Net Neutrality

[LibertasPraesidium]

someone once said that once you force equality you are really pushing inequality.

http://www.dailytech.com/Republicans+Give+Up+Fight+Against+FCCs+Net+Neutral ity/article16333.htm

From my own understanding of what net neutrality really is I.E. just another way for the FCC and other government institutions to gain control or regulatory powers over something outside their jurisdiction.

This Net Neutrality issue is getting momentum from lobbyist that work for companies standing to benefit from regulations causing ISP's to be non-discriminate towards what data is being transferred via the internet. Although on the surface this sounds good, the real problem is allowing the FCC jurisdiction over regulatory powers to control companies that they do not currently have the power to do so.

Please research this as it is a growing topic of discussion and needs to be stopped.

Part of the reason forced equality doesn't work is because of the regulation put in place in the name of equality that give an unfair advantage to one group over the other; and while others would argue that this levels the playing field, in a truly free society your business should be able to offer services it sees fit with out government interference.

The other side of the coin comes in the transparency of that data. The ability of the government to monitor Internet data transfer. This may allow them to track child porn websites and close them down but inherently will be a violation of our privacy as they will also have unlimited access to view personal information over the internet.

I am open for a good discussion on this topic as I feel strongly against the idea of net neutrality. Right now the net is neutral. The idea that all bits are created equal is a good idea, but should not be enforced by the government.

hope this sheds some light on the subject as I see it.

[LittleLightShining]

Thanks. I've been a little disturbed at some posts I've seen here promoting NN as a good thing.

[RyanRSheets]

It's a huge issue regardless of how the vote goes. If it passes, the FCC has control of the internet. We can see that, but the people will probably find this bill as it is described as something that is very agreeable for a chance. If it doesn't pass, the media will try to control the internet. It is very important that the internet remain neutral, but I know that giving the government control over it will just make things worse.

I don't support a law, but certainly we need to be spreading the word about what is happening and encouraging people to say no to the attempts by the companies to censor and manage traffic. The internet is all we really have left for free speech, and it's the only aspect of our revolution that gives me faith.

[Matt Collins]

This topic has been beaten into the ground around here many times already. Search for NN and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[specsaregood]

Thanks. I've been a little disturbed at some posts I've seen here promoting NN as a good thing.

Yeah and it isn't just here. Other sites that are generally VERY anti-govt and pro-freedom have had the same thing. It's scary to see people that generally see through the govt BS and are anti-nannystate all of a sudden think that the govt will actually protect, give them freedom in this instance. Despite ALL evidence to the contrary (multiple public officials pondering censoring the internet or outright saying it would be better if it had never been created)....:mad: Especially for a problem that doesn't even exist right now!

[Mini-Me]

I think the main reason net neutrality is pushed so much is because government-granted telecom monopolies dominate the ISP market. By obstructing competition and coercively granting dominance to specific companies, local governments have pretty much obliterated the line between public and private in the telecom world, so even anti-government types sometimes pull for regulation to keep the monopolies in check.

As we all know though, putting the ball in the federal government's court will only make things worse in the long run. Not only will the government will twist "network neutral" principles completely around for the purposes of censorship and control, but the same telecom companies fighting against these laws today will find a way to twist any and all new government powers to their advantage within a few years.

The real answer is to eliminate the government-granted monopoly contracts in the first place and open the market up to competition. That's easier said than done at the moment though, since we're dealing with government-regulated airwaves and/or cables that need to be laid underneath government-controlled roads. Not only does this create a central point of control for each municipality, but most people have long forgotten that municipal monopolies are not the only way to handle utilities and such in the first place. :-/

[LibertasPraesidium]

Its nice to at least see that there is some light on the subject.

remember, when in doubt research the topic. If you find many conflicting ideas about what it is about either 1) read the legislation and understand it for your self or ask around.

:-)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Matt Collins]

http://a11news.com/images/tanya-devereaux.jpg

[Matt Collins]

Allegedly....







http://a11news.com/images/tanya-devereaux-website.jpg

[LibertasPraesidium]

ahh but hypocrisy is not asking people to research it, when I have researched it and even searched for a post about net neutrality.

The main point of my post was the news article i linked however in light of furthering the cause here are the links to the other more popular net neutrality posts on the forum.


FCC Chief Backs NN (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211431&highlight=net+neutrality)

FCC to propose 'Net Neutrality' rules (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=210898&highlight=net+neutrality)

Slashdot readers overwhelmingly back net neutrality (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211166&highlight=net+neutrality)

Hypocrite Kay Bailey Hutchison Tries to Block Net Neutrality (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211162&highlight=net+neutrality)

Father of the internet appaluds net neutrality rules, which keep the internet free... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211151&highlight=net+neutrality)

FCC chairman proposes `open Internet' rules (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211089&highlight=net+neutrality)

There easy as a click. thank you for keeping me in line. :-)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - The Open Internet and Lessons from the Ma Bell Era (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_udd5K91o&feature=player_embedded)

[reillym]

someone once said that once you force equality you are really pushing inequality.

http://www.dailytech.com/Republicans+Give+Up+Fight+Against+FCCs+Net+Neutral ity/article16333.htm

From my own understanding of what net neutrality really is I.E. just another way for the FCC and other government institutions to gain control or regulatory powers over something outside their jurisdiction.

