Voted against Net Neutrality??

[socalforronpaul]

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Ron Paul would vote against Net Neutrality when he is a huge supporter of internet freedom.

Is there a logical explanation for this?

 

[Corydoras]

The enforcement of net neutrality requires government surveillance and regulation of ISPs.

 

[FunkBuddha]

Not to sound like an ass, but this has been hashed out several times in this forum over the past 6 months. I'm sure if you search the forums for "net neutrality" you'll find the answers you're looking for.

Again, not trying to be rude... Just trying to help out.

 

[PatriotOne]

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Ron Paul would vote against Net Neutrality when he is a huge supporter of internet freedom.

Is there a logical explanation for this?

Don't be fooled by the misleading title "Net Neutrality". Reminds me of the misleading title "Patriot Act" so they could take away our constitutional rights.

This article might help you understand why Ron Paul is not falling for the misleading "neutrality" title:

Father of internet warns against Net Neutrality

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

 

[mc_RP2008]

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Ron Paul would vote against Net Neutrality when he is a huge supporter of internet freedom.

Is there a logical explanation for this?

Here is a quote from Dr. Paul regarding Net Neutrality:

"My argument is that we don't need government regulating it... If you accept the government regulating in a favorable way on the internet, you've conceded that they have the authority to regulate in a negative way or even go into taxation."

This quote is taken from an interview conducted by Adam Curry on his Daily Source Code pod cast 10-24-07. It's a very good interview... worth a listen:
http://www.podshow.com/shows/?mode=time_warp&show_id=21&m=10&d=24&Y=2007

 

[0zzy]

Don't be fooled by the misleading title "Net Neutrality". Reminds me of the misleading title "Patriot Act" so they could take away our constitutional rights.

This article might help you understand why Ron Paul is not falling for the misleading "neutrality" title:

Father of internet warns against Net Neutrality

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

I'm SICK AND TIRED of people acting like they know what Net Neutrality is and what the Net Neutrality Act does.

The Net Neutrality Act prohibits Internet Service Providers from regulating the free flow of information on the internet. Today we have Net Neutrality, the ISP (company) regulates how fast you can access the network of servers that run the internet, and you pay for the speed.

The NNA would prohibit the ISPs from saying, "You can't go to RonPaulForums, you can only go to HuckabeeForums.com." Or "We don't use CNN.com on this, you can use our friends ABC though. But if you want CNN you'll have to pay another 100 to get the news network package."

Now people will say, "but it's their property! they can do what they want!" But this is just an area where I do not trust in "free markets". Why? Because there is no free markets, you get 1 DSL choice, 1 cable choice, and 1 dial-up choice. Until this is resolved, until the government monopolies are dismantled, I do not think we need to allow Comcast to say where I can and cannot go.



Anyways. I share your pain, however I'm still voting for Ron Paul. He will have FCC commissioners that will allow smaller internet businesses to be created (less regulation and fees), so that's a plus.

 

[noztnac]

I have never seen the thing you complain about happen so far. Am I missing something?

 

[Corydoras]

there is no free markets, you get 1 DSL choice, 1 cable choice, and 1 dial-up choice. Until this is resolved, until the government monopolies are dismantled, I do not think we need to allow Comcast to say where I can and cannot go.

That's not a matter of government monopoly. You just don't have enough carriers where you live, and that's a result of the free market. If you lived somewhere else, you might have three or four choices for each.

 

[0zzy]

That's not a matter of government monopoly. You just don't have enough carriers where you live, and that's a result of the free market. If you lived somewhere else, you might have three or four choices for each.

No, last time I checked, you get one option for each. At least the last 3 places I lived, and 3 visits I've been to. California, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina, etc.

 

[Corydoras]

No, last time I checked, you get one option for each. At least the last 3 places I lived, and 3 visits I've been to. California, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina, etc.

Sorry, you have been very unlucky in the places you have lived.
It simply isn't true everywhere.

 

[angrydragon]

Ozzy...

What's stopping the ISP's from implementing the prohibition plan and start charging us more for more access right now or the past years? I've seen more speeds, dropping prices, and no restrictions to anything unless parents install software. The opposite of what you fear without the NNA.

