Okay, so what the hell is Net Neutrality? All I know about it is it’s something the Kos Kids are going on and on about and pretty much no one else cares about, so I can only assume it’s extremely asinine. And knowing what left-wing considers a “moderate,” I can’t help but be suspicious of anything they consider “neutral.”
I think the crux of it is that an internet provider could choose to allocate resources to certain sites and apps, making others slower. Thus the Kos Kids are all worried that the Daily Kos could end up taking forever to load and wants the government to make sure that doesn’t happen, but is them waiting longer for Daily Kos really a tragedy or something? It’s not like any of them actually has anything better to do.
I still think Kos is smokin’ hot. Much the same way Arianna Huffington is smokin’ hot. Plus the same sulfer smell.
(I could use this joke all day! But then, would I be any different than the Kos Kids?)
If the Kos Kids are for it, what other reason does anyone need to be against it? Plus, if the Kos Kids have to wait a long time, it means their aren’t spending as much time out in public subjecting people to their rancid hippie type smells.
KOS Kids are busy people! They spend a lot of time looking for good used tires for the house and then there are those pesky lines for food stamps and welfare!
Aren’t Kos Kids babbling retards? I can’t take anything they say/want/feel seriously. Eff em and feed em pudding, I say.
Basically it’s the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Actually, there are a ton of different policies that have been lumped together under the term Net Neutrality. One of the more benign ones is the idea that broadband should be guaranteed to rural areas (just like we require the Postal Service to unprofitably deliver to tiny villages in the middle of nowhere). But the thing they really want is a law that basically says you can’t pay for bandwidth. Rush Limbaugh or Townhall.com would not be entitled to purchase any more bandwidth than a nobody like me with his personal homepage. Exceptions, of course, would be doled out by the federal government to favored constituencies (i.e. not Limbaugh or Townhall).
By the way, it’s the latter thing that was more or less struck down by a court yesterday. The judge ruled that the FCC does not have power to regulate how privately-owned telecom companies sell their bandwidth. It was not a Constitutional judgment though; Congress could just create this power by passing a law.
Well, and didn’t the court say that the reason the case was a problem was because the FCC wanted to regulate something that wasn’t “attached to a law”. Ere go, if the FCC wants to regulate something, they go to their buddies in Congress now and ask for their law. Or, more aptly, go put a horse head in somebody’s bed…
well, there is probably a constitutional issue, too.
There was a decision a few years back about the playboy channel and the supreme court basically said that the government had no right to control the cable channels. that was a constitutional decision, as i understand it. And the regulation was actually really benign. it said that if a cable company scrambled an adults-only channel, it had to scramble it enough that you couldn’t see any nakedness at all. but in an opinion by Clarence Thomas (which is funny in and of itself), the court said that the right to regulate speech on Tv didn’t apply to cable channels.
that’s why FX, comedy central and many other cable-only channels can get away with stuff that no traditional network can. because they are cable/satelite only, and not broadcast over simple airwaves, tough. no restrictions allowed.
its more than just that, part of it is controlling internet content (bye bye 4chan) because the internet has become a “wild west”
part of it is controlling the internet providers, so they cant stop users from downloading from torrent sites and poor people are allowed free internet (i dont know it NN compliments this, or creates this, and im too lazy to look it up)
and part of it is something else, but i cant remember, maybe ill visit the doomed 4chan and have them remind me
“I think the crux of it is that an internet provider could choose to allocate resources to certain sites [users, esp commercial] and apps, making others slower.”
Largely yes, albeit there are some sub-issues. And this is the part that the Court ruled on.
But watch for basically the same case to be pushed to the FTC: the ways in which Comcast in particular and others (eg TimeWarner/RoadRunner) in general have done this was at best sneaky and allegedly amounted to fraud – rsidential customers were promised things that were withdrawn or never delivered in the first place.
In order for telecoms to offer next gen services like IPTV and reliable VOIP, they must be able to devote more bandwidth to that traffic. Net Neutrality would would make those options un-viable, and the cable and satellite companies would love it if AT&T and Verizon had to stop IPTV. Also, I love it when those drooling mouth breathing Kos Kids compare US broadband to Europe. Populations in Europe are concentrated in cities and towns, with larges rural spaces in between. The population in the US is much more spread out, making broadband deployment more costly because of the lower population density.
As Conservatives it’s natural, even instinctive, for us to be mistrustful any time the government tries to say how private businesses should operate said private business. And truthfully the FCC making demands of the telecoms was a poor approach that would have set a bad precedent.