This Net Neutrality issue is getting momentum from lobbyist that work for companies standing to benefit from regulations causing ISP's to be non-discriminate towards what data is being transferred via the internet. Although on the surface this sounds good, the real problem is allowing the FCC jurisdiction over regulatory powers to control companies that they do not currently have the power to do so.

Please research this as it is a growing topic of discussion and needs to be stopped.

Part of the reason forced equality doesn't work is because of the regulation put in place in the name of equality that give an unfair advantage to one group over the other; and while others would argue that this levels the playing field, in a truly free society your business should be able to offer services it sees fit with out government interference.

The other side of the coin comes in the transparency of that data. The ability of the government to monitor Internet data transfer. This may allow them to track child porn websites and close them down but inherently will be a violation of our privacy as they will also have unlimited access to view personal information over the internet.

I am open for a good discussion on this topic as I feel strongly against the idea of net neutrality. Right now the net is neutral. The idea that all bits are created equal is a good idea, but should not be enforced by the government.

hope this sheds some light on the subject as I see it.

In a truly free society, as you say, we would have a choice between ISPS. We don't. They shouldn't be allowed to slow down some traffic (like a competitor website) and speed up others (like those who pay up the bribes)

NN is really that simple, and it is astounding that some people still don't get it.

The idea that all bits are equal is the way the internet was created, and NN will ensure it stays that way. Any ISP, right now, could do away with that.

Either we enforce it with law, or we find some way of making new ISP competitors who that if one chooses to slow down traffic, we have other choices. What's easier?

Oh, and the idea of the government censoring the internet is just silly. Please, your argument went out the window with that. NN has NOTHING to do with anything REMOTELY like that.

[reillym]

I think the main reason net neutrality is pushed so much is because government-granted telecom monopolies dominate the ISP market. By obstructing competition and coercively granting dominance to specific companies, local governments have pretty much obliterated the line between public and private in the telecom world, so even anti-government types sometimes pull for regulation to keep the monopolies in check.

As we all know though, putting the ball in the federal government's court will only make things worse in the long run. Not only will the government will twist "network neutral" principles completely around for the purposes of censorship and control, but the same telecom companies fighting against these laws today will find a way to twist any and all new government powers to their advantage within a few years.

The real answer is to eliminate the government-granted monopoly contracts in the first place and open the market up to competition. That's easier said than done at the moment though, since we're dealing with government-regulated airwaves and/or cables that need to be laid underneath government-controlled roads. Not only does this create a central point of control for each municipality, but most people have long forgotten that municipal monopolies are not the only way to handle utilities and such in the first place. :-/

NN has nothing to do with censorship. This isn't the government taking control of anything. The laws that NN supporters fight for would not allow censorship. That is the exact thing we are looking to avoid.

Not all regulation is bad, and everyone on this forum seems to think so. Any free, healthy market needs regulation to stay that way. Put too much, and it stifles business. Too little, like we have now, and we have monopolies and outright garbage.

[low preference guy]

They shouldn't be allowed to slow down some traffic (like a competitor website) and speed up others (like those who pay up the bribes)

Why? They should be able to do whatever the hell they want. It's their property. I think the government shouldn't violate private property. What makes your favored "should" stronger than mine?

Also, no one is paying bribes because there is no illegal action involved. That's like saying that when you pay amazon for faster shipping, you're paying a bribe. That's nonsense.

[pcosmar]

It has been my experience that "Net Neutrality" means different things to different people.
Hence the confusion.

So some it is free and open access,, and fuck the property rights.
To others it is imposed controls over access,,More Government involvement.
To others it is a free open market,,with all the warts.

I know what I would like, but they don't let me run anything anyway.
:cool:


I also remember when Car insurance was optional. and the BIG selling point was that everyones cost would come down when it was mandatory.
They passed the law,, and prices doubled and service went to shit.

watching and waiting.
:(

[low preference guy]

I also remember when Car insurance was optional. and the BIG selling point was that everyones cost would come down when it was mandatory.
They passed the law,, and prices doubled and service went to shit.


would you be shocked if the same thing happens to health care?

[pcosmar]

would you be shocked if the same thing happens to health care?

Hardly.
I expect it.

[low preference guy]

Hardly.
I expect it.

yeah. i'm sure the Democrats will apologize to you and say they were wrong.

[heavenlyboy34]

NN has nothing to do with censorship. This isn't the government taking control of anything. The laws that NN supporters fight for would not allow censorship. That is the exact thing we are looking to avoid.

Not all regulation is bad, and everyone on this forum seems to think so. Any free, healthy market needs regulation to stay that way. Put too much, and it stifles business. Too little, like we have now, and we have monopolies and outright garbage.

False. Markets self-regulate. Example-Underwriters Laboritories.

[Matt Collins]

Internet Cop (http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/internet-cop)

President Obama’s top man at the Federal Communications Commission tries to regulate the Net.

March 2011 Reason Magazine article here:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/internet-cop