Mozilla supports net neutrality.

[torchbearer]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355059,00.asp


Mozilla on Friday issued its support for the Federal Communications Commission's proposed net neutrality rules, but a House Republican this week introduced a bill that would block the commission's efforts.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced the Real Stimulus Act of 2009, which would prohibit the FCC from "needlessly imposing regulations on the Internet," Blackburn said in a statement.

The congresswoman asserts that the FCC's rules "ironically would make the Internet less neutral by allowing the FCC to regulate it in the same way it regulates radio and television broadcasts."

Specifically, Blackburn's bill says the FCC cannot "propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." The measure is a companion bill to one introduced last week by Sen. John McCain titled the Internet Freedom Act.

"The Internet is the last truly open public marketplace," Blackburn said. "The FCC has plenty on its plate with the regulation of television and radio; let's not add to their workload by giving them authority over the Internet."

Net neutrality is the theory that everyone should have equal access to the Internet. A major tech company should not be able to pay a provider to load its Web site faster than a mom-and-pop site, for example. Most are in agreement that that should be the case – the discussion at this point is whether the government should step in and regulate net neutrality or if industry should self-regulate.

The FCC proposed official net neutrality rules at its Oct. 22 meeting, and stakeholders have until early next year to submit comments.

In a Friday editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Mozilla executives voiced their support for the FCC's rules.

"As heads of an Internet company competing in today's marketplace, we fully support the FCC's proposal," wrote chair Mitchell Baker and CEO John Lilly. "The fundamental technologies of the Internet have always been open; the FCC's proposed rules would merely preserve that openness."

Baker and Lilly supported the FCC's plans to extend net neutrality rules to the wireless industry. "Nondiscriminatory access to content is what created the miracle of the Internet. It must be preserved," they wrote.

Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has penned legislation in favor of net neutrality, also wrote an editorial today for the Huffington Post on the topic.

"If adopted, the Commission's net neutrality protections will ensure that users have unfettered access to all lawful online content and applications," Markey wrote. "These measures, which will be crafted over the coming months by the FCC, are urgently needed to preserve the openness and competition that have made the Internet the most successful communications medium in human history."

[Dieseler]

I can't remember where I heard it man but I swear I remember someone telling me that the linux shell had been compromised by the NSA.
I'm thinkin', if I remember where I'll throw it back.

[Epic]

Mozilla supports the government further regulating the internet

what sellouts

Did they take into account proper economic theory?
http://mises.org/story/2139

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

...

[Epic]

"If adopted, the Commission's net neutrality protections will ensure that users have unfettered access to all lawful online content and applications," Markey wrote. "These measures, which will be crafted over the coming months by the FCC, are urgently needed to preserve the openness and competition that have made the Internet the most successful communications medium in human history."

Apparently, the government regulating the Net is promoting "openness and competition"... but it really prohibits different providers from differentiating their services by trying different business models

[specsaregood]

Just wait until MS lobbies hard enough and gets IE approved as the only browser to get through the upcoming great firewall of the USA. They'll be singing a different tune then.

[NYgs23]

Good for Blackburn

[brandon]

Well I guess it's time I switch to google chrome.

[brandon]

I can't remember where I heard it man but I swear I remember someone telling me that the linux shell had been compromised by the NSA.
I'm thinkin', if I remember where I'll throw it back.

Nah, the source code for the linux kernal is open source. The NSA knows no more or less than the rest of us.

[Danke]

Well I guess it's time I switch to google chrome.

What about Oprah?

[0zzy]

ya. cause what we have RIGHT NOW is somehow government regulating the internet.

I support net neutrality, because cable internet has monopolies. come back to me when I have more than one choice in a market place.

don't be shills for corporatism people :[

this is not what I want:

http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

and if you think Mozilla are shills because they want the internet to be free, you are taking this issue too seriously.

[Dieseler]

I want it to be left the fuck alone like it is right now.
Why does everything have to get fucked up?

[Son of Detroit]

Safari>

[hugolp]

I can't remember where I heard it man but I swear I remember someone telling me that the linux shell had been compromised by the NSA.
I'm thinkin', if I remember where I'll throw it back.

It could be true.

There is a security part of the kernel that has been developed by the NSA. There was another open source independent version, but it was not accepted. Instead the NSA one was.

[hugolp]

ya. cause what we have RIGHT NOW is somehow government regulating the internet.

I support net neutrality, because cable internet has monopolies. come back to me when I have more than one choice in a market place.

don't be shills for corporatism people :[

this is not what I want:

http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

and if you think Mozilla are shills because they want the internet to be free, you are taking this issue too seriously.

That is what you are going to get with this bill.

Do you really think this bill is going to stay like this? Do you really think they are not going to introduce any change?

Check what has happened with goverment regulations all over history. First goverment introduces a bill that looks good. Then when people is used about goverment regulating that area, they start changing the regulation slowly and silently until they control it. This is the same, they just want you to get use to it.

[LibertyEagle]

ya. cause what we have RIGHT NOW is somehow government regulating the internet.

I support net neutrality, because cable internet has monopolies. come back to me when I have more than one choice in a market place.

don't be shills for corporatism people :[

this is not what I want:

and if you think Mozilla are shills because they want the internet to be free, you are taking this issue too seriously.