One cannot dismiss the concerns of net neutrality advocates out of hand or blindly label them all as “Kos kids” or even “liberals.” It’s also unfair to dismiss net neutrality as the “Fairness Doctrine” of the internet. It’s actually more the opposite. Let’s say your ISP was run by liberals. The ISP isn’t restricting how much bandwidth a website has available for hosting, the ISP is restricting the bandwidth available for its customers to connect to a particular site. So PJTV would still be able to host all the content they can put up, but traffic to pjtv.com might be slower or you might have trouble connecting.
There are other issues at hand, too. Dismissing comparisons between network speeds and availability in the US with other countries simply because other countries have populations centralized in more urban areas is like the an abuse victim trying to excuse the beatings from her boyfriend. In a lot of areas telecoms operate under virtual monopolies. For example, if you want broadband internet and you live in my area, you’re going to have to be a Comcast subscriber. This would be the same Comcast that imposed a 250GB limit on its “unlimited” broadband. Their argument is that some people eat up too much bandwidth, and while that may be true, bandwidth consumption is only going to go up. Before we were just using the internet for emails or checking out the odd website on our family computer, but we’re moving toward an era of digital distribution, and more and more devices like TVs and game consoles are connected to the internet. Services like Steam, Xbox Live, and the PlayStation Network sell video games digitally. iTunes and Netflix are serving up movies. Hulu’s become famous for offering up television over the internet. Comcast caps its customers in the face of this less to guarantee quality of service and more because it doesn’t feel like increasing its network capacity when it knows you don’t have an alternative.
Lastly, while I generally support free markets and the belief that a business has a right to charge what it wants for its goods or services, I don’t believe access to the internet is just another commodity anymore. One of the reasons that more devices have internet connections is because the internet has become so very entwined in the way our society functions. The internet has become more akin to a utility, like water or electricity, than a service like the premium sports package on television. We’ve got to the point where it’s inconvenient to job hunt without internet access, and extremely difficult to apply for a job once you’ve found it without an email address.
The crux of the issue is that those Kwazy Kos Kiddies do not know how to play well with others. They and the rest of the whiners on the left believe in free speech as long as it agrees with their speech, all other speech, any difference of opinion, is “hate” speech and therefore not appropriate for the net, the radio, the television, phones, war drums or smoke signals. It must therefore be regulated by those who KNOW what is best for us, our overseers, our rulers, our elites. Only they can decide what speech is really appropriate and what is dangerous.
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, we’re so glad you could attend come inside, come inside.-Emerson,Lake and Palmer Karn Evil 9 Brain Salad Surgery (and yes I am that old)
There are aspects of net neutrality that I support, and some I don’t.
The ISP should be able to throttle bandwidth hogs, though not to the extent of placing a hard limit on people who are paying for “unlimited”.
The ISP should be able to set up premium services where you get more bandwidth, or access to bandwidth reserved for teleconferencing, TV, gaming, or whatever.
What I don’t want the ISP doing is cutting deals behind my back with Google and Microsoft to promote their traffic over other traffic in general, or some bureaucrat randomly believing that throttling Steam traffic would save the company money, or buckling under a MoveOn petition to lower the priority of traffic going to evil capitalist websites like IMAO. If I’m paying for general internet service, I want general internet service.
Some of the net neutrality positions seem like a good thing at first glance, but for me, it boils down to this: private companys built the network, and they can do whatever they want with it.
I think the key point many people miss is that the “internet” isn’t a big, free public utility – it’s a bunch of privately owned routers, servers, and broadband cable. If I set up my own separate network of computers and routers should the government be able to tell me what I can and can’t do with it?
(if anyone who answered yes to that question, my respone to you will be Rahm Emmanuel’s favorite two word phrase)
Internet service and braodband access are not rights. ISPs should be able to run their networks as they see fit. If people don’t like their policies, they are free to get service elsewhere. Let market pressures dictate to the ISPs, not the government.
“Private companies built the network, and they can do whatever they want with it.”
Stimulus money has been earmarked for telecoms to build up their networks. Verizon, IIRC, stopped building their FIOS network because they’re waiting for government funds. Seems the American people invested in the network. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to have a say, then.
“I think the key point many people miss is that the “internet” isn’t a big, free public utility – it’s a bunch of privately owned routers, servers, and broadband cable.”
Last I checked, electricity (which is a utility) isn’t free, and private companies are in the business of supplying said utility to the public. I see no reason why such a model couldn’t apply to internet access.
“Interent service and broadband access are not rights.”
Perhaps they should be. Society is moving to a point where it is more and more difficult to get by without it.
