digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Conservative Desire Net Neutrality... Since When?

techrepublican.com — It turns out that even the free market conservatives and republicans support network neutrality. Why exactly would a real conservative want to defend internet freedom from the telcos who would destroy it?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rootbat, on 03/13/2008, -3/+10Free the net! This is free-market economy at its best. Register Republican today!
    • tdrizzle, on 03/14/2008, -1/+7You realize you're advocating free market while supporting government regulation right?
      • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4non-competition in one area should not be allowed to endanger competition in other areas, if there was real competition in the broadband market then the market could correct itself, but there isn't.
    • Terr01, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4My preferred metaphor for this net-neutrality stuff is this:

      You have a power company. If you're lucky, maybe a choice of two. They charge you based on the amount of energy you use. But it's energy, a utility. You can use it to whatever end you see fit. It's only "tiered" in the sense that you pay more money for more energy, or energy prices change to deal with shortages. Perhaps you even pay a flat rate for a flat allocation, but it's still money-per-energy, and each watt is equal to any other watt.

      Suppose the power companies found a way to ensure that their electricity could only be used with certain appliances. Appliances not containing a special chip like microwaves from their subsidiary company would require you to upgrade to the "premium power plan", even though it's the exact same electricity being used and costs the company the same to make.

      Now add to that that they don't just care what kind of microwave you use, but also what you are microwaving. You can't microwave anything but "hot pockets" on the basic plan, but for just $10 more...

      This is analogous to buying bandwidth, to companies throttling by source (google vs. yahoo) and by content (e-mail from a remote site or video from the same site.)

      Would that be a perversion of the free market? I believe so.
    • NikoKun, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I would only have registered Republican, if Ron Paul had any real chance...
      Instead, I'm voting for Obama... There is no worthy Republican left. -_-
      • Gabberwok, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he is against Net Neutrality. For the record, there are never any worthy Republicans.
  • julialopez, on 03/14/2008, -1/+6there's nothing free about the internet. not at the moment anyway.
    • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1and that is something that needs to be changed while it still can, and those places that are free market need to be defended
  • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7I mean if comcast was willing to pay to stifle critics at the FCC hearing why wouldn't they block access to pro-net-freedom websites?
  • aflusche, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7I've seen some arguments from fellow-conservatives that net neutrality would prevent filtering of porn. I don't see that.
    • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6porn filtering (legal porn that is) should be done on the client level anyways, by the consumer, not the provider
    • Chassit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3A real conservative would not condone censorship of any type! Hint: The religious right movement is NOT a conservative movement.
      • PunkRampant, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Too bad the media would have you believe they're one in the same.
  • cmiller1, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6Yet again, the issue comes down to the distinction between conservatives and the neo-conservatives that have hijacked the republican party
  • Inhibit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+5I don't even know what conservative means. Is it fundamentalist christian? Federalist? Certainly isn't spend-thrifty and non-interference as in the original definition.

    This leads me to believe that everyone might be able to agree that keeping common carriers up to the "common carrier" aspect of their agreement with the people they service might be in everyone's enlightened self interest.
    • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1isolationist and fiscally responsible, is how i like to think of it
    • PunkRampant, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Nobody knows what conservative means. That's why the Republican party is going downhill and they're all hoping John McCain will be the knight in shining armor who saves the day.
  • whatthefu, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3I mean, some people prefer big-corporations while others prefer big-government. They can't both be big, and one of them winning out would suck a lot of ***** for consumers and citizens alike.
    • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3thats why they should both be small, but thats a bit idealistic
  • Nomadelle, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2As monopolies increase in popularity, we are robbed of our choices. AND we allow it to happen to us. We are like zombies now, with large corporations force-feeding us what we need to consume.
  • TubeDigger, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4don't turn the Internet into the one way radio TV newspaper we are all sic of.

    and if they start supporting network neutrality it might be advantageous to find out if they have changed the legal definition of "network neutrality"
  • tequila, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Real conservatives believe that free markets work best when unimpeded. And artificial impedences caused by ISP's can only serve to hurt the free markets.
  • RobertMarley, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2they could just like how things are looking. maybe the views being expressed are beneficial to them and any unneeded press is being dodged.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Conservatives don't think, they follow.
  • fr0ng, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Republicans are supposed to stand for small government interaction, but with things like Net Neutrality and the Patriot Act, it seems like they are shifting their focus from small government to big business.
    • Chassit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2That's because the republican party is full of neo cons, not conservatives.
  • hlcno, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Keep the gov away from my internet please. Thanks.
    • danzarrella, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2keep the gov away from me as much as possible in general please.
  • Daamien, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Last time I checked simply because Republicans favor smaller government (or did), doesn't imply that they favor laissez-faire business practices. That my friend is a more radical approach favored by economic Libertarians. Not all government regulation comes from Democrats.
  • Ceeman, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2I really dont think half the people understand NN at all. Right now this reminds me of right after 9 11 and everyone thought it would be a great idea for the Fed to control the TSA. As you can tell that has worked out well.

    We dont need NN we just need free markets. If you know anything about the industry you realize that it is controlled by the government to allow a few people to have the control. It will never be neutral till you break that.

    Look at it this way. Will all the money google has if they wanted to start a free fiber to the home service in LA they could not do it. They would never get the approval.
  • colincornaby, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2"Will all the money google has if they wanted to start a free fiber to the home service in LA they could not do it." That and they couldn't easily afford to do it. Libritarians have this very pie in the sky understanding of the internet, that ignores the technical complexity. First, the main internet routers, called gigapops, are controlled by companies like ATT. Even if Google set up their own service, they'd still be a slave to ATT's routing. Second, it would be very expensive to wire all of LA with fiber, and would make an effective dent in Google's funds. It would also take years, and years past that to wire up any apartments (see FIOS for a good example.) Libertarians fail to see the infrastructure demands in something like Net Neutrality. Instead they see it as opening a McDonalds down the street when Burger King jacks up their prices, which is a gross simplification of the actual situation.
  • stejules, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2The problem is, that there are only two choosing possibilities of Broadband Internet Service Providers, if this will persist, there will be great problems. Could happen, that there is in the future only one "way into the net" {Government?].
    How will the world be in the future?
    Everybody can think about this!
    Rhetorical question?!
    Can we stop the control?
    Have read and watched too many Science Fiction!
    Hoping: When Japanese Terrabyte Speed Satellite is working (hopefully not only for the japanese).Everybody can switch to the sky.

    Greetinx Ste
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.