Net Neutrality

I need to read or post in the Politics forum like I need herpes. I always get this nonsense since I was a registered Republican for most of my life, Ross Perot was the only one who ever got my vote and techinically he was an independent. These GOPUSA emails are nearly always full of blatant lies, outright racism and hatred or such other obvious motives of anything but democracy I rarerely even open them let alone post them. However, I really never hear much about net neutrality from either party, just progressive, and anti-corporate indiviuduals. But this was so great of proof that although 90% of both democrats and republicans aren't worth the money that put them and keeps them in office, republicans can do nothing but lie, lie, lie, and lie, because in the end they will always be the ones to go the extra mile giving more power to the corporate elite, and taking away individual rights. read for yourself and see that "conservative" is synomous with take away everything but your right to shoot someone else. would think that would matter to anyone who prefers a website like this rather than gamespot, ign, et. al, ironically or rather moronicly some of which are owned by fox which sponsers these emails that are often followed, preceded by ones from newsmax.

Dear Fellow Conservative,
Are you sick and tired of trillion dollar deficits? Taxpayer-funded bailouts? The never-ending push to pass ObamaCare against the wishes of the American people?

Well, just wait until you hear about the plan now being advanced by the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress for a government takeover of the Internet.

That's right. President Obama and his Washington cronies are pushing burdensome and unnecessary regulations on the Internet that threaten to cut off billions of dollars annually in private investment by American companies for high speed Internet networks.

And if they're successful, the result is sure to be a stifling of innovation and a significant barrier to U.S. job growth at a time when our nation's economy can least afford it.

Click Here to Sign the Free Online Petition Now!



The folks at MoveOn.org and other ultra-liberal organizations are euphemistically calling these regulations that will lead to a government takeover of the Internet "Net Neutrality."

But don't be fooled. "Net Neutrality" is anything but neutral. Indeed, it is an unneeded solution in search of a major problem.

Specifically, Net Neutrality regulations, as proposed by President Obama's Federal Communications Commission, would virtually eliminate broadband companies' ability to manage their own networks, prevent web congestion and provide consumers with a safe, secure and reliable connection to the Internet.

As Fox News' Glenn Beck said recently, "[Net Neutrality] would destroy the free-market that created the Internet."

Beck is right. Think about it…

Why make government bureaucrats in Washington the gatekeepers of one of the few bright spots of our nation's struggling economy — an Internet sector that continues to innovate, thrive, create jobs and provide enormous benefit for consumers?

Sign the Free Online Petition Now!

Net Neutrality supporters believe that all Internet infrastructure and online content should constitute public property — owned, operated and regulated by the government.

And if the Obama Administration is successful in its efforts to commandeer the Internet's infrastructure, you better believe they will move to regulate Internet content next.

Perhaps that's why Representative Marsha Blackburn appropriately calls Net Neutrality, "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet."

The failure of the Left on talk radio is well documented, so are they now turning to the Internet to solidify their political power and silence their critics — anyone who still believes in freedom and liberty?

Fortunately, there is still time to stand up for growth and innovation and oppose yet another government takeover.
But you must act now!

We at the Center for Individual Freedom have launched the "Stop Net Regulation" campaign to engage the American people to oppose the Obama Administration's government takeover of the Internet.

Please join the fight by signing our online petition and contacting your elected officials in opposition to Net Neutrality today.

Sign the Free Online Petition Now!

Yours in Freedom,


oh and give the chance Glenn Beck could make a far better Hitler than Cheney ever could. its sad more than anything at how our forefathers and mothers would bemoan that such people would hold anyones ear in a land founded as a place for liberty of all.

You might be a little more convincing if you offered a scrap of evidence that those statements are all lies. You kinda forgot that part.

Oh no. What will we ever do? We are all fucked.
Take that interweb neutrality and shove it. It isn't needed and it's just another tool to scare you. What we do need is a healthier market with less barriers of entry (or more ways to easily overcome the ones in place).

I say let's ban neutrality!! Everyone should be forced to choose a side: inside; outside; upside; down. Stand up for what you don't believe in!! Make it mean something!!!! OK, now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I'm somewhat hip to this debate (I work with stuff connected to it), so here's my take. If you want references, I'm sure you can find them yourself. This ain't quite 100% lies, but it's pretty damn close. (I'm snipping the empty rhetoric, except for the juiciest bits, and concentrating on the allegations.)

Specifically, Net Neutrality regulations, as proposed by President Obama's Federal Communications Commission, would virtually eliminate broadband companies' ability to manage their own networks, prevent web congestion and provide consumers with a safe, secure and reliable connection to the Internet.

Click to expand...

Nope. The purpose of the regulations is to prevent broadband companies from favoring some content providers over others. So, for example, Microsoft couldn't do a secret cushy deal with all the major ISP's to get them to make Google services slow and unreliable (or vice versa).

