Net Nuetrality question

[Rocco]

I have been doing a little bit of research on the whole net neutrality issue, and my question is would this abolishing of net neutrality not kill us as a movement?

My point is, in the conglomeration of media a climate for candidates like Ron Paul to be blacked out has been encouraged. In today’s media candidates who do not serve the interests of the media bosses that broadcast the debates stand virtually no chance of victory. Nearly all of the companies that own the media in today’s media have specific interests in how our government is run. Wouldn't abolishing net neutrality do the same thing to the internet that has happened to the newspaper, television and radio? I look forward to your responses.

 

[KetchupMaster]

The issue is not whether to abolish net neutrality. Net Neutrality doesn't exist yet...we want to stop it from happening since if enacted, it would give the government more control over the internet.

 

[One Last Battle!]

(A) We have no "Net Neutrality". Which is a good thing. Because

(B) If we had it, it would be centralizing the Internet from the ISPs, etc to the government. If the Government really wants to fix the threat of a "monopoly", they should privatize the Last Mile and cut all regulations (which, despite the claims of the NN advocates, they haven't)

 

[Teaser Rate]

The issue is not whether to abolish net neutrality. Net Neutrality doesn't exist yet...we want to stop it from happening since if enacted, it would give the government more control over the internet.

Net neutrality has been a founding principle of the internet, the issue is whether or not the government needs to step in to protect it or not.

My stance opposing legislation pertaining to enforce net neutrality is centered around a few arguments;

1-Countless examples through history have shown that as soon as you give government a finger, they take the whole hand; "net neutrality" will eventually turn into government censorship. Remember that the FCC was originally established for the sole purpose of stopping radio signals from bleeding into each other on the same frequency.

2-Under its current set of incentives, congress is more likely to pass legislation which will help large corporate entities rather than the public interest. Putting the voters’ best interests first is just bad politics.

3-An ISP limiting access to certain sites for political/commercial reasons would result in a backlash which would cost them much more than any benefits derived from it might provide. People have gotten used to an open internet; it's in no one's best commercial interest to take it away.

The internet will stay open as long as the majority of people will demand it to stay that way, and if that ever changes, then a government elected by the same majority will be unable to stem the tide.

 

[romacox]

Net Neutrality Begins December 21, 2010

Net Neutrality goes into effect on December 21, 2010

The legislation was blocked, but the FCC says they are doing it anyway.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fcc-net-neutrality-web/2010/12/01/id/378598

Some of our political leaders are enacting legislation to stop this
http://pcworld.about.com/od/techindustry/McCain-Introduces-Bill-to-Bloc.htm

Video explaining Net Neutrality: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/145333

What the professor does not realize is that what we have been experiencing for many years is not free enterprise...it is Corporatism/ corporate welfare. Just as the Fed gives money to States in order to control them, so the Fed does with a few corporate entities like like Google.

In other words the reason there are fewer competing companies on the internet these days is because the Fed created the problem, and then says 'we will help with more regulation.

 

[Elwar]

Learn from history. Back in the 30s, AT&T was given sole control over the phone industry.

The reason? They wanted what they had at the time. They wanted to be able to make phone calls and for someone at the other end to pick up. The scare tactic used was that competition would cause people to be required to have multiple phone company lines to talk to all of the different people that they want to talk to.

AT&T promised to make it easy for people and assure phone service the way that they were used to.

Thus, the way phones worked didn't change for over 50 years.

People like the way the Internet is "right now". They want the government to come in and lock it down so that some boogy man scenario doesn't happen.

They will get their wish. The Internet won't change until some enlightened people years down the road open it up and are able to expand it in the way that the phone industry expanded once AT&T lost its monopoly and now we can send video from our cell phones to anyone.

Net Neutrality is a killer of innovation. We won't know what it obstructed until it's gone.