What monopolies do cable have? They have competition, don't they?

When was the last time that turning something over to government resulted in more freedom?

[kahless]

What monopolies do cable have? They have competition, don't they?

When was the last time that turning something over to government resulted in more freedom?

You see them compete to shut each other out at the municipal level so there is no competition.

[LibertyEagle]

You see them compete to shut each other out at the municipal level so there is no competition.

Ok, so doesn't that mean we have to fight this at the municipal level then?

Why would we want to hand more control over to the federal government? Isn't what we stress to others that any decisions that are made should be at the local or state level, NOT the federal level? So, why are we changing our tune with this?

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok, so doesn't that mean we have to fight this at the municipal level then?

Why would we want to hand more control over to the federal government? Isn't what we stress to others that any decisions that are made should be at the local or state level, NOT the federal level? So, why are we changing our tune with this?

This is one thing I totally agree with you on. :cool::)

[LibertyEagle]

This is one thing I totally agree with you on. :cool::)

Well, don't make it a habit. :p

[familydog]

What monopolies do cable have? They have competition, don't they?

When was the last time that turning something over to government resulted in more freedom?

Internet service is a government created monopoly. The internet is no less free with net neutrality than without.

Many independent DSL providers rely on Verizon's infrastructure in order to provide their internet to the home. Verizon has traditionally locked out all of their competitors from using their infrastructure. There is no possible way small ISPs can comepete without using their competitor's resources. Net neutrality aims to help fix that.

Either we have net neutrality and have government regulation or we don't have net neutrality and government created monopolies regulate the internet.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Internet service is a government created monopoly. The internet is no less free with net neutrality than without.

Many independent DSL providers rely on Verizon's infrastructure in order to provide their internet to the home. Verizon has traditionally locked out all of their competitors from using their infrastructure. There is no possible way small ISPs can comepete without using their competitor's resources. Net neutrality aims to help fix that.

Either we have net neutrality and have government regulation or we don't have net neutrality and government created monopolies regulate the internet.

or there is a third option we haven't explored yet

[catdd]

I just dropped them and went back to IE 8.

[kahless]

Ok, so doesn't that mean we have to fight this at the municipal level then?


So you have some towns deciding to restrict access to a specific provider or maybe even shutting out all providers while others would not. Your next response will likely be then you vote those individuals out. However in the mean time access is still restricted and if a majority of the voters do not vote them out then the access rights to the minority will still be restricted.



Why would we want to hand more control over to the federal government? Isn't what we stress to others that any decisions that are made should be at the local or state level, NOT the federal level? So, why are we changing our tune with this?

It all depends on what version of "Net Neutrality" gets passed. The intention is to not allow anyone to control it and keep things as they are now.

At one time my business did not have access to any providers except for Verizon that offerred limited business services. I had to co-locate outside my area until the 1996 Telecom Act passed which gave me a choice of multiple cost competitive providers in my area. That act was essentially gutted and now I am limited to a cable provider and a major telco. If the telcos have their way I am concerned that without "Net Neutrality" they will be able to restrict the service I have now or price it beyond what I can afford. With competition being restricted I will not be able to simply switch another company.

[familydog]

or there is a third option we haven't explored yet

Where would that third option come from?

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Either way it seems that government will involve itself in one form or another.

I just can't see it being in our interest to officially grant the government any more jurisdiction than they have already claimed.

[Epic]

God dammit some people are stupid

The net neutrality regulation IS THE CORPORATISM

It's a handout to special interest content providers, who don't want to interact voluntarily with others - rather they want the government to point a gun at the heads of the ISPs and PROHIBIT CERTAIN BUSINESS MODELS which are essential at "shaping" traffic - because certain times of the day there are traffic jams and also they want to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic because some traffic is absolutely essential and other traffic isn't.

[specsaregood]

//

[familydog]

God dammit some people are stupid

The net neutrality regulation IS THE CORPORATISM

It's a handout to special interest content providers, who don't want to interact voluntarily with others - rather they want the government to point a gun at the heads of the ISPs and PROHIBIT CERTAIN BUSINESS MODELS which are essential at "shaping" traffic - because certain times of the day there are traffic jams and also they want to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic because some traffic is absolutely essential and other traffic isn't.

Right. The free market in internet service existed prior to net neutrality. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

So you have some towns deciding to restrict access to a specific provider or maybe even shutting out all providers while others would not. Your next response will likely be then you vote those individuals out. However in the mean time access is still restricted and if a majority of the voters do not vote them out then the access rights to the minority will still be restricted.

So, because it will be difficult, you are opting for a one-size-fits-all big government supposed solution?

How does this make us any different than some of the religious right who want to use big government to do the same; rather than allowing the states to decide for themselves?

Sometimes, freedom is not convenient.

[s35wf]

I want it to be left the fuck alone like it is right now.
Why does everything have to get fucked up?


^^^ Ditto :)

[kahless]

So, because it will be difficult, you are opting for a one-size-fits-all big government supposed solution?

How does this make us any different than some of the religious right who want to use big government to do the same; rather than allowing the states to decide for themselves?

Sometimes, freedom is not convenient.

Without "Net Neutrality" you could allow religious or political groups to control access to content.

