Users who Dugg This
Tiresias II
657 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Drew Hendricks
10010 Followers
R.A.Deckert
36 Followers
argoffAug 9, 2010
The arguments against imposed net neutrality are strong and well known, but whenever pointed out the results are always the same, attacks and down voting. It's hypocritical to accuse the anti "net neutrality" side of that. Seriously, are we dying under the horrible pain of site and content throttling, and pleading with out legislators to relieve us? Nope, in fact, it has been unregulated for decades, and yet we can still visit google.com at will and millions of people still use bit-torrent at will. The fact that they want to rush in to give the FCC all this power and control to save us from some disaster that hasn't happened should be telling. If only the government was so "proactive" about their massive unproductive debts, and failed wars all over the planet. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dalittleAug 9, 2010
maybe you don't have a phone or cable tv, but nobody wants more nickel and dime phone plans and cable tv bundles for channels they don't want so they can be charged more.
propethicAug 9, 2010
"Seriously, are we dying under the horrible pain of site and content throttling, and pleading with out legislators to relieve us?"
You seem to have net neutrality backwards. This is the consequence of not having net neutrality.
The opposite of your argument would replace "legislators" with "those who do the site and content throttling". You expect them to regulate it? Give me a break.
curunirAug 10, 2010
Yes. Right. I think you have it backwards or something.
It's an argument against *unnecessary* legislation. Which is always bad. Why spend tax money and create burdens for business and citizens in complete ABSENCE of ANY problem?
Government's job is to protect each citizens' freedom from imposition by others. As it stands today, the Internet is working fine. It is a free, open, and democratic system where everyone has a voice. Yes, access is not free (nothing is, including government, which spends 43% of every dollar produced in the US), but it is unfettered, non-discretionary, unregulated as it should be. Completely content-neutral (with a minor bittorrent exception which was fixed more by exposure than any threat from a government bureaucracy). In short - why fix it if it ain't broke. Especially considering how many things the government manages to break once they get involved in it.
ontainAug 9, 2010
it all comes down to the ISPs having the technology to do filtering of content to different service levels. they didn't before without slowing their networks. but now they do have it and they are looking to use it.
curunirAug 10, 2010
*IF* they do that, *THEN* think about an option.
Don't fix what ain't broke. If the federal government decides to regulate, the first thing they will try to do is CONTROL CONTENT! Or at the very least, control the content providers. My god, have you heard the way the political class is gnashing their teeth about how to shut down Wikileaks?
ontainAug 10, 2010
they have been doing it though. look what they have been discussing. that's the plan. you'd want them to implement it first?
as for stuff like wikileaks, if they were in the US they probably could have had them stopped without the FCC.
bigtacobillAug 9, 2010
It always confuses me as to how people can think the way to make the internet "free" is by adding government regulations to things that are currently unregulated. No one has a problem using it, but we've been hearing for 10 years now about how how it will all come to and end soon if we don't give the FCC power to put restrictions on how it works. How in anyway is adding restrictions to something supposed to make it more free? Just look at what the FCC does to radio and TV if you want a taste of what's next. Wait til the FCC start to issue content violations to obscene websites like they did with the Janet's wardrobe malfunction. Wait til offesnive websites are required to have a WEB-MA rating. Regulations rarely ever go backwards, they just continue to march forward, in a power grab by the bureaucrats in control of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Aug 9, 2010
"It always confuses me as to how people can think the way to make the internet "free" is by adding government regulations to things that are currently unregulated. "
because what you want is the opposite of what the anti-net-neutrality people are telling you you will get.
it's unregulated NOW and it's good, but only because what they (internet providers like verizon, att, etc) are trying to do IS NOT DONE YET.
the point of Net Neutrality is to KEEP IT LIKE IT IS NOW. the now that you are arguing for. What the providers want is the ability to to make (and price) the regular internet as awesome as the internet you get on their phones. If you get verizon's internet they want to be able to make their sites load nice as fast while making everyone else's sites slower, in order to screw over the competition.
so, if you are arguing that you like it how it is NOW, then you are FOR net neutrality. dont let the corporatists use scary phrases like "socialism" and "regulations are bad" in order to manipulate you into helping them bend you (and everyone else) over and insert their fiber into your port.
hyperianAug 10, 2010
What you're gonna say next? regulating the internet is unconstitutional?
realeskimopimpAug 9, 2010
heh
stormcommanderAug 9, 2010
That's because the government controlling the internet is much worse. At least companies compete. An ISP that does this would probably go out of business. Who here would honestly stay with them?
If they are "state-sponsored monopolies" as someone pointed out, that's different. End the monopolies then. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I'd rather have a government controlled internet backed up by laws regulating it to say that no preference can be given to content, than let the corporations run buck wild and doing whatever they want.
realeskimopimpAug 9, 2010
ISP's do not compete - they cooperate against consumers and assure that very little competition takes place. That's the problem.
You think there is competition but there isn't.
stormcommanderAug 9, 2010
Source?
serif69Aug 9, 2010
The government controls the phone lines.
The government does not run the phone lines.
There's a distinction there.
kaelyiestaAug 9, 2010
StormCommander, take a look at this. It discusses broader issues, but it is by far one of the best quick read on the subject of the telecommunications market in the US.
mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
I've cited this article so many times I should just have it mentioned in my profile or something...
iclavdivsAug 9, 2010
I agree. If throttling gets too bad, you can bet that a company that doesn't throttle will appear and millions will flock to them. Even if that doesn't happen, it won't be long before wireless signals are powerful enough that we no longer need ISPS.
Handing the government the keys to the internet is something that can't be easily undone. Once we charge them with the responsibility of protecting us from ISPs, where will it end. Soon people willl be suing the government to protect them from content. The internet is such a valuable resource for free speech, we need to take a step back and make sure that traffic shaping is a terrible enough thing to make it worth the risk of placing the internet in the hands of the government.
The telephone line analogy is BS. There is no way to place censurable content on a telephone conversation. A better analogy is how the FCC has treated TV. You can't even show a female nipple for a few seconds on TV without getting fined, but it's OK to show Jack Bauer physically abusing detained terrorists. As a result the FCC has helped turn much of this country into a bunch of sexually repressed violent assh**es.
dwtcAug 9, 2010
"Even if that doesn't happen, it won't be long before wireless signals are powerful enough that we no longer need ISPs."
