Please Digg: Oppose Net Neutrality?

[nayjevin]

More specifically,
Issues: OPPOSE Washington's 'Net Neutrality' - Support NATURAL Net Neutrality & Freedom

http://digg.com/political_opinion/OPPOSE_Net_Neutrality

thanks!

[nayjevin]

bump

[fr33domfightr]

More specifically,
Issues: OPPOSE Washington's 'Net Neutrality' - Support NATURAL Net Neutrality & Freedom

http://digg.com/political_opinion/OPPOSE_Net_Neutrality

thanks!


Without Net Neutrality, as it is now, ISPs may block or restrict use of Bit Torrents, Skype, Movie downloads, or Bandwidth usage. That's what Net Neutrality was all about.

The language in the Bill is to cover all the bases an ISP could use to weasel out of compliance.

The only part which we probably should be concerned about is the "lawful content." The intent was probably directed at "Child Porn," but could even be determined in a court to mean anything, like "Copyrighted" material.

Perhaps the language just needs to be modified, such that it only protects what has been a problem to date, that is, restrictions on bandwidth usage depending on data type. That means ISPs should treat "data" as "data," (ie. being neutral about the content of the data).


FF

[nayjevin]

Without Net Neutrality, as it is now, ISPs may block or restrict use of Bit Torrents, Skype, Movie downloads, or Bandwidth usage. That's what Net Neutrality was all about.and consumers can block or restrict those ISP's from having access to their homes. as it is, government regulation protects monopoly/duoply = lack of choice for the consumer in broadband usage.

Were the government out of the equation, it is my opinion that local communities would have free public wifi by now and it would be no issue.

these regulatory laws protect industries, corporations, etc, and don't solve problems, IMO


Perhaps the language just needs to be modified, such that it only protects what has been a problem to date, that is, restrictions on bandwidth usage depending on data type. That means ISPs should treat "data" as "data," (ie. being neutral about the content of the data).

I agree - I would support a private company that delivered broadband to me in that way. but I will not support a law that requires individual corporations to deliver content in that way.

[ClayTrainor]

dugg and shouted :cool:

[nayjevin]

dugg and shouted :cool:

thanks!

[specsaregood]

Without Net Neutrality, as it is now, ISPs may block or restrict use of Bit Torrents, Skype, Movie downloads, or Bandwidth usage. That's what Net Neutrality was all about.

The language in the Bill is to cover all the bases an ISP could use to weasel out of compliance.


Once you accept that the government has the right to regulate the internet; we all lose. Net Neutrality isn't about anything other than that little fact: the government wants to "regulate" aka: censor the internet. Did you not see the quote from Jay Rockefeller?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY



According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the “number one national hazard” to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama’s current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair.
The internet represents a serious threat to national security.
It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke



If you don't realize net neutrality will end up being a bad thing for all of us, you haven't been paying attention.

Or take Ron Paul's word for it, one of my favorite speeches of his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7_h_OyTI0

[fr33domfightr]

Once you accept that the government has the right to regulate the internet; we all lose. Net Neutrality isn't about anything other than that little fact: the government wants to "regulate" aka: censor the internet. Did you not see the quote from Jay Rockefeller?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

If you don't realize net neutrality will end up being a bad thing for all of us, you haven't been paying attention.

Or take Ron Paul's word for it, one of my favorite speeches of his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7_h_OyTI0


Please read this overview about Net Neutrality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


From Google, "What is Net Neutrality?" :

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."

Ron Paul wasn't in favor of "regulation" of the Internet in regards to "gambling." That wasn't about Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is about preventing corporations from restricting what YOU do on their networks, period. It's all about consumer protection. Now, if the term Net Neutrality is getting bastardized to mean "regulation," that's a whole different ball of wax. "Net Neutrality" is supposed to be a GOOD thing for consumers/customers, "Regulation" is bad. If politicians merge these 2 unrelated concepts, that would be a bad thing. At least we all should understand the differences so we can articulate it properly.


