Ron Paul and Internet Neutrality

[freelance]

I have held my tongue about Internet neutrality. This is what the lack of Internet neutrality gets us—just more stacking of the deck for large corporations:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/

Looks like Comcast took a page out of Mitt Romney's play book, busing people into hearings and paying them to take up seats that would otherwise go to the interested public.

How is this free enterprise when the corporations, which BTW, happen to hold monopolies in most major metropolitan areas? I have only one choice--Comcast. How am I free to enjoy the entire scope of the Internet if Comcast dictates where I can go and at what speed I get there?

This is pure BS, BECAUSE this is set up for no competition. This is like the old airline days where one carrier would serve a city pair.

Someone please point out where I am going wrong UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. That's all we have--the current system, and it's stacked against those who want to pursue the truth by visiting the sites of their choosing rather than the sites of the corporations' choosing.

P.S. Yeah, mods, I know the title is a bit sneaky--move it if you like.

 

[brandon]

I have held my tongue about Internet neutrality. This is what the lack of Internet neutrality gets us—just more stacking of the deck for large corporations:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/

Looks like Comcast took a page out of Mitt Romney's play book, busing people into hearings and paying them to take up seats that would otherwise go to the interested public.

How is this free enterprise when the corporations, which BTW, happen to hold monopolies in most major metropolitan areas? I have only one choice--Comcast. How am I free to enjoy the entire scope of the Internet if Comcast dictates where I can go and at what speed I get there?

This is pure BS, BECAUSE this is set up for no competition. This is like the old airline days where one carrier would serve a city pair.

Someone please point out where I am going wrong UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. That's all we have--the current system, and it's stacked against those who want to pursue the truth by visiting the sites of their choosing rather than the sites of the corporations' choosing.

P.S. Yeah, mods, I know the title is a bit sneaky--move it if you like.

You and the "save the internet" campaign are very wrong. I agree with both of you that there is a potential problem, but you have a terrible solution.

Ok, so if these companies do manage to effectively filter internet content, how did that happen? It happened by government colluding with the companies to set up regulations which effectively grant monopoly rights to them.

So what is the solution? I assure you it is not more government regulation wrapped in an orwellian name like "net neutrality."

The solution is to free the market to competition. If one service provider starts prioritizing packets, you switch to another.

Anyway, this isn't going to happen. It already existed with the AOL service of the mid 90's. Look what happened to them.

 

[freelance]

brandonyates, I may be VERY wrong. I just don't think that what we have now is the solution either.

Here's the point I'm making. There is no free market. I have one choice and one choice only for cable: Comcast. They want to limit my access. I am going to have to have several different providers--wireless, DSL and cable to get to all of my places, that is, until DSL and wireless do the same filtering crap.

 

[Sematary]

brandonyates, I may be VERY wrong. I just don't think that what we have now is the solution either.

Here's the point I'm making. There is no free market. I have one choice and one choice only for cable: Comcast. They want to limit my access. I am going to have to have several different providers--wireless, DSL and cable to get to all of my places, that is, until DSL and wireless do the same filtering crap.

I don't understand the problem. I have an option of getting my internet through Charter, or the telephone company or AOL (if I was stupid enough to make that choice) and my speeds are only limited by the package I purchased and the server speeds that I am connecting to. There is no regulation of where I go or when or how fast or slow the connection is based on government regulation. That sounds like unfettered freedom to me. So what is it that you are hoping to change?

 

[freelance]

I don't understand the problem. I have an option of getting my internet through Charter, or the telephone company or AOL (if I was stupid enough to make that choice) and my speeds are only limited by the package I purchased and the server speeds that I am connecting to. There is no regulation of where I go or when or how fast or slow the connection is based on government regulation. That sounds like unfettered freedom to me. So what is it that you are hoping to change?

Here is the problem. In order for me to get cable, I HAVE to use Comcast. They have rigged it here so that we only have one choice for cable Internet. Now, Comcast wants to LIMIT THE SITES I VISIT! They want to create "fast lanes," "slow lanes," and "NO lanes." Yesterday, at the FCC meeting, they paid people and bussed them in early to take up all of the seats at a public hearing. When the "public" showed up, all of the seats were gone, so there was no public input at the hearing.

The FCC system is the one that is in place. I do NOT want to lose my ability to surf the net (except for "approved" sites) because of some pure principle, when the cards are already stacked against me. If we had a FREE market, that would be fine, but we do NOT have a free market. It's sort of like pretending that NAFTA is a free-market solution, when it's not.

So, what's the answer? Just let the corporations ride roughshod over the consumer? Most of the people who use Comcast wouldn't even know that they've been limited in their surfing. For all I know, Comcast will cut off RPF.

The whole system is BS. So, given that the system is BS, and the corps simply want to cut of our access to TRUTH, I want to know what the answer is.