How would wireless remove the need for ISPs? Wireless just provides another way for you to access an ISP. It's not like the Internet is just *out there on the wireless*. Where I live there are at least 3 wireless ISPs, not counting the actual cell phone carriers. None of these wireless providers actually meet my needs, though, so I'll be sticking with wired broadband service for a long time to come.
"Handing the government the keys to the internet is something that can't be easily undone."
You do realize that the US government was responsible for the original work for what became the Internet, right? And that it was the US government that originally created ICANN?
"Once we charge them with the responsibility of protecting us from ISPs, where will it end? Soon people will be suing the government to protect them from content. The internet is such a valuable resource for free speech, we need to take a step back and make sure that traffic shaping is a terrible enough thing to make it worth the risk of placing the internet in the hands of the government."
Net Neutrality is about making sure that everyone that pays an ISP for access can get whatever Internet content they want. It's not about protecting people from content. There are plenty of simple ways for people to protect themselves and their children (if they wish) from content they deem offensive.
agrabesAug 9, 2010
kaelyiesta,
(Sorry, this is probably TL;DR, but I work for a utility and this issue always bugs me)
I read a little over half of that article (read the first part where it was disputing the idea that it's a problem to build multiple sets of infrastructure based on the idea that roads should not be publicly owned) and I have to say it's a bit... how should I put it.. self serving? It's almost bordering on begging the question.
It starts out being fair enough, pointing out that putting utilities under state regulation only served to freeze prices and that moving that down to municipal regulation actually increased the price. It points out that at one time there were several utility companies in the major cities, that there was competition for gas utilities in the early days before electricity. Then, it points out that electric lighting brought a new level of competition. Fair enough, but that's leaving out some important points. For one, electric lighting is much safer and likely cheaper than gas lighting. Another point is that the market became regulated before the competition had fully settled out in the case of electric lighting. The article seemed to indicate that gas lighting was starting to settle in and competition was being reduced before electricity came along. Finally, though it mentions the number of companies that were competing in the area it doesn't mention if that was necessarily good for consumers or not. The author takes the default assumption that all competition is good, which hasn't been proven. I'm not saying that having additional options is bad for consumers, but it doesn't necessarily give any advantage either. Many of those competing companies could have been doing poorly or had regional monopolies in cities that were large enough.
After that is where I start having real problems with the article. The author claims that excessive infrastructure buildup is only a problem under the current system in which municipalities undervalue their roads and other public lands used by utilities which allows cheap construction. He then goes on to claim that this would be solved by allowing roads and city land to be owned and leased by private companies where extra cost would prohibit too much build up. There are two major problems with that statement: 1.) Even if you assume that it would be the correct thing to do from the perspective of utilities and regulation/deregulation, how could you say that it is best for everyone to privatize roads and public land? 2.) He's just argued against himself with his statement that prohibitive costs would stop direct competition at individual homes. If a utility is to provide service and therefore competition to a customer, it must be able to supply that customer with a service. Therefore any utility in competition for the service of a particular customer must have the infrastructure in place to supply that customer.
Finally, the 1986 study which he used to list several points. I know that one point listed is completely false, namely that this dual delivery system in place in the city does not result in any excess build up of infrastructure. Since there are two separate systems in place which could each provide the same exact service, at least double the necessary distribution infrastructure is in place at any given time. Generation infrastructure would also be built in excess because each rival would have to assume that it will take a certain percentage of its opponent's business and build generation accordingly. If it did not do so, it would be unable to add any new customers and therefore unable to compete. Basically, the author seems to be advocating many small regional monopolies versus fewer, large area monopolies controlled by the state.
mweatherAug 9, 2010
". An ISP that does this would probably go out of business."
Considering all the ISPs around me lease Qwest's lines, no, they wouldn't. I'd just have to bend over and take it.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
It's almost like they picked a word to tap into Red Scare fears that were outdated 20 years ago and prey on the collective ignorance of a large portion of America when they've got zero idea what the terms actually mean.
Wait...
greevarAug 9, 2010
True, but the Russians weren't even socialist if you look at history. Stalin was a dictator and that made the Soviet Union a dictatorship. What people are afraid of is actually a dictatorship that they have mislabeled as socialism.
rpgmakrAug 10, 2010
f**k google and their "don't be evil" bulls**t. Net neutrality supporters? Give me a f**king break, with supporters like that I don't want to know the detractors. Seriously, doing EXACTLY what you were supposed to oppose, in the face of all the people that thought that you were on their side. f**k you google. You just stab every net neutrality supporter in the back with your shady verizon deal. f**k you.
You guys need to wake the f**k up, this right here is where net neutrality starts to die... and nobody says anything just because google is working the deal. Give me a f**king break.
kangpinAug 11, 2010
You're right to point out the invalid arguments calling it socialism...b/c it should be, it's socialism at its finest - it's called crony capitalism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/obamacare_for_the_internet.html
stormcommanderAug 9, 2010
Self-interest? I think the worries over the government regulating the internet is pretty f**king valid if you ask me. They start here and then something like Joe Lieberman's plan is passed in Congress.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jigorokanoAug 9, 2010
If we start letting the gays marry, then people will marry their pets.
karmashockAug 9, 2010
The creep of government regulation is a historical fact denied only by the profoundly ignorant.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Clue for you,
You aren't allowing gays to do anything. They have a human right to form a contract with any consenting adult they wish. The government should STFU and uphold their contracts, but it doesn't and instead it REGULATES freedom in the case of gay marriage.
If the state takes over the net, how about our consent then? It will regulate, once again, that which is now free. Less freedom, not more. The state will end up telling you what sites you can browse, just like it does in China, and OZ soon enough perhaps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mercuryblade18Aug 9, 2010
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy and should never be used as a basis an argument.
stormcommanderAug 9, 2010
Why? They have been true in many situations. Look at the income tax and the IRS.
Marriage or drug legalization are different examples. There's a difference between what people do and what government controls. Government control has never decreased in US history.
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
How is it a slippery slope when it's already been proposed? You know, the whole "Kill Switch" idea? And the idea that Mr. Lieberman has that "if China can do it, why can't we?" with regards to internet regulation? Those don't follow the slippery slope fallacy at all since it's already been proposed by a long time senator.