You guys need to come to the reality we will never have a pure Libertarian society. If we did I would be totally against "Net Neutrality" since we would have competition. If you guys really want to see Neocon McCains version of internet control you can kiss this site and many others good bye. You thought the dot com crash was bad, give it a few years without "Net Neutrality" when the monopolies transform the internet to something that looks like cellular service in this country.

or something like this.
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

Verizon Wireless version of mobile broadband today: :rolleyes:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans&lid=//global//plans//mobile+broadband+plan

[brandon]

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans&lid=//global//plans//mobile+broadband+plan

Is this a bad thing? What's wrong with a company having different price plans? :confused: Cellular service is excellent in this country and very affordable...I really don't know what your point is.



And let me remind you in the 90's we had to pay for the internet by the hour. The consumers demanded something better, and they got it. We've come a long way.

http://www.brainblips.com/aol/uk_aol_skycx60_BOOKLET.jpg

[LibertyMage]

I totally support different pricing plans. Kahless, what exactly do you have against the free market working itself out?

Companies have put forward disagreeable policies and they have been shot down by consumers every time. Consumers have never been able to change government censorship. What makes you think this is any different? I have asked you that several times now and you continually ignore the question.

By supporting this policy you are ensuring government control of the internet.

[kahless]

Is this a bad thing? What's wrong with a company having different price plans? :confused: Cellular service is excellent in this country and very affordable...I really don't know what your point is.



And let me remind you in the 90's we had to pay for the internet by the hour. The consumers demanded something better, and they got it. We've come a long way.




You can thank the 1996 Telecommunications Act for that since it opened up competition. Do you prefer to be billed by the hour? I added Verizon Wireless as an example if that was your only provider you would be hit with overage charges and access would be spotty. The picture is a far better example. Is that your vision of transforming the internet from what it is now? It should be left alone as it is.

[Epic]

Right. The free market in internet service existed prior to net neutrality. :rolleyes:

No it didn't, but that's the direction that we should go in.

[kahless]

I totally support different pricing plans. Kahless, what exactly do you have against the free market working itself out?

Nothing. The internet is a private-public coop and is functioning as intended.
What do you have against allowing competition and preventing censorship?



Companies have put forward disagreeable policies and they have been shot down by consumers every time. Consumers have never been able to change government censorship. What makes you think this is any different? I have asked you that several times now and you continually ignore the question.

By supporting this policy you are ensuring government control of the internet.
.

If you read my posts it is why I have said repeatedly that I do not think it is needed yet and that the threat of it I believe is keeping the telecom companies inline. Even though I lost much of the competition in my area I still have a choice so I cannot speak for others that are at the whim of the only game in town due to anti-competitive laws. The reason you continually fail to recognize this comment is pretty clear considering you work for a large telecom company.

[0zzy]

I've lived in 6 different states and even a small carib island. And in none of those locations was I limited to a single ISP or even high-speed ISP offerering in the past 10+ years. Where exactly do you live that you only have 1 choice for internet access?


That little add-on chart. Do you have that now? I bet not. So you are looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist? How has that worked out in the past?

I lived in (since having my first internet connection in 1998):

Okinawa, Japan
Waldorf, Maryland
Belleville, Illinois
Schertz, Texas
San Pedro, California
Lompoc, California

They are proposing that plan. Monopolies such as these want to take more control and limit the internet. What am I to turn to in Lompoc? Comcast is the only cable provider.



edit:

wtf is government censorship? is what we have right now government censorship? I think not.

[specsaregood]

//

[LibertyMage]

If you read my posts it is why I have said repeatedly that I do not think it is needed yet and that the threat of it I believe is keeping the telecom companies inline. Even though I lost much of the competition in my area I still have a choice so I cannot speak for others that are at the whim of the only game in town due to anti-competitive laws. The reason you continually fail to recognize this comment is pretty clear considering you work for a large telecom company.

So, if consumers have *always* been able to change bad internet policy in the past, and you agree that you "do not think it is needed" why do we now
need the "threat of it"?

I don't fail to recognize your comment because I work for a telecom (which I don't I work for an MSO, which is entirely different). I fail to recognize it because you never make any sense. What you are talking about is the Fatal Conceit that Hayek talked about. Let me put this into perspective for everyone:




We need to invade Iraq or the terrorists will kill us.

We need to bail out the giant corporations or the economy will collapse.

We need to nationalize healthcare or terminal patients will be thrown out on the street.

We need net neutrality or the telecom companies will censor us.




Kahless, welcome to the Democratic Party!

[kahless]

So, if consumers have *always* been able to change bad internet policy in the past, and you agree that you "do not think it is needed" why do we now
need the "threat of it"?

I don't fail to recognize your comment because I work for a telecom (which I don't I work for an MSO, which is entirely different). I fail to recognize it because you never make any sense. What you are talking about is the Fatal Conceit that Hayek talked about. Let me put this into perspective for everyone:




We need to invade Iraq or the terrorists will kill us.

We need to bail out the giant corporations or the economy will collapse.

We need to nationalize healthcare or terminal patients will be thrown out on the street.

We need net neutrality or the telecom companies will censor us.




Kahless, welcome to the Democratic Party!

I have already responded to this repeatedly in three threads and I am not going to waste time doing it for you again especially since you are continually being a dick in your replies.

