PDA

View Full Version : Alex Jones completely wrong about Net Neutrality




jd603
07-16-2007, 05:30 PM
Who here speaks to Alex Jones?

He needs to be set straight on some things.

He's wrong on several points. I sent an email from his web site, anyone have more direct contact? i know there's soem hardcore Alex Jones junkies here. heh

CriticalThinker
07-16-2007, 05:36 PM
I know nothing of it. Fill me in on all the details of this "term".

ThePieSwindler
07-16-2007, 05:52 PM
I know nothing of it. Fill me in on all the details of this "term".

Think critically about it ;-)

Basically Jones said that Ron Paul is wrong about net neutrality. Ron's position is that voting for net neutrality legislation is just more government regulation and infringes on the market, and that we should deal with the government involvement that already exists that often creates local monopolies (which is the big issue that supposedly prevents a free market solution). Net neutrality is basically legislating for a problem that does not yet exist, and if it did exist, only does so because of government intervention in the first place. Alex, surprisingly, supports network neutrality legislation and said Ron was wrong. I'd think Alex would be the FIRST to be aganst any sort of government legislation, and would recognize that its government intervention that already exists that causes the problem. I would think that alex would realize that giving the government any sort of regulatory power over the internet (which the net neutrality bill would have done) would be to give them the power to possibly censor content themselves. He always talks about how Pelosi, clinton, et al. have called for limiting talk show and the internet... i don't get why he doesn't see through the network neutrality legislation proposed, that would allow for something like this in incremental steps.

So thats why the OP believes alex jones is wrong, and what the issue itself is.

BuddyRey
07-16-2007, 06:35 PM
You mean RP is actually AGAINST Net Neutrality?!?!

Crap. First I hear RP doesn't really want to return to the Gold Standard, and now this? I hope the Feds haven't MKULTRA'd him!

LastoftheMohicans
07-16-2007, 06:40 PM
I haven't read up on Net Neutrality much. But let me see if I have it straight. Right now, government enforced local monopolies control the infrastructure of the internet. And some people want Federal legislation to prevent these local monopolies from restricting access to the internet.

Quantumystic
07-16-2007, 07:12 PM
I haven't read up on Net Neutrality much. But let me see if I have it straight. Right now, government enforced local monopolies control the infrastructure of the internet. And some people want Federal legislation to prevent these local monopolies from restricting access to the internet.

Very close.

Except that "local" has nothing to do w/ it. We're talking multi-national Globalists. The telecoms.

There was a really good write up on this floating around a few days ago, but I can't seem to find it now.

Short recap...

Under the current circumstances, regulation IS needed to prevent these people from effecting true monopolies that destroy the internet as we know it. It's all about a pay-as-you-play broadband "toll" for net traffic of a site.

In essense, it's a "success tax". The more successful your site is, the more you have to pay the infrastructure provider to keep using it. So that instead of a volume discount, you pay a volume increase.

PatriotOne
07-16-2007, 07:17 PM
You mean RP is actually AGAINST Net Neutrality?!?!

Crap. First I hear RP doesn't really want to return to the Gold Standard, and now this? I hope the Feds haven't MKULTRA'd him!

Net Neutrality is one of those subjects RP knows little about at this time so he can only speak unspecifically about the bill itself. He basically states that he prefers the internet to have no Government regulations...period.

ThePieSwindler
07-16-2007, 07:31 PM
Very close.

Except that "local" has nothing to do w/ it. We're talking multi-national Globalists. The telecoms.

There was a really good write up on this floating around a few days ago, but I can't seem to find it now.

Short recap...

Under the current circumstances, regulation IS needed to prevent these people from effecting true monopolies that destroy the internet as we know it. It's all about a pay-as-you-play broadband "toll" for net traffic of a site.

In essense, it's a "success tax". The more successful your site is, the more you have to pay the infrastructure provider to keep using it. So that instead of a volume discount, you pay a volume increase.

From Wikipedia: Some countries, like the UK make it relatively easy to change ISPs and dozens of options are available, whereas in the U.S. and many other countries only one or two local network providers are available. It would be expected that any NN issues would be more common where monopoly or duopoly providers exist.

Thus the issue that needs to be dealt with is the lack of competition in various local areas, NOT the control of the content. Market principles still apply, in that if there is competition, the telecomms maintain the current standard. Network neutrality is currently the de facto industry standard, but telecomms HAVE been discussing possibly providing tiered service, allowing the user to choose their own level of quality of service. Essentially what network neutrality legislation attempts to do is allow the FCC to reregulate everything so that telecomms are not allowed to provide tiered services and must charge the same for all access and must allow equal access to all parts of the internet. However, this allows the FCC to have more control over the internet, even if the specific legislation seems beneficial.

The thing about this net neutrality debate is that people don't really understand the semantics. Net neutrality ALREADY exists, so the supposed position that is "against" net neutrality is actually against legislation REGULATING net neutrality through the government, NOT against the current standard. The belief is that if this legislation isn't passed, the government-influenced monopolies and duopolies will at the very least provide tiered services where they charge varying amounts for certain access privileges, at the most outright block entire parts of the web (which is overblown and would not happen). In my eyes, Ron Paul is right, and the pro net-neutrality legislation crowd misunderstands the market, and misses the forest for the trees. Market principles apply here as well, and what needs to be done is to make it easier for competition to exist everywhere and to allow free entry into the market. It works in the UK, why not here? And it would be much preferable to letting the FCC get its grubby little bureaucrat hands on the web.

Roxi
07-16-2007, 07:34 PM
can someone please explain what will change if this goes through?

im still confused because one person says its one thing and someone i really respect for thier intelligence says another

ThePieSwindler
07-16-2007, 07:42 PM
can someone please explain what will change if this goes through?

im still confused because one person says its one thing and someone i really respect for thier intelligence says another

Essentially what is happening is that the current industry standard of network neutrality is being threatened by AT&T and a few other telecomms saying they would like to provide tiered access, or access plans where they can charge more for accessing certain websites. Companies such as microsoft and google certainly do not want they, so they are lobbying for congress to pass legislation that is the "Net Neutrality" that you hear about. So far all the bills have been voted down. If they do go through, the laws would overall (the details vary but principle remains the same) prohibit telecomms from charging varying rates, or from blocking out access to any content on the web. It would also give the FCC more control over the "neutral" network, the internet, as a result of the legislation. Informed proponents of the legislation believe the legislation will be beneficial and protect the average consumer from monopolies and duopolies fixing prices and content access, but will not do anything about the actual existence of the monopolies and duopolies in local areas. Informed opponents believe market principles still apply, and that the issue is the existence of the monopolies and duopolies in the first place, not the results that come out of their existence. They also argue that the legislation is essentially legislating a problem that does not yet exist, and is essentially conjecture at this point.

mdh
07-16-2007, 08:39 PM
Duplicate thread... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=7403

Brandybuck
07-16-2007, 09:51 PM
Alex Jones is completely wrong on a great many things. It's one thing to believe in a conspiracy, but it's quite another to believe in all conspiracies all the time, even when they conflict with each other.

Mesogen
07-17-2007, 12:25 AM
The only thing I ever heard Alex Jones say about Net Neutrality and Ron Paul is "People keep saying Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality and it's not true!"

Huh?