And Jay Rockefeller believes that we never should have even invented the internet because of all the freedom we now have because of it! Said it in Congress!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tukaAug 9, 2010
So we should let corporate interests butt f**k the internet into an unrecognizable smorgasbord of force fed s**t (aka Cable TV meets skynet, f**ks and implants a baby in the whore advertising industry to excrete out onto our tubes/trucks)...
... all just in case that f**kwad Joe (we'll vote him out) Lieberman passes some OTHER dips**t plan? Do you think good ole Joe is going to stop s**tting down our throats before or after he's elected out of office, irregardless of any push for NN?
PS, can't wait to start counting how many rollover megabytes my internet plan has every month.
stormcommanderAug 9, 2010
No we shouldn't. Which is why if a company did it, their customers would leave and they would go out of business. So they have no reason to do such a thing. Otherwise, if it's such a good idea, what are they waiting for?
chadsexingtimeAug 9, 2010
Capping your internet isnt terrible. I get 100 gigs a month and have never gone over.
Regulating which sites I will and will not receive, however, is abhorrent.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
@StormCommander: The vast majority of Americans don't have any competition for their internet service. What are those people gonna do?
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
They don't have competition now because net neutrality is not an issue. But, if your boogeyman ever manifests, there will certainly be competition.
You and I will start that company s73v3r, if that happens. We will take over the internet and become billionnaires. You in?
tukaAug 9, 2010
If you had the legitimate wherewithall to create a company that can compete with the local incumbent municipally approved monopolies, well then yes I'm in.
You start processing the paperwork for approval to run a trench to every home in the country and I'll work on a logo for our corporate website. If I finish first, I'll see about a mascot too.
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
Great, tuka. Now, if this boogeyman ever comes to pass, and pigs start flying around with Elvis, bigfoot, space aliens, chupacabra, shape-shifting reptilians, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, clean coal and the loch ness monster, and the Vikings win the Super Bowl*, I will make this happen.
* - I'm from Minnesota.
ddrskataAug 9, 2010
It's astounding how much faith some of you have in corporations to do the right thing. They're not going to. They rarely ever do. They go with what can make them the most money, and if all of the companies can make more money throttling traffic, that's what they're going to do. The invisible hand of the market does not favor the consumer.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
@vbullinger: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now you have to deal with the "will he, won't he" drama of Favre's retirement!
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
@vbullinger: Ok, back to the topic at hand. Did this boogeyman ever come true for telephone service? No, not really, because Congress learned from the telegraph industry, and mandated that telephone operators had to be neutral. As in, they had to connect your call, and had to offer the same service for it, regardless if you were calling someone in their network or not.
curunirAug 10, 2010
Don't worry - just let the feds regulate it - and the only companies that will be ALLOWED to provide Internet access will be those companies that are willing to f**k the internet into an unrecognizable smorgasbord of force fed s**t - at the feds' bequest.
tukaAug 10, 2010
@curunir: Keep in mind, , there's basically a 4 way split when it comes to the causes of government, be it national or local. We get into big problems when the sum of those 4 things = 100% and there's nothing left working for the common good. Unfortunately, because we've collectively let them, many officials believe that their primary constituency is comprised only of corporate persons.
1: serving corporate interests (which relates to their own greed)
2: direct serving of self interest
3: simple incompetence
4: serving religious interests
Sadly, when trying to do the right thing, we often get Democrats trying to heal the world and they go too far or get corupted along the way. Or we get Republicans living or selling with religious fervor this idea that if you just make the markets more free and open that Jesus(capitalism) will come along and make everybody rich and powerful. As long as the tax dragon doesn't ruin everything along the way.
letherialAug 10, 2010
your argument making a law stating that nobody can regulate falls short and here is why; The argument of net neutrality is to avoid a very bad business model that could destroy the interenet as we see it. They want to stop say comcast from making a deal with yahoo to provide all the bandwidth to yahoo and none to google; this of course gets more complex when someone starts a new business in the internet, forcing corporations to have all the control and taking away from the free market that so many republicans claim they fight for.
free market does not mean you are free to do everything you want, in fact, the idea of a free market REQUIRES the government to get involved; this logic escapes most people fighting for a "free market"
what current right wing free market is, you are free to cut out anyone you want as long as you got the money (including regulators) this concept is dangerous to our current free market, a true republicans idea of a free market, and our very democracy in itself.
This is what the fight for net neutrality is for, the freedom of the internet; otherwise its just going to become another corporate scam to make the books look better
wildAug 9, 2010
So, Google announced the details of that deal they denied last week:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
catalysisAug 9, 2010
I like how they bury the tidbit about the death of net-neutrality below a bunch of "open-internet" doublespeak.
dwtcAug 9, 2010
They weren't denying talks with Verizon, they denied a business arrangement giving YouTube preferential treatment over Verizon lines. Today's announcement is about Verizon and Google agreeing that wired broadband connections need to remain neutral, and that both wired and wireless service needs transparency.
taxmoreAug 9, 2010
google.. what happened bro? I used to trust you and think you weren't like the others.
karmashockAug 9, 2010
Google actually signed a pact with Verizon for net neutrality indifferent to the government. So what is your beef? They also stopped helping the Chinese censor their people. Currently, it's hard to fault google.
dalittleAug 9, 2010
Net Neutrality needs to pass. US Taxpayers paid for the internet infrastructures and the corporations have been allowed state sponsored monopolies so the internet needs to remain like it is today without a corporate take over and horrible nickel and dime charges.
karmashockAug 9, 2010
The internet is already run by corporations. You're bitching on a corporate website. Do you think Digg is run by the US government? WAKE UP, LEAN, PAY ATTENTION, OR sound like a fool.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dalittleAug 9, 2010
US Taxpayers paid for internet infrastructure, but want to treat it like private property. That simply is not going to happen and Net Neutrality is going to keep the internet like it is today. What exactly is your point?
meorAug 9, 2010
While the US government paid for the original tubes of the internet, the *vast* *majority* of internet infrastructure is from private enterprise.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
Paid for with grants from taxpayers.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
So what you're saying is that ISP's should be able to control who gets to make money on the internet?