FF

[politicsNproverbs]

Thanks for that Rockefeller quote. Once again they are "demonizing" something so they can turn around and "convince us" that they need to do something about it/ control it/regulate it.

I get so sick of hearing comments like that. Even boneheads like Dr. Phil frequently helps their causes when he says things like guns are too available, or the internet is too unregulated, or one of his favorites, children's services need to be involved, etc. etc. etc. I don't think people like him do it on purpose, they just don't realize what they are asking for.

Currently N. Florida is up in arms in the black communities due to all of the shootings... again they are saying, more gun control needed, etc.

[nayjevin]

"Net Neutrality" is supposed to be a GOOD thing for consumers/customers, "Regulation" is bad. If politicians merge these 2 unrelated concepts, that would be a bad thing. At least we all should understand the differences so we can articulate it properly.

I think that was the gist of the op -- and I think we largely agree.

Politicians want to redefine the term 'Net Neutrality' and we all want true 'Net Freedom'

[Minarchy4Sale]

Net neutrality is not a property rights issue. Net neutrality is a commons and free speech issue. When large corporations are allowed to buy up the means of communication and then control it, the market place of ideas suffers.

Big biz is almost as oppressive as big gov.

[specsaregood]

Please read this overview about Net Neutrality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

I know all about what "Net Neutrality" is supposed to be about.



Ron Paul wasn't in favor of "regulation" of the Internet in regards to "gambling." That wasn't about Net Neutrality.

I know that speech was about gambling but did you listen to the speech? He didnt focus on the gambling aspect, he focused on the fact that once you allow the government any control of the internet, it is a slippery slope to hades. If you didn't actually listen to what he was saying in that speech, I suggest you give it a listen again. RP doesn't want the government ANYWHERE near the internet and I for one, agree.



Net Neutrality is about preventing corporations from restricting what YOU do on their networks, period. It's all about consumer protection. Now, if the term Net Neutrality is getting bastardized to mean "regulation," that's a whole different ball of wax. "Net Neutrality" is supposed to be a GOOD thing for consumers/customers, "Regulation" is bad. If politicians merge these 2 unrelated concepts, that would be a bad thing. At least we all should understand the differences so we can articulate it properly.
FF
Read what you just wrote, EVERYTHING the government does becomes bastardized. You give them an inch, they take a few miles and then some. Net Neutrality is government regulation. How can it be considered anything but? It is the government stepping in and setting controls on the medium and the marketplace. Yes corporations can run amok; but at least you have choices. As long as their is competition in the arena of ISP's you will have a choice to change providers if one starts enacting controls that interfere with what you want out of the internet, once the government steps in, your choices are gone with the wind..... I know net neutrality has been sold as a "good thing"; but seriously what was the last thing the government did that turned out to be a "good thing" in the end?

Edit: or lets ask this question. The internet really hit the mainstream starting about 14 years ago. Have you personally ever been affected by any of the stuff that "Net Neutrality" legislation is supposed to prevent/fix? I haven't. If you haven't, then why the need for it now?

[fr33domfightr]

I know all about what "Net Neutrality" is supposed to be about.


I know that speech was about gambling but did you listen to the speech? He didnt focus on the gambling aspect, he focused on the fact that once you allow the government any control of the internet, it is a slippery slope to hades. If you didn't actually listen to what he was saying in that speech, I suggest you give it a listen again. RP doesn't want the government ANYWHERE near the internet and I for one, agree.


Read what you just wrote, EVERYTHING the government does becomes bastardized. You give them an inch, they take a few miles and then some. Net Neutrality is government regulation. How can it be considered anything but? It is the government stepping in and setting controls on the medium and the marketplace. Yes corporations can run amok; but at least you have choices. As long as their is competition in the arena of ISP's you will have a choice to change providers if one starts enacting controls that interfere with what you want out of the internet, once the government steps in, your choices are gone with the wind..... I know net neutrality has been sold as a "good thing"; but seriously what was the last thing the government did that turned out to be a "good thing" in the end?