How about you do a simple google search on why web property owners are pushing for "Net Neutrality" and stop bitching to me about something I am not fully onboard with either.

[LibertyMage]

I have already responded to this repeatedly in three threads and I am not going to waste time doing it for you again especially since you are continually being a dick in your replies.

How about you do a simple google search on why web property owners are pushing for "Net Neutrality" and stop bitching to me about something I am not fully onboard with either.

I have read what "web property owners" are saying about net neutrality - they support the regulation of other people's property. That is what net neutrality is - anti-private property rights legislation.

If my remarks sting it is because they are true. There is no need to get personal, especially when I am using real life analogies and you are using speculative analogies. The attacks aren't necessary.

You may not be fully onboard with net neutrality but you are here pushing it for competitive reasons despite how net neutrality eliminates competition. Net neutrality goes against everything we stand for and I will continue to hunt down such circular logic everywhere I find it - especially here.

[dannno]

I just dropped them and went back to IE 8.

Well I wouldn't go THAT far...

[kahless]

I have read what "web property owners" are saying about net neutrality - they support the regulation of other people's property. That is what net neutrality is - anti-private property rights legislation.

This is no different than if the telcos owned parts of the road to my home or business and one them decided to prevent certain cars or people from driving on their part of the road to get to my property. What is worse the town or telco will not allow an easement to a competitors road.

The government then proposes regulation "road neutrality" saying these companies cannot prevent people or cars from driving to my property and that they must allow an easement so I have access to a competitors road way.

You however are anti-private property rights since you support the telcos ability to block access to my property or business effectively damaging my property.


If my remarks sting it is because they are true.
There is no need to get personal, especially when I am using real life analogies and you are using speculative analogies. The attacks aren't necessary


Depending what remark I chose you are reinforcing your attack and then saying attacks aren't necessary :rolleyes:



You may not be fully onboard with net neutrality but you are here pushing it for competitive reasons despite how net neutrality eliminates competition. Net neutrality goes against everything we stand for and I will continue to hunt down such circular logic everywhere I find it - especially here.

I have yet to hear you produce a response that describes how "Net Neutrality" eliminates competition rather than the intention of promoting competition.

[catdd]

Well I wouldn't go THAT far...


Yeah, it didn't take long to see that was a mistake.

[familydog]

No it didn't, but that's the direction that we should go in.

I agree.

I just don't understand why people think that net neutrality is so much worse than what we have now. We won't have less freedom with this. The regulatory power just changes hands.

Tyrrany by corporation is no better than tyrrany by government, in my opinion.

[jmdrake]

Good for Blackburn

Marsha Blackburn supports forcing you to get a national ID card.

http://www.jbs.org/forum/view-postlist/forum-4-state/topic-121-tn-marsha-blackburn-betrays-tennesseans-by-sponsoring-hr-3174

I'd rather her support net neutrality than that monstrosity. Besides the infrastructure was built using easements taken buy eminent domain. If the internet companies want to be able to throttle bandwidth they should give back the infrastructure and renegotiate without the backing of the government.

[kahless]

I agree.

I just don't understand why people think that net neutrality is so much worse than what we have now. We won't have less freedom with this. The regulatory power just changes hands.


Likely those that are against it are a shareholder in the telco industry and have brought into their rhetoric OR fear what might be added in the future or buried in the legislation which is a valid argument.

The later is why I reluctantly support it and was thinking why the rush since the looming threat of eventual "Net Neutrality" legislation has been keeping them some what inline.



Tyrrany by corporation is no better than tyrrany by government, in my opinion.

Corporatism is something I heard Ron speak out against. Sounds like from his video he admittedly does not fully understand Net Neutrality and just fears regulation.

[jmdrake]

I have read what "web property owners" are saying about net neutrality - they support the regulation of other people's property. That is what net neutrality is - anti-private property rights legislation.

If my remarks sting it is because they are true. There is no need to get personal, especially when I am using real life analogies and you are using speculative analogies. The attacks aren't necessary.

You may not be fully onboard with net neutrality but you are here pushing it for competitive reasons despite how net neutrality eliminates competition. Net neutrality goes against everything we stand for and I will continue to hunt down such circular logic everywhere I find it - especially here.

What you may not realize is that these "other people" used the government power of eminent domain to force other property owners to grant them easements so they could make their profits. Eminent domain is supposed to only be used for takings when the resulting taking is open for public use. In other words company A can't use the government to force private property owner B to give them an easement and then turn around and say they don't want company C to have the same access that they granted company D.

[Matt Collins]

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

[Brian Defferding]

This is no different than if the telcos owned parts of the road to my home or business and one them decided to prevent certain cars or people from driving on their part of the road to get to my property. What is worse the town or telco will not allow an easement to a competitors road.

The government then proposes regulation "road neutrality" saying these companies cannot prevent people or cars from driving to my property and that they must allow an easement so I have access to a competitors road way.

You however are anti-private property rights since you support the telcos ability to block access to my property or business effectively damaging my property.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is, judging by your analogy. Going by your analogy, your telecom company would likely not "prevent" someone from going to your house during certain times of the day - what they would probably do is set up timed lights at the ramps and intersections controlling when you could drive on them, and possibly charge a toll to help pay for maintenence, thereby the people who sustain those roads are the ones who actually use them. NN would effectively outlaw those timed lights and tolls. It eliminates customized charges for overuse.