Aren't you people supposed to be pro-free market? I will never ever understand how you people can reconcile such contradictory, backwards ass logic in your brains.
karmashockAug 10, 2010
@dalittle,
Only a small part of the infrastructure was paid for by the US government. Further, do you want to tell that to the other countries on earth? Oh, sorry guys... you know that free internet we were offering everyone... well, the US government is going to regulate the planet's internet now.
Wake up.
It's a corporate enterprise and has been for decades. Nearly all the infrastructure at this point is owned by private companies that designed and built it themselves.
===========================
S73V3R,
No they were not all paid for with grants from US tax payers. First, most of the internet isn't even in the US to begin with at this point. So your notion is so pathetically ignorant as to be beyond redemption. Further, most of the internet backbone built into the US was NOT built with tax money. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
You are so wrong it is painful to talk to you.
======================================
Stevenwalters,
I don't think it's a problem steven and I don't think it will be because if ISPs start doing what you're worried about they'll lose so many customers that they'll cease to be relevant.
THe only problem with internet access in the US is GOVERNMENT backed regional monopolies. That is the only issue. You have only ONE cable company in each region. Only ONE telephone line provider. These are the primary means of internet access and so the government basically puts a company in charge of this when the government should let ANY company that wants to do business there do it. Why can't there be five telephone providers or six cable companies? Sure, it means extra wires under the road or on poles or whatever. But they pay for the right to put their cables there. So that's money... and if enough of them pay for the right to do it then you can afford to put the cables underground. And if you get a lot of money then you can afford to do it in a way that modifications can be made without tearing up the street.
Steven, you don't understand the market. Let me put it this way... what happens when a company starts making products you don't like... what happens if your car insurance is too high? What happens if you go to the theater to see a movie and notice that there is nothing there you like?
You choose something else and if the company is providing a bad product it will go out of business and other companies will take up the slack.
Can you say the same about government? Not really. They can do a bad job forever. Look at public education. How many failed schools are there? Imagine if they were each companies... how many of those schools would have gone out of business to be replaced by competent organizations? Try nearly all of them.
Your model of organization is primitive, retrograde, damaging to our society. The private corporate model is the modern way. It is not perfect but it is better. It is self correcting. It self evolving. It is pragmatic. It is innovative.
The internet doesn't need people like you screwing it up and frankly I don't think you can anymore. It's out of your hands. It's free. Try and ruin it all you like... it's too late for you to destroy it.
kaelyiestaAug 9, 2010
If you really want to prevent corporate take over of the internet, you would stop championing the very regulatory system that props them up and protects them from competing for our money. Artificial monopolies don't justify more artificial coercion. They justify less.
End the corporatism, and you won't have any corporate take overs.
Increase government control, and you only give the industry an opportunity to bribe and take over that controlling agency and further entrench themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shwaavayAug 9, 2010
I think keeping it like it is, would keep it more like it is....
Just sayin'
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
It would. Too bad most of the major ISPs have gone on record saying they don't want to keep it the way it is.
shwaavayAug 10, 2010
Care to share this so called "record?"
s73v3rAug 10, 2010
Here are the heads of Verizon and AT&T saying that Net Neutrality should not apply to wireless: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10357806-266.html
Here is AT&T sending a letter to its employees, telling them to oppose Net Neutrality: http://seekingalpha.com/article/167975-at-t-s-net-neutrality-gaffe-speaks-volumes-about-its-corporate-culture
Here is AT&T actually blocking access to a controversial site: http://www.pcworld.com/article/169100/atandts_4chan_block_raises_issue_of_net_neutrality.html
shwaavayAug 10, 2010
So you made it up that they are on record. Quit spreading lies.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
All who oppose and deny the inevitability of socialism are selfish greedy assh**es.
karmashockAug 9, 2010
All that will get you in the end is poverty and riots in the streets... Socialism can't fund itself. It needs to tax EVIL companies and the EVIL rich to survive. Funny how socialism needs EVIL people to survive isn't it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cdw070Aug 9, 2010
The goal of socialism is communism.
- Vladimir Lenin
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
except we don't have socialism.
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
Not quite yet, steven. Wait a few years. We're reeeeeeeeal close.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
no we aren't vbullinger. m
Besides, theres one little missing link to your whole "the goal of socialism is communism" theory, such as the fact that no democracy in the history of the planet earth has ever ended up as a communist state. Every 1st world country is more "socialist" than we are, yet not a single one of them is communist, or anything close to communist.
In fact, the powers that be would not want us to become communist, why? Because our government is corporate controlled. If we are all poor slaves, how will they make money? That is the reasons for all of these bailouts and handouts, the rich don't want to lose their money.
vbullingerAug 10, 2010
It's not a "theory," it's a quote:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vladimirle136421.html
No, I don't fall for propaganda anymore. Yes, I know we're more corporatist than socialist, but it's all statism to me. We need more freedom, not less. And Marx and Engels agreed, though they didn't use the terminology:
"In the late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
repeat the lie.
kaelyiestaAug 9, 2010
http://www.amazon.com/SOCIALISM-Lib-Works-Ludwig-Mises/dp/0913966630
Read that. It refutes your claim with the most rigorous reasoning and evidence imaginable.
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
... johnny2time is joking around, karma. He's entirely against socialism and is making fun of it.
"Whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism and communism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
kennykljAug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
karmashockAug 9, 2010
The FCC will screw everything up. Everything you think you're going to get by bringing them in will not happen... and everything you think is safe now you'll lose.
They'll regulate the crap out of it. There is literally no good that can come from bringing them into it. The FCC just wants in because it will help justify their jobs that at this point are only justified by radio and declining over the air TV regulation. They're dying and need the internet to justify their existence. They're doing it to save their phoney baloney jobs.
They have nothing to offer the internet. It's fine without them.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
The justification for TV and Radio decency regulations were because there was only a finite amount of spectrum available, leading to a finite number of stations. The internet has no such restrictions on it.
karmashockAug 10, 2010
Which begs the question of why we need the FCC on the internet. I say we don't.
johnnyp11Aug 9, 2010
f**k net neutrality
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Really man?
