Net Neutrality: Toward A Stupid Internet

Posted by khalling 9 years, 4 months ago to Government
13 comments | Share | Flag

We have had some vigorous debates on net neutrality in the Gulch. Here is an older article, but lays out exactly what's coming to you soon. You will have to be in your Senators' and Representatives' faces on this one-because it's not a partisan issue-it's one we can "all come together on" which will mean less freedom for you
SOURCE URL: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/winter-2008/net-neutrality/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago
    Is there nothing the government meddlers can keep their grubby paws off of? Just for once Politicos leave well enough alone and let the free market sort this out!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dave42 9 years, 4 months ago
      Right now, there is no free market. If you wanted to start a new internet provider, string cable throughout your town to whoever wants to subscribe with you, you aren't allowed because the current provider has an exclusive contract with the town.

      Some ISPs have been caught blocking email encryption (you think the connection to your email provider is encrypted -- including the username and password, but it isn't), and Verizon Wireless has been adding a tracking header to all unencrypted web traffic from your smartphone.

      In a free market, companies that do these sorts of things would rapidly go out of business. The problem is that we're not allowed to compete with them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
        1. cell phone companies 2. satellite companies
        even if your argument is valid, the answer would be to get rid of the monopoly rules not smack new regs on top of everything else
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago
        Hello dave42,
        Indeed. We need a free market. I am apposed to further reduction of free market and incursion into more businesses of mixed market economics. I advocate removing the mixed market incursions we have now wherever possible. Let competition reign supreme. If the government has any legitimate role it is to protect the innovators that threaten the conglomerates with competition. Instead they create regulation only the mega-corps can afford to comply with, often at the behest of the mega-corporations. Re-election donations... cronies... True competition would allow more start ups to compete with Verizon and force them to provide secure services consumers want and can afford, or see their share diminish. These exclusive contracts are the product of government meddlers. Well, you already know this... but for the benefit of others...
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 4 months ago
    Net Neutrality is an attempt to impose the Fairness Doctrine on the Internet.

    Even the most basic arguments about ISPs is based on the flawed anti-trust arguments, which violate companies property rights. Even today people usually have many options for their internet provider - A couple of satellite options, the local telephone company, competing telephone companies, cable, at least two cellular telephone companies and often other companies that overlaying these networks. The argument is based on anti-property rights philosophy, does not have any basis in reality and really is designed to control speech.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dhagan 9 years, 4 months ago
      DB, you reaction was my initial reaction as well. One thing that we as free-market supporters do however, is tend to over simplify the issues. The truth is, there aren't a lot of options for reliable, fast internet. Cables can be laid and data centers built to support the demands of the market, but ISP giants like Comcast are in bed with local municipalities. Cities all over the US are divvied up into zones where local gov. will give the permits to dig to one exclusive company, and the ISP will strike deals with other competitors to stay our of their areas, that's the truth. If you want to change your internet you'll most likely have to move.
      Try this website, it'll show you what internet is available to you. Try about a dozen different places all over the country and you'll find there aren't as many options as you think (if you want broadband).
      http://www.allconnect.com/?backToHome=tr...
      I agree with both Lucky on the inentions portion. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 4 months ago
        BS
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dhagan 9 years, 4 months ago
          No rebuttle? No evidence? Just flat-out "BS"... okay.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 4 months ago
            Dhagan,

            When you make broad generalizations that border on ad hominem attacks (free market supporters simplify) and are typical leftists comments, and you ignore that I have shown that anyone in the US has a minimum of 6 choices for internet providers, then it is clear you are not interested in a rational discussion. The article you link to does not show that this is incorrect and even if it were you are going to steal other people's property rights because of a few isolated spots in the US??

            If you point is that cable providers should not be given a monopoly. Fine, but net neutrality is not the answer and they do not have a monopoly over internet
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wonky 9 years, 4 months ago
    So, if I understand this correctly, the next logical step for the government will be to tell me that the network I have built for my business must be made equally available for employees to download porn and listen to Pandora even though those things will slow down the websites I host?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 4 months ago
    Without doing any thinking, it appeals to my altruistic/fairness side.
    The net however is different from roads and rivers, extra cables are easy to lay, and different providers can or should tune their service, pricing and transmissions to aim at a chosen market segment. The market looks after small scale users because there are many of them, a company that ignores small low income users is ignoring a big income source.
    So (even apart from keeping out of private property and contracts), on further reflection, there is no case for government intervention.

    dbh says- 'The argument is based on anti-property rights philosophy, does not have any basis in reality and really is designed to control speech.'

    The first part- yes, and yes to the extend there may be sometimes valid arguments about technical monopoly, these have no application to the web.
    the control of speech part, I think rather, it is simply (false) altruism -an action imposed by force for the common good that will produce no good to anyone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 4 months ago
    This is a great article. I used to buy the idea that Net Neutrality meant more freedom. I'm changing my mind. Even though I'm very technical, I realize I don't understand the details of this. Most people probably understand even less. Conditions are right to pull one over on people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo