Net neutrality rules sneaked into 'stimulus' bill

[IPSecure]

Net neutrality rules sneaked into 'stimulus' bill

Posted January 16th, 2009 by StaxBrix (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/12315)

The House Democrats' $825 billion legislation released on Thursday was supposedly intended to "stimulate" the economy. Backers claimed that speedy approval was vital because the nation is in "a crisis not seen since the Great Depression" and "the economy is shutting down."
That's the rhetoric. But in reality, Democrats are using the 258-page legislation to sneak Net neutrality rules in through the back door.

The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. The U.S. Department of Commerce is charged with writing checks-with-many-zeros-on-them to eligible recipients, including telecommunications companies, local and state governments, and even construction companies and other businesses that might be interested.

http://votetags.info/2009... (http://votetags.info/2009/01/net-neutrality-rules-sneaked-into-stimulus-bill/)

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/79412

[hotbrownsauce]

Don't mess wif mah internets!!!!!

[blocks]

That's the problem with a $800B+ spending bill. Sneaking in a couple $100 Million can go unnoticed....:(

Wow...just in the past 6 months this country has fallen so far, it's incredible really.

[demolama]

Thats the problem when you have a Congress full of one party and a new president from the same party... we're looking at a major push in party agenda for the next 2 years.

[fr33domfightr]

I don't think I'd call internet access, "Net Neutrality." I think that term has more to do with ISPs not limiting what people do on the internet, even if what they do might interfere with a company's business model (eg. ATT blocking Skype calls).

Many people live out in the country where broadband access can be very limited or nonexistent. Those are the areas that are "unserved" or "underserved." That just gave me an idea. Since most people living out in the country at least have AC power lines, perhaps internet access over the power lines would be an option for them.


FF

[nullvalu]

I don't think I'd call internet access, "Net Neutrality." I think that term has more to do with ISPs not limiting what people do on the internet, even if what they do might interfere with a company's business model (eg. ATT blocking Skype calls).

Many people live out in the country where broadband access can be very limited or nonexistent. Those are the areas that are "unserved" or "underserved." That just gave me an idea. Since most people living out in the country at least have AC power lines, perhaps internet access over the power lines would be an option for them.


FF

On Net neutrality - Ron Paul himself has voted against it - not because it isn't decent legislation - but because he doesn't want to open that can of worms and start passing laws regarding the internet - because he know once that begins, we'll begin seeing more & more laws..

[literatim]

Many people live out in the country where broadband access can be very limited or nonexistent. Those are the areas that are "unserved" or "underserved." That just gave me an idea. Since most people living out in the country at least have AC power lines, perhaps internet access over the power lines would be an option for them.

Internet through powerlines exists but they are too far out. If they really want broadband, they could get satellite. A bit pricey and not very good pings for online games, but it works.

[fr33domfightr]

On Net neutrality - Ron Paul himself has voted against it - not because it isn't decent legislation - but because he doesn't want to open that can of worms and start passing laws regarding the internet - because he know once that begins, we'll begin seeing more & more laws..


I don't know the legislation he specifically voted FOR or AGAINST. But I'm sure he's for personal freedom.

As such, if your telco happened to be your ISP, we wouldn't want them to block you from making "Skype" calls. I understand not wanting to hamper businesses, but at the same time, we don't want those same businesses taking away our freedom. Net Neutrality is about ignoring what people do on the internet and just let the "data" flow.

Another case of this is when Comcast was limiting bandwidth for those using Bit Torrent. Again, Comcast was biased against Bit Torrent "data," and not being neutral about it. Yes, I understand they need to manage their bandwidth, but at the same time, we don't want them limiting what we do on the internet. That's what Net Neutrality is all about.

Perhaps the legislation that came up was too restrictive on businesses, or RP thought that the free market should decide how to handle this. Free markets can break down when there is an unspoken collusion that occurs, such that ALL ISPs block "data" they don't agree with. I just want freedom to choose what I do, or don't do online.


FF

[AutoDas]

Net Neutrality sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can the net be neutral when the Government has an active roll in it? Stop thinking we have a free market economy. The Government controls which ISPs get control of the cables.

[Matt Collins]

I don't know the legislation he specifically voted FOR or AGAINST. But I'm sure he's for personal freedom.

As such, if your telco happened to be your ISP, we wouldn't want them to block you from making "Skype" calls. I understand not wanting to hamper businesses, but at the same time, we don't want those same businesses taking away our freedom. Net Neutrality is about ignoring what people do on the internet and just let the "data" flow.You are talking about the symptom not the problem.

Try and think through this..

In a free market a business cannot "take away your freedom". Why? Because you can go elsewhere to another business. Except in this case there is little, if any, competition in the ISP marketplace because of government regulation!

In other words, your local BellSouth, ATT, Comcast, Time Warner, QWEST, etc are LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTED MONOPOLIES. Actually a "cartel" would be a better phrase. :mad:




Another case of this is when Comcast was limiting bandwidth for those using Bit Torrent. Again, Comcast was biased against Bit Torrent "data," and not being neutral about it. Yes, I understand they need to manage their bandwidth, but at the same time, we don't want them limiting what we do on the internet. That's what Net Neutrality is all about.

The solution?!?! Sever the ties between government and business! I'm for the separation of church and state, school and state, and business and state!


Then there will be competition. Trying to regulate these companies only compounds the problem and does not solve the real issue: lack of competition. :rolleyes:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt