buddy buddy with the ISPs) along the way.

I know which one I choose.

Net neutrality too costly? Stifling the economy? Let's see what happens when suddenly 50,000 large american corporations have to pay 3x for their VoIP service... and look out videochat...

 

[rantoc]

I'm so happy i don't live in US with all this kind of crap going on.

In Sweden i don't know any isp who throttles the traffic on land based access and its quite cheap too - got 100/100 mbit for 150sek (about 23$). And yes it delivers what it sais - about 98-96 mbps both up and down.

The underlaying problem seems to be that the backbone in US can't handle bulk traffic from everyone, and that have to be controlled so the net wont be congested. Whats a better way to control how much people can use than to charge them extra (if its a high demand low availability resource it becomes precious and can be way overcharged!). The ISP get more money and the net wont be as full.

 

[Guest]

The bill is the ISP'S "right to throttle" and will result in tiered internet services wherby you pay for "classic " which is dialup speed or "fast" which is 2mb-10mb or "gaming" at high speeds. all with the corresponding cost increases of course.

VOTE NO until they remove the throttling.

 

[Parrdacc]

Net Neutrality. I like how governments try and make things sound so good when in reality it just screws people over. On the surface it sounds good, until you realize that by accepting this you give the FCC the power to determine what in its eyes is a valid "form of legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks" With all the big companies out there, along with their lobby groups and money I would think it not a stretch to get the FCC to help block or at least make it difficult to access anything that these companies deem wrong. Personally I must say one of the biggest problems is what others have stated in regards to lack of regional competition. To many areas are tied to one ISP only.

 

[Guest]

So sad to watch a group of people consistently act against their own best interests because talk radio and a certain TV station tells them to. I work in an environment surrounded by repub's and con's, and it's evident that half of what they preach they only do so to fit in with the others, each too fearful to voice their own opinion out of fear of rejection from the herd.

Con's are so concerned about the FCC suddenly deciding to try and censor the internet, but this is exactly what the ISP's themselves will do without neutrality. Con's keep assuming that because the internet is free and open today, that it will simply stay so without gov't intervention, but we have already seen their little white papers handed down from corporate saying exactly the opposite. The only reason the internet is not completely crippled by ISP's at the moment is because the technology is still burgeoning, and they simply havent had time to begin the throttling/tiered service model yet.

Proper tiered service already exists people, it's the various bandwidth packages you buy. DSL light @ 1.5mbps, DSL fast @ 3.0, and DSL extreme at 6.0. Same thing for cable. They already have the necessary caps in place to allow consumers to choose what they want. What neutrality seeks to prevent is to make sure Comcast doesnt flat out block netflix.com because it competes with xfinity. But if you *really* want netflix, you have to pay an extra $50/month, so that you are left with no logical choice but to simply subscribe to xfinity. Or to keep microsoft from paying comcast $1,000,000,000 to just block access to google.com so everyone has to use bing.

The only reason we dont see this yet is because they havent had time to implement it. But now that the internet has finally settled in, it's time to begin milking it for all it's worth. Under repub/con rule it's going to be a worthless shell of it's former self, kind of like mobile internet on a cell provider. One in which you have hardly any use for and dread trying to connect to due to ridiculous usage restrictions and exorbitant pricing.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]descendency[/nom]Did you miss the biggest piece of legislation the government has passed in it's history? It effectively mandated that Americans whom are required to buy health insurance be required to buy a more expensive version (which may not necessarily be better for them) but as well expanded the number of people whom had to purchase it? Anyone see those "shrinking premiums" that were promised. Anyone notice how Wall Street watched the stocks of the major insurance companies sky rocket after the bill was signed into law? Who did that help? The common man or the insurance company executives who haven't worked a real job in their life? I can go on if you like, but I am sure you can see that both sides play that game. And don't give me the load of crap that one side is worse than another. On topic: this is a very scary issue to talk about. On one hand, you have people talking about censoring the internet, metering the bandwidth provided to certain kinds of files, etc. On the other hand, you have consumers who are basically paying for people to whatever they want on the internet. If I as a consumer only visit my e-mail, Tomshardware, and facebook, then it doesn't make sense for me to pay for internet that is intended for gamers, file sharers, and other power internet users. It would be cheaper for the average consumer to allow more intensive materials to cost more than less intensive, because the average internet user doesn't use extremely intensive applications. It also makes sense that a site like Tomshardware would be outraged that this would be going on because they are likely power users (I personally am) and enjoy the common man paying for their right to game, file share, youtube, etc. It goes beyond simple metering though. While some may cringe at the idea of an internet filter, it could be argued that an internet filter could block potentially harmful content from entering the computing eco-system. We could restrict information like "how to make a bomb" or "how to shoot an assault rifle" from common people so they have to consult an expert on these matters who can make decisions on whether it's safe to hand out such information.Obviously, this is a very very very touchy subject. It's one that should be thought out immensely. Furthermore, the current Net-neutrality rules are abysmally bad for everyone. The FCC did a terrible job with them. I wouldn't fund them either. I can't say it's for the same reason the Republicans are blocking this, but it's definitely a reason.[/citation]