Edit: or lets ask this question. The internet really hit the mainstream starting about 14 years ago. Have you personally ever been affected by any of the stuff that "Net Neutrality" legislation is supposed to prevent/fix? I haven't. If you haven't, then why the need for it now?


I listened to the speech. He spoke regarding the bill, and yes was worried about regulating the internet, but he wasn't talking about Net Neutrality.

The problem is, we don't have competition in a lot of markets. By its very nature, cable companies have a monopoly on the areas they serve. That's where the problems started, with bit torrents and blocking of traffic. Now we have to worry about cell phones being blocked from wifi networks because we may use Skype for international calling. It just goes on and on. The next big thing to be blocked is TV access via the internet, since cable companies don't want customers bypassing their cable service and use them only as a data delivery service. Now we're also learning cable companies actually have an unwritten bandwidth cap, such that if you reach it, you'll be cut off for a period of time, without any warning.

These data restrictions are only recent phenomenon. Fortunately, I had the choice to use DSL, but I would have switched to cable, were it not for their business practices.

As we've seen in other industries, most will do whatever they think will generate the most money, irregardless of who it might affect. We've also seen collusion among businesses, such that consumers have no where to go. I'm not saying I want government involvement at all, but it shouldn't be legal for businesses to take advantage of their customers, no matter how much competition exists or doesn't exist in a given market.


FF

[torchbearer]

I won't use an ISP that restrict my internet usage.
We vote with out dollars.

And if there are no ISPs who allow me to use my internet as I see fit, I will start a company that will... and I will grow overnight into a major giant. Because i'm not the only one who feels this way.

[specsaregood]

The problem is, we don't have competition in a lot of markets. By its very nature, cable companies have a monopoly on the areas they serve. That's where the problems started, with bit torrents and blocking of traffic.

This was true in the past, but the free market is working to correct that. I have verizon FIOS tv and internet, not cable. I have friends with satellite tv and internet, not cable. It seems to me that the free market IS working to make government mandated "net neutrality" unnecessary.

As torch said, if the market moves in the direction where uncensored/unregulated access is not available, somebody will start a company offering it WITHOUT government help. That is unless the government gets its tentacles into the internet.

In regards to throttling or blocking bittorrent and skype traffic: those companies doing so are most likely well within their rights with their user contracts. Running bittorrent and skype is akin to running a server over your internet connection. Most people running those programs do NOT have a business connection and running servers is usually not allowed for a consumer connection. If you want to run servers then get a business account where they are allowed; that is what I have and I'm allowed to run whatever types of traffic/servers I desire. Once again the free-market solution, not the government solution.

Keep the government off my internet!

[pcosmar]

Rockefeller: Internet is “Number One National Hazard”

According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security.
http://www.infowars.com/rockefeller-internet-is-number-one-national-hazard/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to the propaganda ministry.

Fixed it for ya. :D

[ChaosControl]

What about television neutrality? :P

Isn't it kind of like... without natural neutrality, they could sell you blocks. Your service only includes Yahoo, AOL, and Google. But if you pay $5 more you get access to Myspace and Youtube. For just $150 more, you get access to all .com sites. And for the ultimate package of just 999/mo, you get access to all websites.

[UtahApocalypse]

Here are the questions.....


Without Net Neutrality, as it is now, ISPs may block or restrict use of Bit Torrents, Skype, Movie downloads, or Bandwidth usage. That's what Net Neutrality was all about.

The language in the Bill is to cover all the bases an ISP could use to weasel out of compliance.

The only part which we probably should be concerned about is the "lawful content." The intent was probably directed at "Child Porn," but could even be determined in a court to mean anything, like "Copyrighted" material.

