You may be asking what net neutrality is and how it affects you. Well, you’re using the internet, so it affects you. Basically, the companies that in control of your access to the internet are looking to regulate information flow how they see fit. Your browser may not be able to open a competitor’s website, or web pages that ATT&T doesn’t care for could operate extremely slowly. There are currently no laws against this, but, in my opinion, there ought to be.
No. No regulation. The internet is only free because there isn’t any regulation of it. Once net neutrality is enacted the internet will no longer be free.
Large companies actually want “net neutrality” that should be your first clue that something isn’t right about it…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No. No regulation. The internet is only free because there isn’t any regulation of it. Once net neutrality is enacted the internet will no longer be free.
Large companies actually want “net neutrality” that should be your first clue that something isn’t right about it…[/quote]
I already can’t watch certain CBS shows that are available free online because of my zip-code and/or ISP, which is Verizon.
Fancast, which is owned by Comcast (a competitor of Verizon) disallows me from viewing certain content.
Basically, the way I understand it this wouldn’t be legal with net-neutrality… What am I missing here?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Large companies actually want “net neutrality” that should be your first clue that something isn’t right about it…[/quote]
Which large companies? Some want it, some don’t. This isn’t a Big Brother VS Little Brother issue, this is Little Brother VS Little Brother. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit into your neat little NO GOVERNMENT box, but if government doesn’t intervene, thousands of internet content providers, like Biotest/T-Nation are going to get fucked.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No. No regulation. The internet is only free because there isn’t any regulation of it. Once net neutrality is enacted the internet will no longer be free.
Large companies actually want “net neutrality” that should be your first clue that something isn’t right about it…[/quote]
Someone is going to regulate things one way or the other. I don’t trust Verizon, Comcast or Congress.
Those of you arguing for government regulation like “net neutrality” do not understand private property.
If an ISP wants to block content then that is their right (hint: try using a different internet proxy – google it.)
Government has no right telling free people what to do with their property. Its only function is to defend natural rights. Unfortunately, Internet is not a natural right.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Someone is going to regulate things one way or the other. I don’t trust Verizon, Comcast or Congress.[/quote]
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.[/quote]
One problem I have with rabid Libertarians is that they like to raise big stinks about individual issues based on a general principle, while ignoring the fact that some additional regulatory measures are necessary because of the level of interference already present in the system. It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.[/quote]
Because government has already mismanaged it with unnecessary regulation. The answer is not more regulation that favors big business. There is no inherent right to the internet, telephones, TV or radio. It all has to be owned and operated by someone – the infrastructure, the content, etc.
The internet is made up of many, many small content providers using an infrastructure that is owned by very few companies; how does more regulation that favors these companies help the internet customer any? I would like one example in “net neutrality” legislation that actually helps the customer in the long run.
The internet is currently the freest place to find information; if you think net neutrality is going to make it more free you are mistaken.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The internet is made up of many, many small content providers using an infrastructure that is owned by very few companies; how does more regulation that favors these companies help the internet customer any? I would like one example in “net neutrality” legislation that actually helps the customer in the long run.
[/quote]
How does net neutrality legislation favor those owning companies? It restricts them from targeting competitors or popular sites and extorting additional payment. As you put it, small content providers and ISPs use an infrastructure that is provided by large corporations, some of which have a large interest forcing content providers like Google to pay an additional fee if they want users to be able to access that content. The “free market” does not work because there is a scarcity of resources, and only a few large players own the lion’s share of high-bandwidth infrastructure. Until that changes, it might be nice to protect consumers from the mafia-esque tactics of the large providers.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.
One problem I have with rabid Libertarians is that they like to raise big stinks about individual issues based on a general principle, while ignoring the fact that some additional regulatory measures are necessary because of the level of interference already present in the system. It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.[/quote]
Actually we are quite aware of that, which is why we fear the interventions your intervention will make necessary in the future.
Which will of course also have unintended consequences which leads to more intervention…
You have to stop that spiral somewhere, even if the specific regulation now would be the least bad one ever.
[quote]orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.
One problem I have with rabid Libertarians is that they like to raise big stinks about individual issues based on a general principle, while ignoring the fact that some additional regulatory measures are necessary because of the level of interference already present in the system. It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.
Actually we are quite aware of that, which is why we fear the interventions your intervention will make necessary in the future.
Which will of course also have unintended consequences which leads to more intervention…
You have to stop that spiral somewhere, even if the specific regulation now would be the least bad one ever.
[/quote]
With no government action the internet would not exist.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.
One problem I have with rabid Libertarians is that they like to raise big stinks about individual issues based on a general principle, while ignoring the fact that some additional regulatory measures are necessary because of the level of interference already present in the system. It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.
Actually we are quite aware of that, which is why we fear the interventions your intervention will make necessary in the future.
Which will of course also have unintended consequences which leads to more intervention…
You have to stop that spiral somewhere, even if the specific regulation now would be the least bad one ever.
With no government action the internet would not exist.[/quote]
How do you know?
That is exactly the problem with government spending, that people can point to the achievements, that are visible, while they neglect the things that could have been had governments not wasted the money.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.
One problem I have with rabid Libertarians is that they like to raise big stinks about individual issues based on a general principle, while ignoring the fact that some additional regulatory measures are necessary because of the level of interference already present in the system. It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.
Actually we are quite aware of that, which is why we fear the interventions your intervention will make necessary in the future.
Which will of course also have unintended consequences which leads to more intervention…
You have to stop that spiral somewhere, even if the specific regulation now would be the least bad one ever.
With no government action the internet would not exist.
How do you know?
That is exactly the problem with government spending, that people can point to the achievements, that are visible, while they neglect the things that could have been had governments not wasted the money.
[/quote]
While I agree that governments waste too much money I also recognize the good that that do.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I trust that as long as these companies cannot operate a gov’t regulated monopoly then they wouldn’t want to alienate their customers. As it stands now that’s just how it is. Gov’t needs to deregulate this stuff and allow the market to work.
One problem I have with rabid Libertarians is that they like to raise big stinks about individual issues based on a general principle, while ignoring the fact that some additional regulatory measures are necessary because of the level of interference already present in the system. It would be nice to allow the “market to work,” except that the market is nowhere near free to begin with.
Actually we are quite aware of that, which is why we fear the interventions your intervention will make necessary in the future.
Which will of course also have unintended consequences which leads to more intervention…
You have to stop that spiral somewhere, even if the specific regulation now would be the least bad one ever.
With no government action the internet would not exist.
How do you know?
That is exactly the problem with government spending, that people can point to the achievements, that are visible, while they neglect the things that could have been had governments not wasted the money.
While I agree that governments waste too much money I also recognize the good that that do. [/quote]
Now if you would also realize that they necessarily do prevent more “good” from happening when doing good, resulting in the loss of more good that could have been, you will realize that the government “doing good” is the problem.