Single payers systems ftw. HC and Internet.

lol @ Americans

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Silly Americans, you see your economic situation deteriorating and you blame Obama, Bush, socialists, corporations, unions, wars, etc. The reason you are not rich as you once were is the fact that there was no basis in it. No real reason why an American programmer would earn five times more than an Indian programmer. Same for plumbers, nurses, whoever. You are not five/ten times more productive than your counterparts in the developing world and for the first time in history your employers have the choice of giving these jobs to someone overseas.And there is nothing that can be done, you and other rich countries will continue to get poorer, the poor countries will get richer until an equilibrium is reached where you'll earn according to your productivity. It's only fair.[/citation]

In other news the sky is blue and water is wet. This is why I'm pushing for aggressive imperialism. People whine about about how we should be a force for good and respect the rest of the world and other shit like that but they don't want to lose a dime in the process. Idealist hippie is idealist. Something's got to give.

 

[thrasher32]

[citation][nom]ohseus[/nom]Good for them. The FCC is ran by a bunch of socialist leftist who have never had real jobs. The FCC has no business whatsoever sticking it's useless nose into the internet. War nobody wanted? Ask the average Afghan if they prefer life under the Taliban.[/citation]

The level of your ignorance is astounding. Try thinking for yourself instead of letting Limbaugh/Murdoch do it for you. I know it takes some effort and intelligence, but it'll be worth it.

The G.O.P. is out to destroy our country and ideals.

 

[Sabiancym]

[citation][nom]Xatos[/nom]Liberals are morons. There's nothing else to discuss.[/citation]

Every intelligence test ever done disagrees with that statement....

 

[iguanac64]

The problem here is that all the Conservative pundits believe Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. I've listen to Glen Beck talk about Net Neutrality...it will make your head explode with the ignorance. Yes...I believe the Fairness Doctrine was stupid. Net Neutrality would keep your ISP from deciding they don't think you should read Fox News or stream Fox News programming and cap your bandwidth to those sites to something incredibly minimal...while having that leftist Socialist evil CNN completely unblocked.

Net Neutrality is not some huge f'n beauracracy (or shouldn't be)...it just says net providers can't configure their equipment to artificially cap your service according to whatever criteria they want. It's not rocket science and it's not the bullcrap the Right says it is.

 

[TeraMedia]

Does anyone else find it ironic that Verizon, who helped author the net-neutrality rules, is now suing to have their enforcement declared unconstitutional?

 

[dark_lord69]

[citation][nom]littlebomb[/nom]Republicans = Attack abortion rightsAttack internet freedomAttack the right to organize unionsAttack the right to sue corporationsFight for corporations to abuse the environment and it's workersFight to lower taxes on people who never have to work again because of insane amounts of wealthWho's freedom are they fighting for? The common man's or corporation's that aren't human?[/citation]
YES!!!
THANK YOU!!!
Anyone that is a republican is a misguided person that doesn't know what republicans truely stand for. That.. or they are a billionair and wants nothing but more profit from his company(ies) and lower taxes for himself. Anyone that is not wealthy but is a republican is a complete moron.
They were probably conviced to join the rebulican party because:
They support current gun laws and many are members of the NRA
If you are just completely racsist you're likely a republican.
If you are homofobic and want to fight gay marrige your likely a republican.

These are all missguided reasons that have pushed people toward thinking they are a republican. I challenge all republicans to research what thier political party supports. I think many would be surprised to find that thier primary interest is on the behalf of corporations. These other things they fight for and against are just used to rally more people into allowing corporations completely unregulated controll of our country. If you ask me corporations could use some MORE regulations. If the banks didn't become unregulated several years back the recession we are in now may have never happened. THANK YOU REPUBLICANS! It is the republican's belief that if companies are allowed to make plenty of money that they will just be kind and let that money flow to the employees... NO, that does not happen. Why is this thorey flawed? ... GREED

 

[flugelhorn]

We will see what happens as a result of this. There hasn't been net-neutrality rule in place all this time and I have never had a problem. Ever. The problem here is, Dems are full of concern-trolls that want to regulate a problem that doesn't exists before there is a problem and there is never anything that says there will actually BE a problem. Reflect on their environmental policies and tell me I am wrong. This gives them an excuse to nickel and time with government fees to pay for this new regulation AND add layers of useless paper-work to be processed to justify the new fees. Regulation is just a democrat's way of inserting another middle-man into the works so they can siphon some of the cash from that industry and funnel it somewhere else. Kinda like a parasite.

We will see where we are in a few years without net-neutrality. All of you concern-trolls will either be validated or still be concern-trolling that your vision of doom will definitely happen, it is just a matter of time. Al la global warming, etc...

 

[millerm84]

Conservatives cry foul that business are being regulated for fear any business may be regulated. Think on this:

1. US invented the internet and has been overshadowed in every category of implementation; speed, reliability, percentage of home that have access.

2. Without net neutrality rules a successful website/service could be charged extra even if the service was low bandwidth simply because the ISP wanted to share in the profits they "helped" the owner create.