Perhaps the language just needs to be modified, such that it only protects what has been a problem to date, that is, restrictions on bandwidth usage depending on data type. That means ISPs should treat "data" as "data," (ie. being neutral about the content of the data).

Here are the answers.....


FF


I think that was the gist of the op -- and I think we largely agree.

Politicians want to redefine the term 'Net Neutrality' and we all want true 'Net Freedom'

We have "Net Freedom" now to an extent. I rather someone start more liberty minded ISP's then have the Govrnment involved at all.



I won't use an ISP that restrict my internet usage.
We vote with out dollars.

And if there are no ISPs who allow me to use my internet as I see fit, I will start a company that will... and I will grow overnight into a major giant. Because i'm not the only one who feels this way.


An that was the best answer there is. If we get rid of the regulations, not add more then others can compete and win based on better services.

[fr33domfightr]

Here are the questions.....

We have "Net Freedom" now to an extent. I rather someone start more liberty minded ISP's then have the Govrnment involved at all.

An that was the best answer there is. If we get rid of the regulations, not add more then others can compete and win based on better services.


I certainly don't like that this situation has occurred at all. I don't think anyone really saw it coming. Service based on bandwidth usage might be the norm in a few years, where high traffic users get charged more, but hopefully the ISPs won't restrict what people do on the internet.

It would be nice if there were more liberty minded ISPs, I agree.

I think we can all agree that more competition is good for customers. In my area, FIOS isn't available since Verizon doesn't provide service where I live. Even Satellite service is being blocked by my Apartment Property Company.

I'm looking at Net Neutrality as protection for the people, just as the Bill Of Rights were written to protect the rights of the people. Would we be better off without a Bill Of Rights?


FF

[AutoDas]

What a waste of effort. instead of focusing on the problem that caused the companies to get a monopoly in their area (government giving this companies a "natural monopoly" privilege)

[specsaregood]

I'm looking at Net Neutrality as protection for the people, just as the Bill Of Rights were written to protect the rights of the people. Would we be better off without a Bill Of Rights?
FF

I don't think you thought that comparison through all the way. are you really comparing the Bill of Rights to Net Neutrality? You do realize they are polar opposites, right?

Bill of Rights - restrain the government.
Net Neutrality - restrain private individuals, corporations and property owners.

Who are you or the government to tell the ISP's what they can and can't do with their property? So you wish to take away other people's freedoms for your own benefit?

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Pentagon: The internet is an enemy "weapons system"