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
Yes, really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Opponents
Read that section and the one that follows.
http://blog.mises.org/10967/a-libertarian-take-on-net-neutrality/
http://mises.org/daily/4432
http://mises.org/daily/2139
http://blog.mises.org/5056/terminating-net-neutrality/
shwaavayAug 9, 2010
Well... f**k government imposed net neutrality.
meorAug 9, 2010
Name calling? Like calling all corporation greedy-profit-mongers? Claiming that they'd stab their own mothers to death to raise their quarterly gains by a dollar?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pintomp3Aug 9, 2010
It's not greed per se. A corporation has a legal obligation to increase shareholder profits. And they will fund a politician who helps them do this, even if the social views of that politician are deleterious to equality and justice. It comes off as greedy if you think of corporations as people. But they are not and should not have the same rights as people either.
meorAug 9, 2010
Can you cite this "legal obligation"? I'm assuming you mean something different since this doesn't exist.
The argument of "are corporations people" is a different argument from "can free market competition generate a best-for-everyone" solution.
What about voting makes a government come to better conclusions in your mind? When was the last time you've decided and voted on a state senator based on his opinion of whether people who have drug convictions should be excluded from federal higher-education funding?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
greevarAug 9, 2010
That's just it, they aren't people. Yet, they expect the law to treat them as such. If a corporation is a person, then the part of the 13th amendment that outlaws slavery would mean that it is illegal to buy another corporation. If I can't buy another human being as my property, they shouldn't be able to buy another corporation and still claim that they are persons, which also falls under the 13th amendment for equal protection.
cdw070Aug 9, 2010
Corporation do NOT vote for politicians that are deleterious to equality and justice. Get off your acid trip, liberal.
cdw070Aug 9, 2010
If anything, corporations try hard to stay out of political issues. (except for obvious ones, like say, gun manufacturers or Haliburton)
Getting involved in controversial political issues means losing potential customers, which HURTS profits. So you see, the drive for profits is a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fyberopticAug 9, 2010
They demonized the word "socialism" to the point that they don't even realize that America is full of it already. They take advantage of it every day, and we couldn't function without it.
serif69Aug 9, 2010
I don't know a single sane person who, if they know what Net Neutrality is, thinks it's socialism in any way, shape, or form. Those who know nothing about it either don't care, or think because it's any sort of government regulation, it's bad. Then I mention that it's making sure nobody controls what you see on the internet, not even the government. Then they like the idea.
meorAug 9, 2010
This topic decries name-calling and you *just* *stated* that anyone that disagrees with you is not sane.
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
Well, it's government control over a form of commerce. How is that not Socialism? Obviously, Socialism is a little bigger than a little regulation on the internet, but it's certainly a "sane" argument to make, so long as you're not screaming that Castro and Lenin are about to invade due to net neutrality laws.
wolfkeeperAug 10, 2010
It's not socialism it's regulation. There's regulations about what you can and can't drive on the roads, is that socialism?
Nah.
karmashockAug 9, 2010
We don't need laws to get net neutrality. The market has already made it clear that it is required PERIOD. Look at all the major ISPs... they're all basically offering net neutrality and not planning on changing that. Further, Version and google just committed to it WITHOUT government intervention.
Further, the people really pushing net neutrality are the torrenters because some ISPs throttled torrent traffic. Well, guess what... put the government in charge and you won't be throttled. You'll be cut off entirely and possibly subject to much harsher fines by GOVERNMENT agents. Think the government will take you to court or try and sue you? No. They'll just send you a fine in the male with an implicit assumption of guilt. You can fight the fine in court if you like at your own expense but most people will just pay the fine.
That is what will happen if you put the FCC in charge. So trust people... You don't want government enforced net neutrality. It also will be bad for international users since this will be the US government imposing rules.
Just leave it be. The issue was hot for awhile because some companies liked the idea but most of have given it up and the few that still like the idea will lose all their customers if they try it.
In short, chill out. We've already won. However, if we get the government involved we'll have lost.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chuckdeesAug 9, 2010
Until the "market" changes and no one offer a neutral internet access.
greevarAug 9, 2010
Grammatical failure and poor spelling aside, your argument is purely speculative and without merit. You assume that the government will actively police internet activity, but you have no proof that they will. You also assume that the industry will just let us have our way, but that's based on what evidence? Have you been in the conference room of every major ISP and heard them speak on what their intentions are for the future? You also assume that if they don't respect neutrality, that consumers will simply drop them and buy from another service. How? Most markets have no more than 2-3 providers at the most and many only have one. There is little to no choice in the matter. If all of the providers in your market decide to screw you, who will you go to? Will you move? Will you go without? What you propose is complacency in the face of consumer exploitation. Trust you? You have no evidence and no facts to support your statement, only fear, bias, and assumptions.
karmashockAug 10, 2010
Greevar,
Wrong. The creep of government regulation is a historical fact. Name something they became responsible for and didn't extend their authority into deeper regulation of... ever.
NAME ONE THING.
If you can do that, then I'll admit I'm wrong. You can't though. Which means you're simply naive.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
Net neutrality... like Comcast blatantly interfering with BitTorrent downloads? Or how about ISPs degrading Skype connections to better sell their own VoIP service?
karmashockAug 10, 2010
You don't think the FCC is going to regulate bittorrent? Are you high? They won't throttle it, they'll cut it off. When exactly did you think the US government was friendly to internet piracy? And don't pretend the two aren't related... you know the studios and publishing houses will lobby congress to do something about it. Once the FCC gets control do you think you'll be sued by a studio? No. That was the past. Now you'll sent a fine with a presumption of guilt.
That is how it has worked in the past and it is how it will work in the future if you give the FCC control.
s73v3rAug 10, 2010
Except the FCC is the one who intervened to Comcast on behalf of BitTorrent.
karmashockAug 11, 2010
Only because they see it as a window to legitimacy and power later. Once they have more power they'll shut down the bittorrent stuff. Believing otherwise is unforgivably naive. Do you really think congress is going to not regulate Bittorrent?
Let me come at this from a different angle since you seem a bit damaged by bad propaganda... Do you think the hollywood lobby will not use this power the government has to shut down Bittorrent? They'll give money to your congressman and then they'll pass a law that the FCC should shut torrents down.
It could happen very quickly. Trust me... getting the FCC involved will be the opposite of what you think it will be... you have no idea the door you're opening. You're making a deal with the devil here.
dwtcAug 9, 2010
"Further, Version [sic] and google just committed to it WITHOUT government intervention."
