Net Neutrality?

[Edie Lindsey]

I offer this thread in the spirit of neutrality.  What do you think of the concept of net neutrality?

Here's a newslink-- wonder if they're neutral-- telling us the news of the FCC's approval this very day:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html

[Dave]

I think its further proof that the democrats can steal our liberties and rights just as quickly as the republicans can. So much was made about how Bush was taking away our rights and since Obama has been in office we've only seen more of the same. Pretty sad.

[Lee Trucks]

Totally in favor of it.  The big providers already get more money by charging by the size of the pipe and in some cases by the amount of traffic.  I don't want to see my bits and bytes shuned off to the side becasue I'm a little guy.

[Willy]

I've tried to determine what "internet neutrality" actually means but am finding it hard to understand explanations that I have found. Can someone please tell me what "internet Neutrality" means and what it really is all about? Thanks

[Edie Lindsey]

I think it depends on whom you ask.  I believe it is just another incarnation of that other brainfart that gave us the Fairness Doctrine. 

[Lee Trucks]

Basically "net neutrality" means that carriers (ATT, Time-Warnet, Charter, etc) cannot discriminate either for or against packets that are sent on the internet, ie. what you send is as important as anyone elses packets.  The big carriers want to be able to charge people variable rates and promise better performance fot those paying them.  Right now there are no rules and the proposal is that the FCC have some rules and the fight is about what is their nature.  I havn't looked at proposal in any detail.

[Max]

The FCC is inherently unconstitutional.  How long are we as a people going to tolerate it?

 

"Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech or of the press..."

 

"A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves".

[Edie Lindsey]

Do you have any good links to somewhere that would explain your point, Max?  I think you may be right, but I don't know the FCC's history or what function it performs.  I'm lucky to know what the acronym stands for.

[Dave]

I'm not crazy about putting any restrictions on the internet by anyone... specially a government agency.

[XLFD]

This is a hard one to decipher, as per RJE, but it does seem to fall along party lines in that conservatives don't like it and liberals do.  I see the big internet providers being demonized to be used as boogeymen for NN supporters, but I see little evidence among what's presented and readily available that they are "bad enough" to be supplanted by the known and very real boogeymen we have in the regulatory agency known as the FCC. 

I will vote for capitalism and freedom, lacking any serious monopolistic behaviour or wrongdoing by the ISP heavyweights.  Prove that they will be any worse than a politically -charged government-regulated/controlled system and I could change my opinion.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Good discussion ladies and Gents...

 

I come from a military radio electronic background so maybe I can point to the pros and cons of the proposed control of the net.

If you just solely read the proposed scope of the control the FCC wants to exercise. It does indeed seem to want to not regulate the content of the net, only the actual pipeline size by those who currently and legally built the system from the ground up. The owners of the service if you will. The important part to not here is public government controlling private business here.

The FCC was founded in 1934 to regulate the airwaves which are indeed a public domain area I would say. The purpose was to regulate Television and Radio frequency signals in a way in which as many stations as possible could use the available bandwidth of signals with the transmitters and receivers available at the time. This part is also important Lee.

To pay for its self on both the regulation and enforcement end of this task, anyone operation a radio transmitter above a prescribed power level must apply for and receive a license. Buy auctioning off bandwidth as it is turned over by the military and advances in technology the FCC is one of the few things the government runs at other than a total loss to the tax payer.  It was indeed important at the time it was established to keep the airwaves from just being the "Wild West" meaning he who had the biggest transmitter could step on the lower power smaller stations with impunity. So Much for the good here.

The bad part is the slippery slope you get anytime the government which knows so little about how to run its self let alone a business or technology, try's to control anything just to make it fair. Fair to who?? The bored currently proposing this (regulation) is already split along party lines. With the Republican minority concerned with the idea if we start out regulating bandwidth. We set a precedence for other types of regulation such as Rev Al Sharpton having an audience with the FCC for what he termed hate speech from some radio talk show hosts. While I have problems believing they will take action on his request ( The Supreme's have upheld freedom of speech over and over again). The idea of an appointed commission, rather than a elected official in this capacity, smacks of totalitarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

 

Wiki in this case does put out a pretty unbiased synopsis of the agency and issues here. But even if you don't accept Wiki as an authority you can look up the actual history in the governmental links provided at this site.