Some inside info. on Ron's G4 Attack of the Show appearance

[angrydragon]

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/013687.html

Regarding Ron Paul's upcoming interview on G4TV's Attack of the Show, I received the following e-mail from a reader, which he received from a friend at the network:

Here's the lowdown on what RP will be discussing...

"Ron Paul will be in The Loop: One on One talking about the topics of the campaign that matter most to our audience. These are only a few of what we'll be talking about: Net Neutrality, Media Censorship, Violence & Sex In The Media, Videogames Blamed for Violence, and The '08 YouTube Campaign. We’ll also be taking live viewer questions (via web) for RP.”

I hope Ron Paul takes the opportunity to blow the concept of "Net Neutrality" out of the water, as was done here and here. I would just use an electricity-to-broadband analogy: If the power company operated on a "Net Neutrality" principle, they would charge everybody a flat rate for power, regardless of how much they use -- causing inevitable shortages. With BitTorrent filesharing activity responsible for well over 1/3rd of all internet traffic, I am at a loss as to why ISPs have not ran away from Net Neutrality and started charging per unit of bandwidth (perhaps its because most ISPs are geographic monopolies). Just as mobile phone companies "build to demand" where usage is the highest, the same would happen with the internet service providers and the internet.

The here and here Nick refers to are these two articles.

http://www.mises.org/story/2139
http://www.mises.org/story/2256

And the live questions link.

http://www.g4tv.com/videoviewermail/index.html

 

[literatim]

I am at a loss as to why ISPs have not ran away from Net Neutrality and started charging per unit of bandwidth (perhaps its because most ISPs are geographic monopolies). Just as mobile phone companies "build to demand" where usage is the highest, the same would happen with the internet service providers and the interne

...because no one would use it?

Charging per unit is archaic, it was how it was in the early days.

Bandwidth is very cheap and the US is far behind the rest of the 1st world in terms of average bandwidth.

Most ISPs are not geographic monoplies. In fact, it is one of the most competitive markets out there. There are about a dozen ISPs(cable, DSL) in my area to choose from.

 

[angelatc]

Another problem with the "Pay for what you use" scheme is that large coporations will negotiate cheap cheap cheap rates, while service to individuals will be much more expensive , simply because they can't negotiate a quantity discount.

It's even possible that the business will actually shun the home-user business because the potential to maximize profit just isn't there.

 

[briatx]

While I don't necessarily trust the government to regulate the internet...

What we have right now is pretty good. And thats regulation, no?

I trust the telcomms even less on this issue. I think they will enact policies that will wind up hurting the little guy on the net.

Some points:

1) The infrastructure was built with monopoly, or near monopoly power
2) There are usually only two choices for internet providers: telcomms or cable companies. Not necessarily a crowded market full of competition.
3) People already pay for what they use. You buy a connection at a certain speed.

This is an area where a few priviledged companies were given priviledged status and gained established control over the market. They were all in favor of THAT government intervention... but now that they own the infrastructure they don't want to be told how they can use it.

Network neutrality is what the Internet has always had. I'm not sure why people want this to change. I can't imagine this being good for anyone other than the telcomms.

I don't know about your market, but I have two choices for broadband. Time Warner cable and AT&T DSL. Oh, and ALL ISPs have to buy their bandwidth from someone... guess who. Yeah, the telcomms.

 

[angelatc]

http://brazosportnews.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-presidential-juggernaut-to-hit.html

According to this site, people with webcams might be able to ask Dr Paul questions during tomorrows live show.

 

[UCFGavin]

i'm really excited about this, unfortunately i won't be able to watch it.

i think he will be able to make a really good point about net neutrality.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I still dont know all about net neutrality. I sort of understand what goals of Net Neutrality legislation are. But I have no idea what the problem is that we need Net Neutrality. Something about the corporations are about to do something that will "kill the internet"

Can someone fill me in on whats going on?

 

[UCFGavin]

I still dont know all about net neutrality. I sort of understand what goals of Net Neutrality legislation are. But I have no idea what the problem is that we need Net Neutrality. Something about the corporations are about to do something that will "kill the internet"

Can someone fill me in on whats going on?

from what i understand....net neutrality is basically the government regulating ISPs to make sure they don't charge customers a shit load of money for bandwidth. the reason that so many people are for it is because they think the ISPs will rape them when it comes to their service. the reason that dr. paul is obviously against it is because once again the federal government is controlling aspects of our lives where it has no authority.

