PDA

View Full Version : Net Neutrality




rational thinker
06-22-2008, 05:13 PM
What's Ron Paul stance on this and why?

Unspun
06-22-2008, 05:16 PM
He's consistent with his beliefs that the government should have no regulatory control over the internet and should be left up to the free market.


Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm?

pcosmar
06-22-2008, 05:17 PM
What's Ron Paul stance on this and why?

What do you mean by "Net Neutrality"? It means different things to different people.
Ron Paul's position (as stated) is that the Government should keep its hands off the internet.

(but we know that is not going to happen)

Kalifornia
06-22-2008, 05:27 PM
I dont think he has one, because so far as I can tell, he doesnt understand the problem. The various telcos are all in quasi monopoly positions, granted to them through government license at all levels. from city cable providers to large scale fiber networks. Up until now, in exchange for these quasi monopoly benefits, the .gov has largely regulated what they can charge for access to their networks. ..

Now the telcos claim that they want to be free to charge based on content. Which would essentially turn the internet in a computer version of cable TV. You would no longer have the option of treating ATT or Qwest, etc as just the pipe. Now they can filter your content.

They claim that not allowing them to do this is market intervention. What they fail to recognize is that their existence is already a market intervention. They are restricted from doing this now because they are in a powerful position granted by government license.

Its the biggest pile of shit ever.

Kludge
06-22-2008, 06:07 PM
*Gasp* Kalifornia! Are you implying that our great State is creating its own problems?

Treason!

mediahasyou
06-22-2008, 06:13 PM
I dont think he has one, because so far as I can tell, he doesnt understand the problem. The various telcos are all in quasi monopoly positions, granted to them through government license at all levels. from city cable providers to large scale fiber networks. Up until now, in exchange for these quasi monopoly benefits, the .gov has largely regulated what they can charge for access to their networks. ..

Now the telcos claim that they want to be free to charge based on content. Which would essentially turn the internet in a computer version of cable TV. You would no longer have the option of treating ATT or Qwest, etc as just the pipe. Now they can filter your content.

They claim that not allowing them to do this is market intervention. What they fail to recognize is that their existence is already a market intervention. They are restricted from doing this now because they are in a powerful position granted by government license.

Its the biggest pile of shit ever.

This is simple. No one would buy from companies that block or alter content.

Kalifornia
06-22-2008, 06:14 PM
*Gasp* Kalifornia! Are you implying that our great State is creating its own problems?

Treason!

We really do have to learn to stop nuzzling the corporate cack.

Kalifornia
06-22-2008, 06:15 PM
This is simple. No one would buy from companies that block or alter content.

They will when they have no choice. Thats what government created oligopoly is about.

newbitech
06-22-2008, 06:27 PM
The telcoms are going to have to go up against the content providers, OR merge into an even bigger corporate.

Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) anyone?

Fox McCloud
06-22-2008, 06:40 PM
the problem really goes back to the FCC and the early days of AT&T--back in the that time AT&T lobbied the government to eliminate all the competitors because "telephone service was a natural monopoly" the government gave it to them and Ma Bell was born.

Combine that with the FCC and local governments blocking new competitors from coming in because "we already have service" and you have a perfect storm for monopolies and oligopolies.

Kalifornia
06-22-2008, 06:50 PM
The telcoms are going to have to go up against the content providers, OR merge into an even bigger corporate.

Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) anyone?

I thought Rupert Murdoch was already on the way with that. FOX part deux. ---- Minitrue!

Kludge
06-22-2008, 07:39 PM
Haha... I remember back in Econ class...


"Why might the government allow a monopoly or oligopoly on certain goods or services?"

Student: "Because some G/S require extraordinary resources to start up and/or maintain that could only be done by one or a few highly efficient and centralized corporations."

"Because the government is persuaded by lobbyists to vote against what would be best for those they represent"


Damn... I miss him.

Dieseler
06-23-2008, 09:03 AM
I would not have known about the new gun grabber bill on the front page of our forums if it were not for the net.
Anyone heard about it on television?
I haven't seen a thing about it on any news, but to be fair I don't watch much Tv news except weather anymore.

You can bet that this election season has awakened TPTW to the power of the internet and I doubt they will wont to face off against its power again in four more years.

Knowing that, which will they attack with the most fury in the coming year?
The net,
Or the 2nd. Amendment?
Its a tossup in my opinion. Without either one the other will be much easier to dismantle.
We must remain to be vigilant.
As we saw with the FISA bill, they keep coming back again and again until they get the result that they want.

TPTW = The Powers That Were.

mediahasyou
06-23-2008, 10:45 AM
http://www.handsoff.org/blog/flash

freelance
06-23-2008, 10:46 AM
This is simple. No one would buy from companies that block or alter content.

Can anyone here spell M O N O P O L Y???

Kludge
06-23-2008, 11:43 AM
Can anyone here spell M O N O P O L Y???

No monopoly has ever existed in a free market :rolleyes:

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:58 AM
http://www.handsoff.org/blog/flash

this is the biggest load of shite. The telcos are the internet equivalent of the FED. the market is ALREADY regulated, which is why the telcos have monopolies.

Im all for deregulation. Just as soon as the pipes get deregulated, and anyone has access to lay their own across the various easements, then Im all for deregulating the telcos on content. Until then, they need to STFU and accept dollars for bandwidth, without regard to its content.