Thus far, most of the scares prescribed by NN supporters have been unfounded. I have not seen or heard stories of tyrannical IP's censoring the content they provide, and if so, you aren't entitled to that service anyway. It's a service, not a right.

Simply put - people who use more bandwith *might* have to pay more. So what?

[Rael]

Some really idiotic comments in this thread.

Switching to IE to get back at mozilla? So you want to use a horrible and poorly secured browser instead? And Google chrome? Why should I trust Google who appears to be in bed with the NSA?

[trey4sports]

Without "Net Neutrality" you could allow religious or political groups to control access to content.

You guys need to come to the reality we will never have a pure Libertarian society. If we did I would be totally against "Net Neutrality" since we would have competition. If you guys really want to see Neocon McCains version of internet control you can kiss this site and many others good bye. You thought the dot com crash was bad, give it a few years without "Net Neutrality" when the monopolies transform the internet to something that looks like cellular service in this country.

or something like this.
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

Verizon Wireless version of mobile broadband today: :rolleyes:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans&lid=//global//plans//mobile+broadband+plan


what the fuck is this shit? you have to pay to get on different websites? that's fucked up

[eOs]

Well I guess it's time I switch to google chrome.

Read my mind

[healthpellets]

Read my mind

wrong answer.

[micahnelson]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Net Neutrality is, judging by your analogy. Going by your analogy, your telecom company would likely not "prevent" someone from going to your house during certain times of the day - what they would probably do is set up timed lights at the ramps and intersections controlling when you could drive on them, and possibly charge a toll to help pay for maintenence, thereby the people who sustain those roads are the ones who actually use them. NN would effectively outlaw those timed lights and tolls. It eliminates customized charges for overuse.

Thus far, most of the scares prescribed by NN supporters have been unfounded. I have not seen or heard stories of tyrannical IP's censoring the content they provide, and if so, you aren't entitled to that service anyway. It's a service, not a right.

Simply put - people who use more bandwith *might* have to pay more. So what?

Paying per byte? dumb idea, but legit.

Paying a different price to browse one website then to browse another? Censorship.

Operating a telcom is part private business, part public trust. The internet does not belong to the telcoms, only the "last mile" of wire, fiber, what have you.

So- the telcom can throttle bandwidth, charge fees, or whatever based on the amount of data moved- but they should have no right to prioritize data from some servers over others. If they want to charge more during peak times- that would be ok with me as well.

What we cannot do, however, is allow companies with corporate charters to abuse the public trust by allowing them to divide up the internet into what they decide is profitable and what they decide is "not worth the bandwidth".

To use the road analogy- Your local street is owned by XYZ transit. It connects to the general road system. You pay 10 dollars a month for upkeep of the road. You decide you want to go out for pizza at Pizza Hut. Unfortunately- Dominos has an exclusive deal with XYZ transit- so unless you want to wait 2 hours you have to go to Dominos. At least you only have a two hour wait- the guy that wanted to go to the public library never got a chance- he had to order books from amazon. I doubt the guy wanting to visit ABC transit's headquarters will ever be allowed to do so...

[Brian Defferding]

What we cannot do, however, is allow companies with corporate charters to abuse the public trust by allowing them to divide up the internet into what they decide is profitable and what they decide is "not worth the bandwidth".

To use the road analogy- Your local street is owned by XYZ transit. It connects to the general road system. You pay 10 dollars a month for upkeep of the road. You decide you want to go out for pizza at Pizza Hut. Unfortunately- Dominos has an exclusive deal with XYZ transit- so unless you want to wait 2 hours you have to go to Dominos. At least you only have a two hour wait- the guy that wanted to go to the public library never got a chance- he had to order books from amazon. I doubt the guy wanting to visit ABC transit's headquarters will ever be allowed to do so...

I am pretty cynical that that analogy would ever be a successful business model for an ISP. ISP's know that in order to stay in business, they have to give the people what they want, which is why thus far we have not seen an example that extreme yet. And if we did, we would find ways around it.

As you said - it's a legit idea, but it's also dumb. And I am sure would hit plenty of backlash from their customers. If the lines are controlled by the public trust, privatize the lines. This is where we find ways to resolve problems through voluntary, not forced action.

[BenIsForRon]

what the fuck is this shit? you have to pay to get on different websites? that's fucked up

That's why we need to take this issue seriously. We can't just say "no net neutrality!". We have to provide alternate solutions to the ISP censorship problem.

I understand the why some say we need net neutrality, but the far better option, the option doesn't lead to government abuse in the future, is to get your municipality to open up competition. Any company that tries to restrict access would always lose out to a more open provider.

[reillym]

The internet is a vital part of our democracy. It should be treated as such. We have two options:

1) Make the telco field more competitive to ensure choices. (And ban mergers)
2) Enfoce net neutrality.

That's it. No corporation should be able to control the flow of news and information. That's what could happen.

[reillym]

I have read what "web property owners" are saying about net neutrality - they support the regulation of other people's property. That is what net neutrality is - anti-private property rights legislation.

If my remarks sting it is because they are true. There is no need to get personal, especially when I am using real life analogies and you are using speculative analogies. The attacks aren't necessary.