No, *Verizon* and Google submitted a policy proposal to the US government.
karmashockAug 10, 2010
Wrong. This was not compelled or triggered by government. Their submission of the agreement to the government was to help sway the government away from regulation because both Google and Verizon know it isn't in their interest.
It isn't a government agreement. It's a corporate agreement to sway public opinion.
dwtcAug 11, 2010
I didn't say they were compelled to do it, but the FCC has been working on Net Neutrality for quite a while, and Google and Verizon, amongst others, have been involved in those talks from the beginning. This agreement is mostly a result of Google and Verizon meeting together, but partly a result of them meeting with the FCC, and the FCC's involvement in the cause has most certainly helped move these things along. I wouldn't say the FCC or the government in general triggered Google's and Verizon's interest in Net Neutrality (the other way around, actually), but the government has most definitely been involved.
hyperianAug 10, 2010
I recently had to try to find another ISP for my client's doctor office because ATT DSL was too slow.
I called verizon and they told me they don't offer their DSL at that because ATT is there. this is in the middle of a large city.
WTF
karmashockAug 10, 2010
Government's fault. They set up regional monopolies. Competing companies are forbidden to compete against them.
Government did that. Not corporations. Want more of the same? Think the FCC will make things better?
Look at the mexican telephone company... that's what government monopolies look like... enjoy.
hyperianAug 10, 2010
actually no, the government did it because the corporations lobbied them to do it. What does the government gain by setting up a monopoly that it has no part in, other than because the existing telecoms are lobbying them to do so?
You really think well established companies want to be in an environment where competition is fierce with new comers? or do you think they would lobby to stop new comers?
And what makes you think FCC with less power will solve the problem of ISPs wanting to charge more for less?
Do you think ISP has your interest in you?
Do you really think the 'money vote' works when well established companies knows there aren't other choices for you so you have to pick them?
karmashockAug 11, 2010
Hyperian,
Wrong. The government is responsible for it's legislation in the same way that companies are responsible for their private practice.
The government created those laws. Yes they were lobbed to create them but they created them. And they enforce them. Remove the government from that equation and you have a more open system. It isn't corporations A's fault that corporation B bribed the government to do something.
Half your error is implying that all corps at the same entity. On the contrary the government IS a singular entity while the corps are independent of each other and cannot be held responsible for hte actions of other private entities. However, the government since it is singular can be held accountable for what it does.
In any event, we can agree that it is a bad law and the government would be doing everyone a favor it they stopped doing it. THe net result will be less regulation... which we can agree is also good.
So what are we arguing about here? Oh I know "CORPS BAAAD"... well, that's a bit brain dead... but what should I expect from the internet.
Bad law... bad government law... government's faults. Very simple.
hyperianAug 11, 2010
You did not provide any argument as to why the government would want to stop competitive practices by creating laws that would create a monopoly.
government is held responsible by their action by voters, while you can argue that no one votes (34% last count) . You will always have more control over your government than well established companies in monopolies by not buying into their services. I am currently using comcast, but if there was a viable services there i would switch in a heart beat.
I do not think removing regulation would create a more open system. Well established corporations seeks to deregulate governmental ruling, but this isn't to create a more open system where more competition could take place, it is to have less competition whereby the well established corporations can easily stay profitable without being competitive.
No, i do not imply all corps are same entity. My initial life example was illustrating how well established corps do not compete to get your business. Monopoly can be created when a few large companies remain in a market and does not actively compete with one another.
I would like explicitly state that I don't think companies or businesses of capitalistic nature are good or bad. They are just what they are, entities created to accumulate wealth, by any means possible. This means that they will circumvent laws, rewrite laws, lobby to change or eliminate laws, to make more money.
That is an inherent trait of such entities. They can be controlled in two ways, either by competition and/or by regulation. Control is needed to prevent monopolies, which is the antithesis of capitalism.
We can argue all day about which started first, bad companies that lobby to get their away or bad government that lets companies have their way. It's a circular argument that only will see its end when campaign finance reform materialize.
In the end, I think current arguments are not nuanced enough to provide any sort of solution. From my arguments above, I am really saying that in merging markets where there are lots of little companies competing with each other, less regulation is needed since the act of competition would keep consumers and citizens happen. In matured markets where there are few big players, competition goes away, and for those companies to make more money, they would start to take advantage of consumers lack of choices. This is where tougher regulation comes into play to protect the consumers.
No, I do not think dynamics between government and corporate entities are simple.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
PCWorld doesn't do the subject justice. If you're interested in the subject and the back and forth between ISP's and the content providers and the FCC Title 1 or 2 paradigm go to Arstech for better coverage and explanations.
azwethinkweizmAug 9, 2010
I'm absolutely against net neutrality.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
I am absolutely against ISPs being anything more than a dumb pipe to get me my bits.
azwethinkweizmAug 9, 2010
Alright then! Enjoy your slow speeds I guess, the government can't offer what the free market can.
s73v3rAug 9, 2010
Care to actually back that up? I happen to know of several places in this country where, despite the absolute f**kery of the incumbent ISPs, the government has been providing much better service, and much higher speeds.
Also, what good is having a "27 giggahertz!!!1!" connection if the company throttles it to hell and back for anything I try to use it for?
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Conservatives; you need to be looking at it this way; Should ISPs be allowed to control who makes money on the internet?
noslodecoyAug 9, 2010
Think about it this way... Seven words you can never say on the internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words#Background
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
The current bills don't mention giving the FCC the power to censor any content on the internet.
kwanijmlAug 9, 2010
This is an absolute work of garbage that amounts to nothing more than doing exactly what he is blaming the other side of doing. While commentary has it's place, this piece was just complete hypocrisy and can't be countered in a few trite comments on digg. So, here's a Cato policy analysis that uses things like facts and research to show the dangers of giving the FCC any more control. . . without using the words "socialism" or "communism".