 

[socalforronpaul]

It is absolutely not true. I live in California and when I was at the time of deciding on my ISP for broadband access, I had 3 choices. I had 3 for dial up as well.

So, I'm still a bit confused about his position.

He voted against net neutrality because it would allow for the FCC to take control of internet (this much I understand).

But, voting yes to net neutrality will inevitably allow the big 2 broadband carriers to prevent their users from accessing certain sites, unless they pay a fee or fees.

If I'm not mistaken, the actual bill is the COPE Act aka HR 5252. By doing outside research, it seems like the "Net Neutrality" bill is a double-think tactic. Apparently, the COPE Act doesn't include much about net neutrality at all, because an amendment (called the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment) declaring individual networks to remain indiviuals, failed to pass. See the amendment here: http://www.freepress.net/congress/billinfo.php?id=170.

So COPE, the bill which people think will keep the internet free, really doesn't include anything about net neutrality. Am I wrong?

 

[nickcoons]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Ron Paul would vote against Net Neutrality when he is a huge supporter of internet freedom.

Is there a logical explanation for this?

Yes. Net Neutrality isn't internet freedom, it's internet regulation.

 

[nickcoons]

I'm SICK AND TIRED of people acting like they know what Net Neutrality is and what the Net Neutrality Act does.

Then you've come to the wrong place, because I'm pretty sure more people here know exactly what it is.

The Net Neutrality Act prohibits Internet Service Providers from regulating the free flow of information on the internet. Today we have Net Neutrality, the ISP (company) regulates how fast you can access the network of servers that run the internet, and you pay for the speed.

Right, and we have all of this without Net Neutrality legislation.

The NNA would prohibit the ISPs from saying, "You can't go to RonPaulForums, you can only go to HuckabeeForums.com." Or "We don't use CNN.com on this, you can use our friends ABC though. But if you want CNN you'll have to pay another 100 to get the news network package."

That's not really how it works. The ISPs want to charge the site being accessed for preferred service. For instance, an ISP might approach Google and say that Google had to pay them $X/month for preferred access. If they paid it, then their customers could access Google's site no problems. If they didn't pay it, then their site would load more slowly. So if Yahoo decided to pay it and Google didn't, then Yahoo would have an advantage. Supposedly, end-users of this particular ISP would start using Yahoo instead of Google because Yahoo's site would perform better.

Now people will say, "but it's their property! they can do what they want!" But this is just an area where I do not trust in "free markets".

Yes, and they should be able to do that. Even if you believe that the free market has failed in this area (I don't), they should still be allowed to do it. Their property rights need to be protected. If I have something that you want, and I don't want to give it to you, you are not allowed to take it from me, no matter how much you think you need or want it.

Why? Because there is no free markets, you get 1 DSL choice, 1 cable choice, and 1 dial-up choice.

I'm not sure where you live, but here in Phoenix, we have a couple of cable providers, a couple of satellite providers, at least half a dozen DSL choices, and countless dial-up providers. If my ISP tries to pull this crap and degrade my connection in such a way, I'll drop them like a ton of bricks.

Until this is resolved, until the government monopolies are dismantled,

This I agree with. Phone companies used to be monopolies, and they were deregulated so that anyone could use the copper in the ground to provide phone (and now DSL) service. I'm surprised that you only have one DSL provider in your area.. that's very odd.

The same thing needs to happen to the cable companies. They have a government-granted monopoly, so they have government-granted privileges. But Net Neutrality is a band-aid to fix a bigger problem, and the fix really should be something at the core of the problem (deregulation), not a band-aid.

I do not think we need to allow Comcast to say where I can and cannot go.

Too bad.. that's their right. You do not have a "right to internet access". This is a service you pay them for. If you don't like it, cancel your service.

Do you not have any problem with the fact that the federal government isn't allowed to regulate the internet because they have no constitutional authority to do so? Do you realize that in advocating Net Neutrality, you're advocating that Congress break the law; the very thing that we're fighting against in our efforts to get Ron Paul elected?

