Mozilla supports net neutrality.

[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 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

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