You may not be fully onboard with net neutrality but you are here pushing it for competitive reasons despite how net neutrality eliminates competition. Net neutrality goes against everything we stand for and I will continue to hunt down such circular logic everywhere I find it - especially here.

How so? That's doesn't make a single bit of sense. The essence of net neutrality is forcing ISPS NOT to favor traffic. That is about as fair as you can get for anybody. The internet needs to remain open and free for anyone.

[reillym]

And you could only get cable internet? No DSL? No Satellite? No wireless? No FIOS? No cellular? Just wondering. Even on a small island I had a choice of up to 3 different "highspeed" services. Even if "highspeed" was somewhat slow by US standards.

Even if there are 2/3 choices, most of the time they are colluding and price fix. Google it. It happens. Still does. And satellite really isn't broadband, either is cellular. Not even close to fast enough for the upcoming years.

[puppetmaster]

That's why we need to take this issue seriously. We can't just say "no net neutrality!". We have to provide alternate solutions to the ISP censorship problem.

I understand the why some say we need net neutrality, but the far better option, the option doesn't lead to government abuse in the future, is to get your municipality to open up competition. Any company that tries to restrict access would always lose out to a more open provider.

net neuter is not a good thing. I have studied it many times over and it will turn out bad. The idea above is much more logical. having the big corps hide behind government would lead to disaster.

[ninepointfive]

pro net neutrality is not libertarian.

Big fail for not advocating free market solutions.

[puppetmaster]

Even if there are 2/3 choices, most of the time they are colluding and price fix. Google it. It happens. Still does. And satellite really isn't broadband, either is cellular. Not even close to fast enough for the upcoming years.

competition and deficiencies in service have ALWAYS created a better service....ALWAYS as long regulations (like NN) do not get in the way

[reillym]

competition and deficiencies in service have ALWAYS created a better service....ALWAYS as long regulations (like NN) do not get in the way

Wrong. Current ISPS bribe local governments to guarantee monopolies. Do you think it isn't easy to dig up a fiber line to millions of people? No. Local governments sell that out to one corporation and that corporation raises prices. Simple.

Net Neutrality won't change a damn thing, it will keep the internet the way it should be. If the ISPS had there way, it would be like TV. A couple of channels of mass media garbage. This forum probably would not exist at all.

[reillym]

pro net neutrality is not libertarian.

Big fail for not advocating free market solutions.

The free market has failed. How easy is it to dig up fiber lines to an entire community? Not very. Those lines need to be taken from the corporations and freed up to any company to use. Or, net neutrality. Either or. Our media can't be throttled by greedy corporations who have bypassed laws and regulations already.

There's a reason why comcast is consistently the most HATED company in the country. I wonder why?

[BenIsForRon]

pro net neutrality is not libertarian.

Big fail for not advocating free market solutions.

Get out of here with your groupthink bullshit.

We're having a constructive debate here. Both sides have legitimate points. You are contributing nothing.

[reillym]

For some more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Conduit_Deployment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

If we did more stuff like this, there could me more competition among ISPS and NN would not even be an issue!

[low preference guy]

For some more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Conduit_Deployment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

If we did more stuff like this, there could me more competition among ISPS and NN would not even be an issue!

This is how your article starts:


Municipal broadband deployments are broadband Internet access services provided by local governments

Why have local governments provide access to the internet? Why have the governments in control of a way of communication? I thought people here supported the free market and freedom, as opposed to a system which the government can easily use to spy on people and interfere with their communications.

[BenIsForRon]

This is how your article starts:



Why have local governments provide access to the internet? Why have the governments in control of a way of communication? I thought people here supported the free market and freedom, as opposed to a system which the government can easily use to spy on people and interfere with their communications.

Local government is easier to control by the people than a national corporation. However, if local governments allowed multiple companies to compete over the same area, then you don't need to do that.

[low preference guy]

Local government is easier to control by the people than a national corporation. However, if local governments allowed multiple companies to compete over the same area, then you don't need to do that.

So what? The ends don't justify the means. There are many things that would've been easier if I tell the government to take more control. If I have the government force companies to subsidy faster internet access for me with money from their rich clients, it would be a lot easier for me than earning more money and paying for faster access. But that's no excuse to advocate for the government, at any level, to take more power.

Ben, when are you going to join the Democratic Underground and leave us alone? I'm pretty tired of hearing all your statist bullshit. What was the other thing you were justifying the other day? Government telling property owners what to do with their property because future generations would want to see cute mountains?

I didn't know RonPaulForums was popular among big government shills. Why are you here?

[BenIsForRon]

I didn't know RonPaulForums was popular among big government shills. Why are you here?

I volunteered and donated to Dr. Pauls campaign. I agree with him and many people here on many issues, and I'm not a statist.

So you can eat a dick.

EDIT: And by the way, you missed the point of my post: Local government monopoly is easier to manage than corporate monopoly. I was advocating for elimination of the corporate monopoly, and no government internet ownership. For the record.

[reillym]

So what? The ends don't justify the means. There are many things that would've been easier if I tell the government to take more control. If I have the government force companies to subsidy faster internet access for me with money from their rich clients, it would be a lot easier for me than earning more money and paying for faster access. But that's no excuse to advocate for the government, at any level, to take more power.