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
Great article. Mises does a great job, too:
http://blog.mises.org/10967/a-libertarian-take-on-net-neutrality/
http://mises.org/daily/4432
http://mises.org/daily/2139
http://blog.mises.org/5056/terminating-net-neutrality/
buzamanAug 9, 2010
This is a false debate. The corporations are nothing more than arms of the state. It's the corporations that are working with the government to spy on you. It's the corporations that release your private information to the State. Whether NN succeeds or fails both sides will win. I don't trust the corporations and I sure as hell don't trust a handful of unelected bureaucrats at the ministry of communications.
greevarAug 9, 2010
You have absolutely no idea what net neutrality really means. I'll explain. Net neutrality is intended to prevent ISPs from giving preferential treatment to one type of traffic over the other. It has nothing to do with monitoring activity or what ever other madness you can conjure up. The ISPs are foaming at the mouth at the chance to treat things like torrents, VoIP, online video, etc. differently. They want to divide these things up so they can charge separate fees for each "service". They also would like to extort fees from websites to allow their customers access to their sites. Imagine if you couldn't go to Google because they didn't pay the fee to your ISP. You wouldn't be free to roam the internet as you please. How do I know they will do this? They already do this with cable TV. You don't get everything that's available on the network when you get service, you have to buy "packages" which is just a sly semantic to say "we want to charge you more for stuff you want and use the stuff you don't want to pad the bill".
You want to kill NN? Ok, here's the alternative:
http://dvice.com/assets_c/2009/10/net-neutrality-thumb-550xauto-27419.jpg
vbullingerAug 9, 2010
You don't understand [insert topic here] because you don't agree with me.
No, the alternative to not having the government regulate the internet is...
What we have today. You're inventing a boogeyman; a mythical dragon that we need to go and slay.
greevarAug 9, 2010
@vbullinger
We already have transfer caps and throttling. What we have today is already becoming something I don't like. Don't try to tell me that we have no reason to enforce net neutrality.
"No, the alternative to not having the government regulate the internet is... What we have today."
Right, everything is hunky dorey isn't it? Lordy lordy, the free market will protect us when the ISPs decide they want divide everything up and charge us extra! You're like a frog in the pot. You don't know that you're about to be cooked because the water isn't hot yet. Unregulated cuts both ways, for us and against us. If they see profit in it and it's legal, they'll do it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
buzamanAug 10, 2010
Greevar, you're complaining about an endless state capitalism that has been going on for a 100 years. Where corporations have enjoyed endless eminent domain seizures from local, state and federal jurisdictions, untold billions in direct and indirect subsidies and below market interest loans, decades of protected cartels and monopoly existence, not to forget the growing legal immunity they enjoy as they participate in the unfettered spying relationship with the national security state. They consume and benefit from stolen property, stolen wealth and stolen privacy all at the behest of the State and all you are concerned about is that your capped at 20gigs because you're running torrents all day long or that they will throttle bandwidth in favor of certain web pages. And yet somehow you think that the same entity that allowed a handful of companies proxy monopoly control over the fiber lines and directly benefit from that partnership will come down and protect you from some type of pricing scheme or internet throttling. You have a very severe case of the Stockholm Syndrome.
greevarAug 10, 2010
@buzaman
You make too many assumptions about my position. I am aware how cozy the corporations are with the government, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about why ISPs should not be free to restrict internet usage as they please. The corporations suck, I know, but this is a discussion focused on a single issue. Am I not allowed to speak out about net neutrality on an article about net neutrality because it's not the only rotten thing they do? Go to a discussion about corporate corruption if you want to hear people talk about that, but we're talking about a specific subject in this discussion.
buzamanAug 11, 2010
Greevar, We're talking past each other. Regarding your odd last few sentences it was you who responded to my comment. I commented that the net neutrality arguement is a false debate, you then commented that I don't know what I'm talking about and now I'm clarifying again that I know what NN is and I'm telling you again that you're still hacking away at the branches, you've got to climb down and strike the root. The solution doesn't lie in some legal tweak or yet another regulation on a system that has enjoyed endless private public handouts. The core of the issue lies in the fact that government has redistributed property and wealth to the corporations who now have an unjust capital/infrastructure advantage which has created a cartelized and monopolistic environment that has stifled consumer choice, potentially threatens free speech and market alternatives. NN is the belief that there is a government legal/regulatory solution to the mess that they caused. It's just another short sighted solution to a larger issue. But does nothing to solve the underlying issue that caused your fear in the first place, Greevar doesn't have a choice to move to preferred type of ISP because the industry is cartelized. <- Solve the Cartel issue and you cure your NN fears.
rentalcanoeAug 9, 2010
Lawrence Lessig and Ben Scott explain why Net Neutrality is so important:
The Internet is an engine of economic growth and innovation because of a simple principle: net neutrality, which assures innovators that their next great idea will be available to consumers, regardless of what the network owners think about it.
No previous mass media technology has been so remarkably open. Traditional media - newspapers, radio, TV - have gatekeepers standing between consumers and producers, with the power to control content. The Internet eliminates the gatekeeper.
Now, however, the Internet's unprecedented openness is in jeopardy.
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have been lobbying to kill net neutrality. They say they won't build an information superhighway if they can't build it as a closed system. No other industrialized country has made that devil's bargain, and neither should we. Without net neutrality, online innovation is vulnerable to the whims of cable and phone companies, which control 99 percent of the household market for high-speed Internet access. And Silicon Valley venture capitalists are unlikely to bet the farm on a whim.
Network owners say the threat of abuse is hypothetical. But actions speak louder than words. Last fall, Comcast was caught secretly blocking popular technologies that can bring HDTV to your laptop - used by everyone from the Hollywood studios to NASA. It was no coincidence: Comcast is targeting a growing competitor to its cable TV service.
In response, the media reform group Free Press and a coalition of public interest organizations and legal scholars filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission calling for urgent action. This is a bellwether case - a signal of whether we're headed toward an open or a closed Internet.
After the FCC started an investigation, Comcast admitted to blocking, but thumbed its noses at the government and the public - going so far as to hire seat-fillers at an FCC hearing at Harvard University to stifle the debate.
Public, government and media scrutiny ultimately forced Comcast to stop blocking one of the file-sharing companies. But we can't expect everyone to negotiate a side deal for permission to innovate. This limits the online marketplace to ideas and commerce that don't pose a threat to network owners - a chilling prospect.
This type of behavior shows why we can't trust the future of the Internet to these companies. Just two years ago, telecom executives went before Congress vowing never to interfere with the open Internet. Their broken promises are exactly why we need net neutrality laws back on the books. Fortunately, members of Congress from both parties have introduced legislation that would do precisely that.