“If people don’t like their policies, they are free to get service elsewhere. Let market pressure dictate to the ISPs, not the government.”
As I already mentioned, ISPs in many areas operate under virtual monopolies. I would LOVE to get service elsewhere, but I tell you without exaggeration that my only alternative to Comcast in my area is dial-up. Economics 101 will tell you that I’m stuck with inferior service and higher prices because there’s a serious lack of market pressure.
Look, I agree that the FCC trying to push around the telecoms was a bad approach. It would set a dangerous precedent, and the Supreme Court was right to smack it down. However, the internet was and still is a major paradigm shift in the way the world gets its information. It’s folly to think of it as just another telecom service akin to premium sports package on your television and expect market pressure to ensure reasonable prices and quality of service when they’re already failing and doing just that.
mikeszekely, I call your conservative card into question. Your choices may be limited, but you seem to think that its acceptable then to go running to the government demanding that they mandate you some new ‘right’ because you want broadband internet access. You would have the government, rather than free market forces, dictate how private companies make business decisions. Then, if the private telecoms face bankruptcy because they had to waste money expanding their networks in an unprofitable way, I imagine you would have that same government bail out the too big to fail telecoms, seizing contol and running them further into the ground. Then you will have some excellent choice, comrade! “Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
And pull up your pants, dumbass!
Well, coldguy, I might as well call your conservative card into question too, since your arguments have broke down to emotional appeals and name calling. Instead, I’ll remind you that not everyone who considers themselves a conservative sees eye to eye on every issue. We may agree that we have a right to bear arms, that the First Amendment offers freedom OF religion not FROM religion, that abortion is murder, global warming is baloney, and that Reagan’s notion of “peace through strength” was the right approach to national defense, but I’m not abandoning my support of net neutrality because some guy on the internet called me an asshole and thinks I’m a closet liberal.
For starters, I’ve already mentioned twice before that free market forces are NOT in play when it comes to the telecoms. At the very least, we should agree that one of the functions we do allow for the federal government is to bust up monopolies. So no, I’m not looking for the government to bail out “too big to fail telecoms,” I’m looking for it to bust them up like it did to AT&T back in the 80s. Then maybe the resulting smaller companies will actually get competitive and invest in more infrastructure (which might not be as wasteful or as unprofitable as you seem to think). I certainly wouldn’t want the government to seize control of the telecoms, because that would result in even less competition and less market forces than we have now. What’s more, I’m not generalizing this subject into the government dictating how any business makes its decisions, which is why I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision (since siding with the FCC would have set the precedent that the government can do just that, dictate to private business how they make their decisions). I think that the internet is a special case and any decisions regarding net neutrality should come in the form of a bill that goes through all the checks and balances our Constitution offers.
But the crux of our differences seems to be our idea of what the internet is. You think its a service, I think it’s a utility. I’m not asking for “free” internet the way the left is clamoring for “free” healthcare. All I’m asking is that the internet be treated like a utility (and last I checked, private business sell utilities like water and electricity for profit). If you don’t agree with me, that’s fine, everyone’s entitled to their opinions. You might try explaining why you disagree without getting belligerent or name calling. One of the great things about conservatives is that we think about things rationally and aren’t afraid to discuss our views (as opposed to liberals who parrot party lines and go straight to personal attacks).
At any rate, net neutrality is NOT a bipartisan issue. Yeah, there’s some ideas that fall under the blanket label of net neutrality that (we don’t actually want the FCC or any other government agency regulating the internet, we just don’t want the ISPs to do it either), but that doesn’t mean its all bad. There are conservative groups like the Christian Coalition that support net neutrality, and there are conservative arguments in favor of it.
http://techrepublican.com/blog/the-conservative-argument-for-net-neutrality
http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/the-conservative-case-net-neutrality-791
I disagree with the conclusion that web use is causing a paradigm shift in our society, such that internet access is some sort of “right”.
That would mean, then, that access to a computer, nay–even computer ownership, is a “right”. No other way around it–because if you limit the “right of internet” to only computer users, then you’re discriminating against entire groups of people who do not use or have access to computers. And I’m sorry, but I just cannot support “computer welfare”. That’s crazy talk.
I don’t know a single person who has died or is starving for lack of access to either a computer or internet. And GASP, on some days, I don’t even turn on my computer. And I’m fine.
With this analogy, one could say that car ownership is a “right” because our entire society is focused around personal transport. Ere go, somebody ought to regulate car dealerships to ensure fair deals because some consumers can’t figure out how to shop or there’s no dealership that offers “fair deals” in a reasonable locale.