Ben, when are you going to join the Democratic Underground and leave us alone? I'm pretty tired of hearing all your statist bullshit. What was the other thing you were justifying the other day? Government telling property owners what to do with their property because future generations would want to see cute mountains?

I didn't know RonPaulForums was popular among big government shills. Why are you here?

When the free market has failed, the government needs to step in. I don't care if its for internet access or food stamps.

And this isn't the government taking control, not matter what loonies like glenn beck say. It isn't about forcing speed, either. It's about forcing fairness for all internet based companies. With only a few monopolies in the country for ISPs, I don't see why this isn't a good solution.

AHHH REGULATION! OH NOES! Keep in mind that regulation is necessary for any free market to stay free, lest we end up with cannibalistic monopolies like comcast who distort the marketplace.

[reillym]

This is how your article starts:



Why have local governments provide access to the internet? Why have the governments in control of a way of communication? I thought people here supported the free market and freedom, as opposed to a system which the government can easily use to spy on people and interfere with their communications.

Municipal broadband has sprung up exactly because your "free market" has failed. THERE IS NO FREE MARKET IN INTERNET ACCESS. None whatsoever. That's why US speeds are so slow and prices so high. Read up, please, on why internet in america sucks. You are lucky to have 1 choice for high speed broadband. ONE.

And the government is spying with the corporations. We can control politicians, not corporations, by voting.

And local governments ARE the solution, here. Wether with regulation or creating new ISPs to force COMPETITION with the ISPS.

[reillym]

This must a one of the "free markets", huh?


Consider the city of Wilson, which implemented a $28 million municipal broadband system "Greenlight" last year. Wilson's system offers speeds up to 100 mbps—10 times faster than typical connection speeds offered by private Internet providers.

Time Warner customers in Wilson are benefiting from Greenlight's competition. According to a December 2009 presentation before the House Select Committee on High Speed Internet Access in Rural and Urban Areas, Time Warner raised its prices for basic service in the Triangle—as much as 52 percent in Cary—but did not impose any rate hike in Wilson. Nor did the company increase prices in Wilson for the digital sports and games tier, while Triangle customers paid 41 percent more.

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/hoyle-to-municipal-broadband-drop-dead/Content?oid=1422121

[Brian Defferding]

Wrong. Current ISPS bribe local governments to guarantee monopolies. Do you think it isn't easy to dig up a fiber line to millions of people? No. Local governments sell that out to one corporation and that corporation raises prices. Simple.

Net Neutrality won't change a damn thing, it will keep the internet the way it should be. If the ISPS had there way, it would be like TV. A couple of channels of mass media garbage. This forum probably would not exist at all.

Then we work within our local governments and prevent the local governments from guaranteeing the monopoly, not give the government the power to regulate pricing and content.

By the way, do you think TV got that way because of markets being free?

Once again, ISPs have it in their best interest to provide information to the customers, controlling content to the degree you prescribe would be a dumb idea for them, and potentially business-killing. Thus far, I have not seen a rising trend of real life examples of ISP's controlling the content to that extreme where sites are blocked and/or charged extra. There is a reason for that.

[Brian Defferding]

When the free market has failed, the government needs to step in. I don't care if its for internet access or food stamps.

And this isn't the government taking control, not matter what loonies like glenn beck say. It isn't about forcing speed, either. It's about forcing fairness for all internet based companies.

It's entitlement. You believe you should be entitled to a service and not need to pay more.

[Brian Defferding]

The free market has failed.

Yes, that's why the internet has been the leading vehicle of information and commercial exchanges to the public despite the fact there has been no Net Neutrality enforced yet.

Sorry Reilly, I don't see any huge failure in markets yet, other than seeing how a few people here have lost the desire in voluntary resolution and action.

[JaylieWoW]

Without "Net Neutrality" you could allow religious or political groups to control access to content.

You guys need to come to the reality we will never have a pure Libertarian society. If we did I would be totally against "Net Neutrality" since we would have competition. If you guys really want to see Neocon McCains version of internet control you can kiss this site and many others good bye. You thought the dot com crash was bad, give it a few years without "Net Neutrality" when the monopolies transform the internet to something that looks like cellular service in this country.

or something like this.
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

Verizon Wireless version of mobile broadband today: :rolleyes:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans&lid=//global//plans//mobile+broadband+plan

You are aware that monopolies are government created? Enron anyone?

Do you REALLY believe that the ONLY way we will EVER receive internet service will be through land lines only? I think if we could practice a bit of patience we don't have long to wait for new technology requiring less dependence on "land lines" in order to reach our homes.

Understanding competition and how it works is NOT akin to believing we may live or want to create the perfectly "pure" libertarian society. The same holds true for understanding that giving government control over ANYTHING usually morphs into something completely undesirable. I believe this especially holds true for ALL organizations "created" by government like the FCC. What power do we have to vote out leaders at the FCC... the EPA... the CDC??

I myself live in an area where you have ONLY TWO options for internet service, cable or satellite. I use cable because it is more reliable. Still, because the majority of internet use in my surrounding neighborhoods is via cable, we get dropped regularly (5 to 10 times per day) for a minute or two. This is due to the heavy traffic in the area.

