Mozilla supports net neutrality.

[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.

Verizon Wireless version of mobile broadband today:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...ns&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 You sure have a lot of faith that the government will do good things.