 

[DjLoTi]

Because of online radio, I went to Europe and made friends for a lifetime. If it wasn't for online radio, I would have never experienced life or be who I am today. They are about to shut down online radio, which is victory 1 for net neutrality.

The internet is the most powerful and influential technology and communication tool of all time. It's not very old.. and they want to regulate it and control it before the potential is even realized?

Think about my life. I, and everyone else in the history of time will not be able to do what I did because online radio is about to be taken off. It's a crime guys.. it's a crime against humanity.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

So I assume that once Net Neutrality is passed, I will be paying an internet tax, and the government will be keeping tabs on what websites Im looking at?

 

[ecliptic]

Electronic Frontier Foundation

A lot of Ron Paul folks are unawares of so many other like-minded freedom fighters who are really making a difference. Example: Electronic Frontier Foundation

They have everything you need to know about this subject... another crucial front in the "War on Big Brother".

Still another active front in the "War to Restore the Constitution" is the growing contingent of victims of the insane family law system. One of the great leaders in this battle to restore Constitutional principles to the corrupt family law courts is Dr. Charles Corry and the Equal Justice Foundation. Good people - highly recommend all Ron Paul supporters check out ejfi.org

We have allies all around us if we can open our minds and build a "Coalition of the Constitution".

• BOYCOTT CORPORATE MEDIA
• DEMAND PAPER BALLOTS
• REJECT GOVERNMENT TYRANNY

that is all.

 

[Shmuel Spade]

http://www.techliberation.com/

 

[Gee]

While I don't necessarily trust the government to regulate the internet...

What we have right now is pretty good. And thats regulation, no?

The internet is not regulated at all, no. The physical transmission mediums (fiber lines and the like) are regulated in some ways (I'm not really sure how exactly, but I think there are a lot of government-granted geographical monopolies). But the internet itself - the software on the routers and computers which run it - is seperate from its medium of transmission.

Net Neutrality would regulate this software in order to "prevent" ISPs from discriminating against or blocking certain parts of the internet for profit (like tiered service models). Sort of like how satelite TV providers have different payment plans for movie channels, sports, pay-per-view, etc. No far no ISP has expressed any desire to offer any sort of tiered service like this, and no providers have expressed any desire to discriminate against parts of the internet because certain companies paid them to.

The problem is that the legislation, in aiming to prevent a problem which does not and may never exist, may actually interfere with the developement of new technologies and protocols. Much of it would, for example, prevent the slowing down or blocking BitTorrent packets, something which is often needed to keep the application from eating up available bandwidth.

 

[austin356]

I am assuming he will take the stance of he does not favor NN by the federal government, but would welcomely remove the federal restrictions that keep states from implementing it?

Is that assessment correct? I am also under the personal assumption that he does not know jack crap about this issue (at least up until now) and he believes (Constitutional issues aside) that he nor the Congress are intellectually capable of making technological decisions pre-emptively?

I personally am opposed to NN in principle because it is regulation of the internet, which needs no such thing. But I am very sympathetic to the position that many have, which is that the current market developed out of the government directly and indirectly sponsoring monopolistic activities, thus reducing or eliminating natural free market competition, thus rendering the natural workings of the free market void, because the market is not free.

I think much or most of this will be solved by the market, within the next 5 years via wireless (4/5 G networks). This would increase the competition in the market by 500+% in some circumstances.

 

[austin356]

The internet is not regulated at all, no. The physical transmission mediums (fiber lines and the like) are regulated in some ways (I'm not really sure how exactly, but I think there are a lot of government-granted geographical monopolies). But the internet itself - the software on the routers and computers which run it - is seperate from its medium of transmission.

Net Neutrality would regulate this software in order to "prevent" ISPs from discriminating against or blocking certain parts of the internet for profit (like tiered service models). Sort of like how satelite TV providers have different payment plans for movie channels, sports, pay-per-view, etc. No far no ISP has expressed any desire to offer any sort of tiered service like this, and no providers have expressed any desire to discriminate against parts of the internet because certain companies paid them to.

The problem is that the legislation, in aiming to prevent a problem which does not and may never exist, may actually interfere with the developement of new technologies and protocols. Much of it would, for example, prevent the slowing down or blocking BitTorrent packets, something which is often needed to keep the application from eating up available bandwidth.

Well your right no from my understanding.......... but left out the de facto regulation (intervention) which is the myriad of government hubs set up by the telcos and the executive branch over the last couple decades to route traffic through, creating easy interception.

 

[Shmuel Spade]

http://www.netcompetition.org/

http://www.handsoff.org/blog/