P.S. I'm not explaining the system that Comcast wants to introduce. I'm sorry. I thought everyone understood. They want certain sites to be easily accessible (fast speed connecting), certain sites to be less easily accessible (slow to connect) and some sites to be BLOCKED from their service. I don't know how they technologically plan to slow down certain sites. I have no clue, but if it's nefarious, they've thought it through. The objective is to filter the news that we receive. Does that explain the problem?

P.P.S. This has nothing to do with pornography. It has to do with limiting our access to the REAL news. They want to set us MSM Internet.

 

[Sematary]

Here is the problem. In order for me to get cable, I HAVE to use Comcast. They have rigged it here so that we only have one choice for cable Internet. Now, Comcast wants to LIMIT THE SITES I VISIT! They want to create "fast lanes," "slow lanes," and "NO lanes." Yesterday, at the FCC meeting, they paid people and bussed them in early to take up all of the seats at a public hearing. When the "public" showed up, all of the seats were gone, so there was no public input at the hearing.

The FCC system is the one that is in place. I do NOT want to lose my ability to surf the net (except for "approved" sites) because of some pure principle, when the cards are already stacked against me. If we had a FREE market, that would be fine, but we do NOT have a free market. It's sort of like pretending that NAFTA is a free-market solution, when it's not.

So, what's the answer? Just let the corporations ride roughshod over the consumer? Most of the people who use Comcast wouldn't even know that they've been limited in their surfing. For all I know, Comcast will cut off RPF.

The whole system is BS. So, given that the system is BS, and the corps simply want to cut of our access to TRUTH, I want to know what the answer is.

The system we have NOW is free. What they want to create is NOT net neutrality but would be regulated internet. You may only have one choice for CABLE but it is NOT your only choice for internet connectivity. And, to top it off, you only have one cable company BECAUSE of government regulation. Right at this moment, we have net neutrality. The government has absolutely no say in where or when you go or the speeds you get. So support defeating "net neutrality" and keep your freedom. There are plenty of groups out there fighting it so join up and fight it.

 

[mysticgeek]

Here is a video of Dr. Paul and his position on the Interent:
http://blogs.howtogeek.com/mysticgeek/2008/01/23/ron-paul-on-internet-freedom-video/

 

[freelance]

you only have one cable company BECAUSE of government regulation.

The whole FCC IS government regulation. And, they're asking the FCC for permission to SHUT US OUT from certain parts of the Internet.

Would you mind sharing some of those groups? I would love to join. I haven't kept up with this particular issue, because of more pressing things, like Real ID. My fear is that Comcast may some day prevent me from finding out things like Real ID before it's too late.

Do you guys see my concern? I do not call limiting my access to sites a FREE Internet. Does anyone see that if the FCC controls the Internet, it's not any better than net neutrality? I understand that problem is govt. regulation, but I also understand that's what we've got (stacked deck) and that the house always wins.

 

[freelance]

Here is a video of Dr. Paul and his position on the Interent:
http://blogs.howtogeek.com/mysticgeek/2008/01/23/ron-paul-on-internet-freedom-video/

I watched it. Okay, here's what I see. We don't want government to regulate the Internet. In theory, I agree.

COMCAST wants FCC approval to regulate the Internet. I don't like that either.

The whole thing should be open and free, but right now, we are given two false choices. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Sematary]

The whole FCC IS government regulation. And, they're asking the FCC for permission to SHUT US OUT from certain parts of the Internet.

Would you mind sharing some of those groups? I would love to join. I haven't kept up with this particular issue, because of more pressing things, like Real ID. My fear is that Comcast may some day prevent me from finding out things like Real ID before it's too late.

Do you guys see my concern? I do not call limiting my access to sites a FREE Internet. Does anyone see that if the FCC controls the Internet, it's not any better than net neutrality? I understand that problem is govt. regulation, but I also understand that's what we've got (stacked deck) and that the house always wins.

I have to go to work but if you google net neutrality I'm sure you'll find them.

 

[ARealConservative]

Here is the problem. In order for me to get cable, I HAVE to use Comcast. They have rigged it here so that we only have one choice for cable Internet. Now, Comcast wants to LIMIT THE SITES I VISIT! They want to create "fast lanes," "slow lanes," and "NO lanes." Yesterday, at the FCC meeting, they paid people and bussed them in early to take up all of the seats at a public hearing. When the "public" showed up, all of the seats were gone, so there was no public input at the hearing.

How can a Ron Paul supporter have such a lack of trust in the invisible hand of free markets and wants government to solve the problem instead?

We are apethetic voters, but as consumers, we do pay attention.

I find your fears unfounded. A corporation will not succeed by giving the consumer the opposite of what they want - unless we do something stupid politically and give the government power to regulate the internet and force what we don't want on us all via force. We could call it the Internet Pqtriot Act, or the Internet Fairness Act, or maybe even the Internet Neutrality Act.

 

[freelance]

How can a Ron Paul supporter have such a lack of trust in the invisible hand of free markets and wants government to solve the problem instead?