Essentially, you could say my cable provider has a "monopoly" over service in this area. However, because of competition OUTSIDE of my area, my cable provider lowered my rates (fairly significantly I might add) recently. Did you hear that? They aren't holding their boots to our necks out here in the boonies because of their monopoly.

In addition, they've started sending all customers new modems that have the ability to "channel jump". I'm no hardware guru, but basically anytime a "channel" is blocked or congested, this modem will find another less congested channel for me to use AND (supposedly) getting dropped will be rare.

My point is this... while what we have now isn't perfect (and I'd contend nothing we have will ever be "perfect"), giving the government any power to attempt to make it "perfect" (in who's eyes I might ask??) only leads to more costly services (higher taxes) and less satisfaction.

[dannno]

The free market has failed.

No, you have failed and you watch too much TV. There is no free market in ISPs. We haven't had a free market in over a hundred years for much of anything, if nothing else due to our monetary system.. the government has already promoted centralized power to control the internet and you want to give them even more power :confused: You sure have a lot of faith that the government will do good things.

[ninepointfive]

Get out of here with your groupthink bullshit.

We're having a constructive debate here. Both sides have legitimate points. You are contributing nothing.

You're wrong about that. I am advocating the free market and choices. I'm just not advocating big government and further market regulations like you are.

You've been offended because you realize that net neutrality, something you support, isn't actually a libertarian position. Head in the sand much?

[reillym]

Yes, that's why the internet has been the leading vehicle of information and commercial exchanges to the public despite the fact there has been no Net Neutrality enforced yet.

Sorry Reilly, I don't see any huge failure in markets yet, other than seeing how a few people here have lost the desire in voluntary resolution and action.

Just because the internet has succeeded in some things does not mean it is a complete success, and that it will continue to succeed forever. Nice logic there.

No failures? Why, because you are ignoring them? Look up how many choices, on average, people have for ISPS. That has been mentioned several times in this thread, and is the PUSHING factor towards NN.

[low preference guy]

Just because the internet has succeeded in some things does not mean it is a complete success, and that it will continue to succeed forever. Nice logic there.

No failures? Why, because you are ignoring them? Look up how many choices, on average, people have for ISPS. That has been mentioned several times in this thread, and is the PUSHING factor towards NN.

Short version: I want the internet to be fair! Instead of figuring out ways to innovate or opening my own company, I want the government to force companies to fix it! Now! I want it!!!!

[reillym]

Then we work within our local governments and prevent the local governments from guaranteeing the monopoly, not give the government the power to regulate pricing and content.

By the way, do you think TV got that way because of markets being free?

Once again, ISPs have it in their best interest to provide information to the customers, controlling content to the degree you prescribe would be a dumb idea for them, and potentially business-killing. Thus far, I have not seen a rising trend of real life examples of ISP's controlling the content to that extreme where sites are blocked and/or charged extra. There is a reason for that.

Of course that's an option. One that probably won't work.

AND THERE IS NO PUSH TO REGULATE PRICE AND CONTENT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Don't complain about NN if you don't know what it is made to do. Jesus. Regulate prices? Where did you get that? Content? No. Not at all. NN is to ensure that no ISP prioritizes and sort of traffic over another. Simple as that. It's fair, equal, and simple. And that's IT.

Controlling content is a bad idea for ISPS? What about comcast and nbc if they merge? Why *wouldn't* comcast try to push their own content? And the telcos already block content. P2P applications, the comcast "domain helper", etc.

[reillym]

No, you have failed and you watch too much TV. There is no free market in ISPs. We haven't had a free market in over a hundred years for much of anything, if nothing else due to our monetary system.. the government has already promoted centralized power to control the internet and you want to give them even more power :confused: You sure have a lot of faith that the government will do good things.

That...is... my .... point.

This isn't about centralizing power, no matter what glenn beck and his nutjobs say. It's a simple law, people. No ISP should be able to prioritize traffic. That is fair. ISPs are monopolies, they should not be treated nicely. At all.

[reillym]

It's entitlement. You believe you should be entitled to a service and not need to pay more.

The internet is vital to democracy. If you disagree, then please go back to 1950. In 20 years, all the old people will be dead and the internet will be the primary source for all information.

[low preference guy]

NN is to ensure that no ISP prioritizes and sort of traffic over another. Simple as that. It's fair, equal, and simple. And that's IT.

And that's a violation of property rights and freedom of contract. Once you concede the principle that private property and freedom of contract can be violated arbitrarily, you can't complain when the government use eminent domain to take your house so that companies which pay more taxes than you can build.

[low preference guy]

No. Not at all. NN is to ensure that no ISP prioritizes and sort of traffic over another. Simple as that. It's fair, equal, and simple. And that's IT.


If you want equal access to all traffic, why don't you open your company and implement that policy? Why don't you start a campaign to encourage people to drop companies that don't offer equal access? Sitting on your butt demanding that the government run things the way you want to is what Democrats with an entitlement mentality do, and too many people with your mentality is one of the reasons this country is going to hell.

[healthpellets]

for those that support NN leglislation expanding the FCC's ability to impose NN, what happens when the Telcos run the FCC?

[specsaregood]

for those that support NN leglislation expanding the FCC's ability to impose NN, what happens when the Telcos run the FCC?

They get the ability to regulate and censor but also with power of law and guns backing them up?

[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