 

[Perry]

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Ron Paul would vote against Net Neutrality when he is a huge supporter of internet freedom.

Is there a logical explanation for this?

Why is Ron Paul not pro choice I thought he likes freedom?
Things aren't always as they seem. In short Net neutrality is not neutral.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I agree with Ron's position on Net neutrality.....

however, I'm opposed the the monopoly position that the telco's and cable-co's have.....that said, it's not entirely their fault; the FCC (gosh I cannot begin to describe how much I hate them) has insane laws and legislation in place that keeps new phone companies, cable companies, etc from taking root where one already is....this automatically hinders competition and screws with the free market.

in a true free market society, there'd be multiple cable companies in town, possibly even multiple telephone companies (no doubt under this model the entire country would have access to DSL and/or cable by now....there wouldn't be rural black-out areas as there are now).

sadly however, this isn't the case....net neutrality looks good on the surface, and is good if enforced in what it says....but there's a high probability that it won't be heavily enforced, and that it has the high chance of letting the government negatively regulate the Internet in the future.

for example, companies such as Comcast and stuff have decided to block P2P...net neutrality would prevent this from happening (if enforced)....however, we don't need an act/law to keep them from doing this...technically by blocking traffic, they're hindering free speech...and thus they're liable to be sued. Hallelujah, someone has done this, and Comcast is backing down.

Once a few examples are set, no company will do it anymore...Best of all, the problem will be solved and the stage will not be set for regulation of the Internet.

 

[socalforronpaul]

Sorry to repost this, I'm trying to persuade someone I know who thinks Ron is a lunatic for voting against Net Neutrality, among other things. From your posts, I have come up with this so far, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, I'm still a bit confused about his position.

He voted against net neutrality because it would allow for the FCC to take control of internet (this much I understand).

But, voting yes to net neutrality will inevitably allow the big 2 (AT&T and who?) broadband carriers to prevent their users from accessing certain sites, unless they pay a fee or fees.

If I'm not mistaken, the actual legislation RP voted against is the COPE Act aka HR 5252. Through reading some articles it seems like the "Net Neutrality" bill is a double-think tactic, where the name given to the Act is intentionally misleading. Apparently, the COPE Act doesn't include much about net neutrality at all, because an amendment (called the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment) declaring individual networks to remain indiviuals, failed to pass. See the amendment here: http://www.freepress.net/congress/billinfo.php?id=170. Thus the COPE act really isn't the Net Neutrality bill.

Please refrain from one sentence replies. Something with a resource would be great.

 

[socalforronpaul]

Perry,

That pro-choice = freedom was a pretty ridiculous post. I did say "internet freedom", not freedom. Abortion involves religion, and a shitload of Christian voters.

 

[0zzy]

You guys can say all you want, but I am not going to advocate free market for ISPs. No regulation of the internet, via government, ISPs, or whatever.

You say Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet, it isn't. It's regulation of the businesses regulating it.

Comcast is currently barring torrent programs from being used, at least in some parts. And they are able to do this where there are no other choices, I don't think that's right.

Now, you say, "well, it doesn't matter, it's theirs!" I'd say nay. They own the connection to a network, they don't own the internet network.


And on another note, the government now has tracking systems at the ISPs, tracking every keystroke, search, email, etc. you have. They have access to anything, and if you do something suspicious, hello rendition!

 

[Fox McCloud]

You guys can say all you want, but I am not going to advocate free market for ISPs. No regulation of the internet, via government, ISPs, or whatever.

It's not a free market Ozzy. Take a look at what I said about the FCC...ultimately they're the ones that make or break telephone/cable monopolies.

You say Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet, it isn't. It's regulation of the businesses regulating it.

Even under that argument, the government could then regulate the businesses to bar access to certain sites...either way it's "lose-lose".

Comcast is currently barring torrent programs from being used, at least in some parts. And they are able to do this where there are no other choices, I don't think that's right.

yeah, and as I said, they're getting grilled over this (and they're going to get grilled more)....as I said...once a few legal battles are won in favor of the freedom of speech, no company will try to infringe on true network neutrality.