We are apethetic voters, but as consumers, we do pay attention.

I find your fears unfounded. A corporation will not succeed by giving the consumer the opposite of what they want - unless we do something stupid politically and give the government power to regulate the internet and force what we don't want on us all via force. We could call it the Internet Pqtriot Act, or the Internet Fairness Act, or maybe even the Internet Neutrality Act.

Well, let's see, because Comcast is already censoring alternative health newsletters! You can roll your eyes all you like.

There is no free market. The corporations and the government are one. I'm just sorry that everyone can't see that. Remember the new shoot to kill orders that have been extended to the corporations. They ALL have a vested interest in limiting our ability to get real news. I don't think my fears are unfounded.

If Comcast had gotten what it now wants before the election, there would have been no Ron Paul Internet campaign. All of the sites that we freely access now would probably have been relegated to "the slow lane," if not the "no lane."

We can all see what the media did to Ron Paul and how the media has dumbed down America, and now it's the Internet's turn.

 

[ARealConservative]

Well, let's see, because Comcast is already censoring alternative health newsletters! You can roll your eyes all you like.

There is no free market. The corporations and the government are one.

Yes, so your solution is to go to government to protect the consumer from the corporation? You contradict yourself now.

 

[freelance]

Yes, so your solution is to go to government to protect the consumer from the corporation? You contradict yourself now.

No, my real solution (in my dreams) is to abolish the FCC! Hint: It ain't gonna happen. I think they are an evil agency, but if we have to have stupid regulations, I would be in favor of regulations in OUR favor. I do NOT want the truth to be inaccessible as it is on TV.

 

[hyoomen]

While net neutrality is an interesting idea for a managed economy, it would also likely be the result of free market forces meeting the broadest demands of the available customers. Enforcing a net neutrality system, however, will significantly stifle products such as Uverse from at&t and FiOS from Verizon, who find that their new broadband pipelines require some packet shaping to be competitive.

If you want a 'free market' perspective on the issue, look to Mises Institute: http://www.mises.org/story/2139
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005177.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005343.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005163.asp
http://www.mises.org/story/2806

Or: http://www.reason.com/news/show/117327.html

Just like many of the issues that face us, there are definite problems that will occur with the adoption of more free market practices. That having been said, they are necessary obstacles that the market must encounter and overcome on its own until the path is clear and more facts are known regarding the impact of genuine deregulation. Whether we can keep Congress from reacting long enough for any free market forces to work themselves out is another question.

 

[mdh]

There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.

Net neutrality is as dangerous as the 2% income tax which the people of the US accepted some century ago. Where is that 2% income tax now? The more government people accept or even ask for, the more government they will get that they never wanted at all. This is simply the way government works. You let them have an inch, they will take a mile. Net neutrality is one of the single most dangerous initiatives of our lifetime. It basically sets legislative precedent wherein the configuration of systems connected to the internet and the data contained in packets flowing across the internet can be regulated by the US federal government. Stop and ask yourselves, is this really a legislative precedent we want to set? Because I'll tell you right now, once it's set, you ain't unsettin it.

At least most of the enforced monopolies on consumer internet services are at the local level (public service commissions, etc, usually within the county or city government). You have a much greater chance of affecting these machines than you do of affecting a federal body like the FCC. And don't forget it, either - go to their meetings. Give them feedback if you have a complaint. If your alternative health newsletters are being censored, get them to demand Comcast stop doing so! If you haven't tried that route, then you're not playing the sort of active role in local governance that is required to keep these systems honest. If you're not doing that, then it's no wonder when they're not honest!

 

[Arklatex]

I work in computer networks having studied telcom, and this issue has been my #1 and probably the reason I first researched Dr. Paul.

I don't have 15 min to explain why the internet should be unregulated, but trust me, if it ever does become regulated it'll signal for the downfall of the US.

It's the last stand for liberty.

 

[mdh]

I work in computer networks having studied telcom, and this issue has been my #1 and probably the reason I first researched Dr. Paul.

I don't have 15 min to explain why the internet should be unregulated, but trust me, if it ever does become regulated it'll signal for the downfall of the US.

It's the last stand for liberty.

And I'm a systems security engineer by trade...

I think people who get it, get it. The rest are believing the hype. There's right, and wrong, and there're right ways to get there and wrong ways to get there. Anything involving more government or more laws is always the wrong way to get anywhere that you hope will be right. If you think otherwise, maybe you belong on the left.

 

[Blowback]

Net Neutrality seems to be the biggest little secret scam ever. This is the govs last barrier to complete control over everything. They may look like they are pursuing noble purposes now but get ready for one year from now when they decide that some things just shouldn't be on the internet... for out own good, of course... and for the children.

 

[weslinder]

freelance,

You really need to change internet service providers. DSL, Satellite, competing cable, whatever. If you quit complaining and vote with your pocketbook, Comcast will get the message.