I know that internet providers (for the most part) are privately owned and operated. So is the privately owned and operated restaurant that has to meet certain sanitation standards, the grocery store is privately owned but if its scales are off the government will shut its doors, car manufactures are privately owned but still must meet certain government guild lines for safety. Being a privately owned business doesn't mean you are exempt from government oversight.

Government oversight is necessary in a capitalist society, without it consumers suffer.

Examples of this would be the irradiated water that was sold in the 50's for its health benefits, the use of narcotics in Coke, the use of poison in cigarettes (don't believe me touch, don't taste just touch, a teaspoon of nicotine and see how long it takes you die from it), and the use of beef byproducts to feed cattle (that causes mad cow disease). Those are just a few reasons that government regulation has proven necessary. The capitalist never cares for the damage that his product and polices cause, the number at the end of the spreadsheet is all that matters.

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]killbits[/nom]What the hell do a bunch of old white guys know about the internet?"[/citation]
You mean besides creating it in the first place?

 

[Guest]

I love the people that call Republicans the misinformed. Have you ever watched MSNBC or CNN and witnessed the double standard in reporting. They claim that the Tea Party had Hitler signs and messages of hate. They could not produce any tangible proof, but they reported it as fact.

Now, in Wisconsin they are protesting with cross hairs and Nazi symbolism. I bet you don't see that on your beloved MSNBC. The Governor there is trying to balance the state budget to keep the state from going broke. He is painted as an evil one because he is a Republican. It is funny how there is talk of civility, but it seems to be a message for Republicans only because the Democrats appear to get a free pass on that.

How would you balance their budget? Oh, I know, raise the taxes on the wealthy. I am far from rich, but I have never got a job from someone that was poor. The more money you take from the wealthy; the less they will invest in people. Sure the government is going to spend that money too, but I personally do not feel that we get the same return. Sure, some programs are pretty good, buy they are run poorly. Someone earlier said something about how well the FDA does their job but they overextend themselves at times and get into things they should not. Social Security is a good program, but it desperately needs reform. Stop providing SSN for people that enter the country illegally.

It also seems like the military is the first target of a Democrat. They always want to cut the budge. You do realize that with today's technology, we will not have time in a full war to ramp up like we did in World War II. I wish we didn't need a military and that we could spend that money on research and technology. I would love to take $100B from the military and spend at NASA, but there are real threats in the world and they don't really care where we spend our money.

I know that corporations can be evil, but just because they are a corporation does not make them evil. Competition helps keep prices down. We all know that Microsoft, Intel and Apple would screw us royally if it wasn't for competition and some laws that are on the books. I have no problem with the companies getting paid for their work. Unfortunately, we can all develop a greed.

I am not trying to start an argument, but I just saw several mischaracterizations.

I do not dislike Democrats, many of my relatives are. I just disagree with much of there thinking. I do with people would stop disliking something just because someone has an R or a D by there name.

 

[RedSkye]

The government's ONLY proper role is to protect individual rights. We have no more a "right" to the internet than we do any other service or product provided by other people. If ISP's decided tomorrow that they don't want to continue staying in business for whatever reason and closed their doors, would we put a government gun to their head and make them continue providing service because "we have a right to it"? The internet is not simply a free entity owned collectively by everyone. It is owned by the businesses and industries that maintain and create its infrastructure. It can not be owned by those who have no knowledge or ability to create it and make it work. If you don't like what an ISP does, boycott the company, affect its profits, and maybe they will change their ways.... out of self interest as a business... not out of capitulation to government's force.

1. The internet exists in its current form because our government invested great amounts of taxpayer money into ARPAnet, which later evolved into what we have today. ISPs never did and never will "own" the internet.
2. ISPs directly profit from an infrastructure that has been heavily subsidized. These companies make millions off of a backbone created with taxpayer money and are sudo-monopolies that would suck every last penny from their customers if they had the chance. They lobby for any legislation that would give them more subsidies while lobbying against any legislation that would actually force them to follow some rules once taking this money (sadly, like most corporations).
3. The internet is one of the most important achievements of the modern age. Without it, our economy, and most of the world economies, would catastrophically and spectacularly crash. It is one of the only places left where true freedom of thought and freedom of speech can be practiced. The extent of what is happening in the Middle East right now would never have been possible without social networking. Universities, in their current states, would not be able to operate without it. You seriously would trust something so powerful and essential to the our country and the world in the hands of a few monopolistic corporations with no over-site what-so-ever?

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]Objectivist[/nom]The government's ONLY proper role is to protect individual rights. We have no more a "right" to the internet than we do any other service or product provided by other people.[/citation]
You state that as a fact, but it's merely an opinion about the proper role of government. Even within our Constitution, there are plenty of ways to read it - and I've not yet heard an originalist without bias.

The reason we regulate utilities is that they are given use of public lands and a defacto regional monopoly. Were there not physical barriers to free and open competition, there would be no need to regulate them.

Congress tried to break this tie to physical infrastructure with the Telecom act of '96, which attempted to decouple ownership of the "last mile" wires from service provision. The threat was roundly defeated by the big Telecoms and cable operators.

Objectivist, do you know what Ms Rand thought about lobbyists? Do you have any idea how much the Telecoms spend on lobbying?