Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality

[Pepsi]

Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments


Stop a Washington takeover of the Internet
The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with proposed "Open Internet" rules, which would give federal regulators vast new powers, and ultimately lead to government control of the Internet.

Deadline is Thursday January 14th.
Please get all your comments in by 8PM Eastern on January 14th, when we will file them in the official docket.

In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet. GN Docket No, 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52.
You can read the complete proposal here: (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf).

In a nutshell, “Open Internet” is the left’s latest marketing language for what they used to call “net neutrality.” It is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the Free Press founder who explained his goal to SocialistProject.ca: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”

“Open Internet” or “net neutrality” sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic.

Heavy-handed regulation could destroy private investment in the Internet, in turn forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Internet functioning, bringing government ownership and control.

http://americansforprosperity.org/internet-comment

[Elwar]

I hope you like how the Internet is...RIGHT NOW...

because that's what you'll have for the next 50 years...

[mczerone]

"Net neutrality" wasn't a big enough misnomer to get blind support for it, apparently. "Open internet" can't possibly be a bad thing, right? It's just like the "Open government" we've had since Jan. 2009. Oh, crap.

[Pepsi]

The dead line well be here soon, so come on! speak out agianst it.

[Pepsi]

If you all ready havent sent one in, now is the time to do it.

[Pepsi]

bump

[Pepsi]

Tonight is the deadline! So speakout!


"More than a million Americans have called on Washington to protect Net Neutrality – the rule that lets me control my Internet experience.

It's now time for the FCC to respond and enact strong rules to keep the Internet free from blocking, censorship and discrimination.

This is an issue with real consequences for real people. Don't give in to pressure from AT＆T, Comcast, Verizon and their lobbyists. Stand with me and other Americans in support of a strong Net Neutrality rule."

[mczerone]

Tonight is the deadline! So speakout!


"More than a million Americans have called on Washington to protect Net Neutrality – the rule that lets me control my Internet experience.

It's now time for the FCC to respond and enact strong rules to keep the Internet free from blocking, censorship and discrimination.

This is an issue with real consequences for real people. Don't give in to pressure from AT＆T, Comcast, Verizon and their lobbyists. Stand with me and other Americans in support of a strong Net Neutrality rule."

I still don't get what side you are on, but Net Neutrality may as well be Net Neutering.

It lets DC control your internet experience, and hinders massive informational needs of productive society in favor of "Ow my Nutz" videos.

[Dr.3D]

That's what happens when they give such a nice name to something that is so terrible.

People tend to get confused as to what they are supporting.

[kahless]

The telco has a choice to either let traffic pass or allow an easement to a competitor. If they do not then they are damaging the private property of the business or homeowner. Some form of Net Neutrality is needed to stop the telcos from infringing on the private property rights of the business or home owner.

In peoples quest to support Libertarian beliefs they have missed these simple facts or have been brainwashed by telco propaganda. I am all for not having "Net Neutrality" regulation as long as we have protections for all private property owners and not allowing one to infringe on the rights of the other.

[Dr.3D]

If it has anything to do with letting the government control something in the private sector, it's just wrong.

If there is a real problem, let those who are being hurt file a claim in court.

[kahless]

If it has anything to do with letting the government control something in the private sector, it's just wrong.

I agree that there should be no control or involvement by the FCC. They could just simply pass a law that protects private property rights.



If there is a real problem, let those who are being hurt file a claim in court.

Like the average Joe has the bucks to fight for a property easement against these telcos. :rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

Like the average Joe has the bucks to fight for a property easement against these telcos. :rolleyes:

Obviously there is something wrong with the system.
Justice isn't supposed to be only for those who can afford it.

[Fox McCloud]

The telco has a choice to either let traffic pass or allow an easement to a competitor. If they do not then they are damaging the private property of the business or homeowner. Some form of Net Neutrality is needed to stop the telcos from infringing on the private property rights of the business or home owner.

In peoples quest to support Libertarian beliefs they have missed these simple facts or have been brainwashed by telco propaganda. I am all for not having "Net Neutrality" regulation as long as we have protections for all private property owners and not allowing one to infringe on the rights of the other.

property right? What property rights? They funded and built the various lines so they make the rules regarding who can and can't use their own property. It's like privately owned roads; they can actively make the decision what types of vehicles can or cannot travel on it.

The problem with protocols being limited/etc. is one that stems from governmental regulation, which I detail, a bit more, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2489021&postcount=8

[kahless]

property right? What property rights? They funded and built the various lines so they make the rules regarding who can and can't use their own property. It's like privately owned roads; they can actively make the decision what types of vehicles can or cannot travel on it.

The problem with protocols being limited/etc. is one that stems from governmental regulation, which I detail, a bit more, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2489021&postcount=8

Then this is what you are then advocating whether it is roads or internet the same applies:

1. To allow a corporation to buy the road to my home or business and restrict my access to and from it.

2. Allow corporations to prevent me from having an easement to a competitor.

3. Allow corporations to prevent me from building an alternative route to my property.

4. Discrimination. Support of policy that favors one group over another.

5. Allowing a corporation to damage my private property due to polices described above.

No thanks. If Ron Paul comes out against private property rights in this fashion then this movement is finished.

[Fox McCloud]

Then this is what you are then advocating whether it is roads or internet the same applies:

1. To allow a corporation to buy the road to my home or business and restrict my access to and from it.

Not exactly; I don't support privatization of the roads in their current format unless things are drastically changed; however, if things are changed, then anyone should be able to purchase the road that can afford it--if he makes the decision to ban you from the use of the road, then so be it.


2. Allow corporations to prevent me from having an easement to a competitor.

Yes and no; everyone can't bar you from being able to visit "such and such" a spot, but a few may--it's a bit of a "grey" area that's best settled in court.


3. Allow corporations to prevent me from building an alternative route to my property.

Again, covered in my earlier statements.


4. Discrimination. Support of policy that favors one group over another.

Any true libertarian supports the right of free association, and therefore the ability for a company, individual, etc. to deny you entrance into their store/propety/etc. for whatever reason.


5. Allowing a corporation to damage my private property due to polices described above.

No thanks. If Ron Paul comes out against private property rights in this fashion then this movement is finished.

Not sure, precisely waht you mean by the former here, but the latter? Melodrama much? Ron Paul will always come out in favor of the rights of the property owner, with the exception of intellectual property (since Austrians do not believe IP exists).

[Matt Collins]

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

[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