But net neutrality is just the first step. If this nation is to return to the economic growth of the 1990s, it takes a renewed commitment to Internet deployment and technology. The past eight years have seen America fall behind other industrial nations - a deficit that we will pay for in jobs, wealth and social opportunity.
Better policies in other countries have created a competitive high-speed broadband market. But these policies require political leadership - and public pressure to ensure that politicians aren't distracted by the telecom industry's cash and clout.
Today, the FCC is holding a hearing at Stanford University - the birthplace of our Internet economy - to give the public a chance to weigh in on this debate. It's not often that federal regulators leave the Beltway to ask people what they think. It's time to stand up and make your voice heard.
The threat posed by would-be gatekeepers is real and getting worse. The success of future innovation depends on an open Internet for everyone.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-04-17/opinion/17147333_1_net-neutrality-market-for-high-speed-internet-comcast
squishykinsAug 9, 2010
replying to read later... phone wont show the entire comment...
Can someone please tell me of a better Digg android app besides Digger? This sucks.
mabakerbrakerAug 9, 2010
The Google drones are running literally BERSERK over this very issue. To think that their favorite spy OS maker is involved in such a huge behind closed door deal at last shows some repercussions.
I have told it and will tell that again: With Apple you KNOW what you are getting (curated garden), with Google you give up everything you have for the unknown (backdoor deals with big corporations).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 9, 2010
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
What seems to be the problem? Other than not applying to wireless, it seems pretty reasonable to me.
jwdavAug 10, 2010
Today’s compromise between Verizon — one of the nation’s largest ISPs (and largest wireless provider) — and Google on network neutrality is a big story, not necessarily because it’s going to change the policy discussion much, but because it marks Google selling out the tech and startup community so it can advance its own economic interests.
http://gigaom.com/2010/08/09/tech-companies-google-sold-you-out/
danielphermousAug 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
chrispantagesAug 9, 2010
I don't see the evil in offering a fatter pipe for video to some consumers who want to pay, it seems like that is the natural evolution of the Internet. As more and more sites offer a more immersive and multimedia-rich experience, the one-size-fits-all approach to Internet service seems like a bad fit.
What is evil is discrimination based on provider - Comcast making NBC run fast and ABC/CBS run slow for all of its users. Considering the principles of distributed networking, I don't even see how that is possible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rhawk187Aug 9, 2010
I've already felt bad people that had to pay the full $30 a month for a cheap plan just to check their e-mail. Then I consume GBs a month streaming hulu and netflix. That and I would appreciate the rate to pay more for better Quality of Service. I can't really in good conscious support net neutrality.
That and it sets a bad precedent of the government regulating the internet.
My version of "net neutrality" would be that congress remains neutral when it comes to the internet. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
it is either we pass laws that say the internet itself stays free like the air we breath, or some company or companies will set the terms of usage. A complacent approach destroys what we currently have.
"I've already felt bad people that had to pay the full $30 a month for a cheap plan just to check their e-mail. "
You can buy tiered speed connectivity levels of service already thru Comcast, but none of these should give preferences to what specific websites that a user goes to. This is at the center of net neutrality.
monitersAug 9, 2010
"The dirty secret that the fear-mongering ignores is that the United States is already a balanced combination of capitalism and socialism. "
Anyone else think stuff like this is a little out there/deviated from topic for a pcworld article?
ilovesalsaAug 9, 2010
nice
johnnyp11Aug 9, 2010
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
ronpauliskingAug 9, 2010
we may want net neutrality, but as far as what actually would come down from washington would almost be guaranteed to empower the corporations
frakkinbastardAug 10, 2010
Why are we even having this discussion? The issue of Net Neutrality or not will not be decided by who has the best arguments, but by who has the most money to spend on campaign funds and media spin. Furthermore the real decisions will not be taken in any public hall by representatives of the people in the form of law but in closed offices by executives in the form of business agreements.
That's all there is to it. The Internet is not your toy. The Internet will belong to those economic forces that have decided long ago whom it must belong to and whose rules it will have to obey. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You might as well order the Sun to rise at an hour of your choice.
By the way, this is not defeatism but realism: pick a battle you can win (and the number is growing smaller every day) and stick to it. The Internet is a dead issue.
drunkdragonsAug 10, 2010
Net Neutrality for the WIN!!
seedypeteAug 10, 2010
Generally speaking when some idiot starts blathering about "socialism" it's a sure sign that A) they don't know what the word means and B) they have no real argument whatsoever and are spoonfed their opinions by corporations. It's become so overused as a scare that it's lost all meaning. Decent healthcare is socialist! Preventing gross corporate abuses is socialist! Spaying and neutering your pets is socialist! Breathing is socialist!
number231Aug 10, 2010
All these and other comments I read on the subject just point to the sad fact that our country is illogically tearing itself apart. Over what?
Conservative: "Government bad!"
Liberal: "Corporation bad!"
Conservative: "You're all government sheep."
Liberal: "You're all corporate sycophants."
Conservative: "Communist!!"
Liberal: "Facist!!"
Conservative: "Black!!"
Liberal: "White!!"
The truth is the corporations own our government. They can spend unlimited amounts of money (thanks SCOTUS) buying elections and lobbying for legislation. The government turns around and doles out tax breaks, susidies, government contracts back to the companies. They are a snake eating its tail.
Until you all realise you are just playing your part in this ruse of partisan doom and gloom.
There is little rationality even being attempted and getting to point of ridiculousness.
You get the country you deserve.
cfuseAug 10, 2010
Using the word socialism incorrectly makes people look like idiots.
zanzzzAug 11, 2010
I'm sick of all the hyperbole with this issue. Those that know any and all government regulation will lead to pain, sorrow, and greater tyranny. The believers in a mythical competitive industry that will sort out all the issues in the best interest of consumers. That the Internet which saw astonishing growth and generated great wealth while net neutral is now a threat to innovation and investment unless these values are discarded. The endless confusion sown to muddy the waters. Republican know-nothings and the corporate shills have done their best destroy any meaningful debate. They want you to believe a law that creates an environment for fair competition while protecting the public interest is somehow a socialist take over hell bent on destroying corporate profits.