globalresearch.ca — The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap is blunt about the fact that an internet, with the potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals. The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JES20080202&articleId=7980

~~~~~~~~~

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

[mediahasyou]

I like the http://www.handsoff.org/blog/ take on the issue.

[fr33domfightr]

I don't think you thought that comparison through all the way. are you really comparing the Bill of Rights to Net Neutrality? You do realize they are polar opposites, right?

Bill of Rights - restrain the government.
Net Neutrality - restrain private individuals, corporations and property owners.

Who are you or the government to tell the ISP's what they can and can't do with their property? So you wish to take away other people's freedoms for your own benefit?

Bill of Rights - to restrain government from infringing on the people
Net Neutrality - requiring ISPs treat "data" equally, no discrimination. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with restraining individuals, it never was about that.

The government created the mess with MONOPOLIES. Those monopolies are trying to control the people, using their power since they are a monopoly.

Don't forget, the Cable companies that restricted bit torrents never stated anything in their contracts about restrictions. They also say its unlimited, but in reality, the restrictions are unwritten (and hidden from the customers).

Let's say a cable company would block service to anyone that was African American. Would that be OK, of course not. If you agree, then you see there should be liimits on how badly ISPs can treat customers.

No, the government shouldn't have to control them, but there must be limits on how far they can discriminate against their customers. No one should be allowed to beat others with a stick, or control what we do on the internet.

This would never be a problem is there was competition, as people would move away from the bad ISP. I just want to be free, without someone taking away my freedom, like bad ISPs.


FF

Edit: I know a lot of you are afraid of the slippery slope. Once some laws to protect consumers is in place, it could be modified to restrict usage. If that would occur, it would be outside what Net Neutrality was suppose to fix, data discrimination. Comcast was blocking bit torrents, not just slowing them down. Fortunately, the internet allowed consumers a mechanism where they could share knowledge, and the-cat-was-out-of-the-bag. This in turn, compelled Comcast to give up on this pratice. ISPs may need to shape data traffic so their networks operate well, but it needs to be open about it, and reasonable. Barring that, if they have a monopoly, your only recourse is to sue them if they breach a contract. Most people, however, don't have the money to fight something like this in court due to the high costs.

[specsaregood]

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with restraining individuals, it never was about that.

Indeed it does. It tells the private property owner what it can and can't do with it's own property. Servers, routers, hardware, fiber lines, lots of "property" that is owned by private individuals often known as shareholders.



The government created the mess with MONOPOLIES. Those monopolies are trying to control the people, using their power since they are a monopoly.

The vast majority of people at least in the US have more than one option for internet access. If you can get cable you can most likely get DSL and or fios or satellite or wifi. So no government-mandated monopolies, I'm fine with that.



Don't forget, the Cable companies that restricted bit torrents never stated anything in their contracts about restrictions. They also say its unlimited, but in reality, the restrictions are unwritten (and hidden from the customers).

Completely different issue, do we really need to use the federal government to solve this? That would be fraud and should be dealt with by the courts. Although I think you are incorrect, running a bit torrent server usually requires your pc to also act as a "server" which is usually forbidden in consumer-level internet connections.



Let's say a cable company would block service to anyone that was African American. Would that be OK, of course not. If you agree, then you see there should be liimits on how badly ISPs can treat customers.

Sure, why shouldn't they? You do know Ron Paul's position on the civil rights act, right? It was a violation of private property owners rights. Somebody's race doesn't matter to me in the least; but a property owner should be able to serve whomever they want for whatever reason. RP and I would argue that the free-market would work it out.



No, the government shouldn't have to control them, but there must be limits on how far they can discriminate against their customers.

I'm sorry, how exactly are they discriminating against a customer? Are they doing this somehow based on your skin color, race, regligion, gender? NO, they are discriminating traffic, completely seperate. Should internet traffic be a protected group now? But like I said, they should have every right to discriminate however they see fit. If they piss you off, go to another ISP.



No one should be allowed to beat others with a stick, or control what we do on the internet.

No, that would be physical violence, completely unrelated topic.
I'd rather take my chances with multiple choices of ISPs wanting my business, than to leave the "control" decisions up to the federal government. The fed doesn't exactly have a stellar record.



I just want to be free, without someone taking away my freedom, like bad ISPs.

You want to be free at the expense of other people's freedoms. You want the government to tell other people what they can and can't do, as long as you get your way. ISPs aren't some ownerless intagible object, they are private property.

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

UK government plans to monitor all conversations on social networking sites (guardian.co.uk)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/25/social-networking-sites-monitored


Ilyanep 167 points 15 hours ago* [-]

"We have no way of knowing whether Osama bin Laden is chatting to Abu Hamza on Facebook. Or terrorists could be having a four-way chat on Skype," he said.

checks URL

not onion.com

WTF?!

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/87dmd/uk_government_plans_to_monitor_all_conversations/

[nayjevin]

Net Neutrality - requiring ISPs treat "data" equally, no discrimination. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with restraining individuals, it never was about that.

it restrains ISP's (privately owned companies) from the freedom to make their own decisions.

Why should the government make it illegal for me to start up an ISP where I only allow access to pages that begin with www.makelovetosquirrels.com, for $1,000,000 a year. No one would buy, and I would go out of business -- did the consumer ever need a government to protect them? ONLY IF I'M THE ONLY GUY IN BUSINESS.

Consumer choice solves the problem, not more government laws.