This isn't actually happening yet (much), so the regulations wouldn't change anything about the way the networks are managed; instead, it would prevent people owning the pipes from doing what, say, the Chinese Government is doing — i.e., blocking or throttling traffic wholesale. Providers would still be able to throttle traffic to prevent some users from hogging the whole pipe and that sort of thing; they would just be required to treat all traffic the same way. That's what "Net neutrality" means.

As Fox News' Glenn Beck said recently, "[Net Neutrality] would destroy the free-market that created the Internet."

Beck is right. Think about it…

Click to expand...

Net Neutrality supporters believe that all Internet infrastructure and online content should constitute public property — owned, operated and regulated by the government.

Click to expand...

That's completely wrong. Nobody's proposing nationalization of the Internet infrastructure. This is like saying that supporters of banking regulation or airline safety regulation believe that the financial or airline sectors should constitute public property.

And if the Obama Administration is successful in its efforts to commandeer the Internet's infrastructure, you better believe they will move to regulate Internet content next.

Click to expand...

This is actually a nice example of a slippery slope fallacy — start with a fact (some kind of regulation is proposed), stretch it into a falsehood (this means that they want to nationalize the Internet, the Commies!), and end up with pure fear (and then they'll shut up Glenn Beck and the Free Republic and start the THOUGH POLICE!)

Hey, that was actually pretty easy — there WEREN'T too many facts or allegations there, just scaremongering.

Nice summary PJ, the wording of it meant it really came across as being complete nonsense but always good to have it confirmed.

Sounds good, PJ. I notice that you didn't debunk this rather important part:

Specifically, Net Neutrality regulations, as proposed by President Obama's Federal Communications Commission, would virtually eliminate broadband companies' ability to manage their own networks, prevent web congestion and provide consumers with a safe, secure and reliable connection to the Internet.

Click to expand...

You cherrypicked your "juicy" parts to satisfy your goal, mayhaps?

Eh... that was the first thing he debunked, dte...

Übereil

Melcar said:

Oh no. What will we ever do? We are all fucked.
Take that interweb neutrality and shove it. It isn't needed and it's just another tool to scare you. What we do need is a healthier market with less barriers of entry (or more ways to easily overcome the ones in place).

Click to expand...

Great idea! How, specifically, would you do it, though?

The Internet is a network. In this, it's similar to, say, the highway network: we have a small number of really big and expensive arteries handling most of the traffic, and a large number of small roads handling local traffic.

This is not a situation where a genuinely competitive market can emerge. The cost of building a backbone network is very high; there's room there for at most a handful of operators. What's more, they all need to talk to each other. That's a natural monopoly (or oligopoly) kind of situation; not the kind of competitive market that would let market forces do their thing. You'll never see hundreds of backbone operators compete for customers any more than you'll see hundreds of highway operators competing to carry traffic. Instead, you get Enron in California -- an oligopoly with virtually unlimited market power.

Run this little thought experiment: we know that Google has been buying up fiber for years now, and they're quietly building more. They're even starting to offer entirely free Wi-Fi to some communities. The idea being that all that traffic goes to feed their businesses, which more than pays for it. Now, suppose they decided to offer everybody free broadband, everywhere. That would pretty much instantly put every other ISP out of business -- you can't really compete with "free."

That done, suppose they started giving priority to packets going to Google services and coming from Android mobile phones, while throttling Bing and iPhone. Or suppose they started requiring game sites that need low latency to pay for getting priority on their pipes. You can't break that kind of hold with market competition -- you'd have to build an entire parallel Internet (almost) to do it, and that would cost insane amounts of money -- and, of course, Google could just lock that parallel Internet out, which would make it very difficult for it to attract customers.

(I picked Google because it's a company beloved of the left. If Glenn Beck doesn't trust the US government to enforce net neutrality, why would he trust Brin and Page?)

Ubereil said:

Eh… that was the first thing he debunked, dte…

Übereil

Click to expand...

Not really. He didn't address the government dictating business practices at all. In typical leftie fashion, he talked about lofty purposes and blessed goals, but very skillfully avoided the part about practical implementation since that would support the accusation. Thus, cherrypicking.

dteowner said:

In typical leftie fashion, he talked about lofty purposes and blessed goals, but very skillfully avoided the part about practical implementation since that would support the accusation.

Click to expand...

It does? I don't know what the thing acually says but I'm sure you've got some actual support for that point of view. Just like I'm sure PJ's isn't just talking out of his ass when he claims that "the regulations wouldn't change anything about the way the networks are managed".

But like I said, I know nothing. About this law anyway...

Übereil

Regulations, by their very definition, are the government dictating business practices, which was the original accusation. You can dress it up in crusader gear, and it might even be a worthwhile crusade, but that doesn't change the fundamental definition nor the practical implementation.

No, the accusation was that Obama would "virtually eliminate broadband companies' ability to manage their own networks, prevent web congestion and provide consumers with a safe, secure and reliable connection to the Internet". In other words, the accusation is that Obama isn't just going to regulate, he's going to over-regulate.

It looked an awful lot to me like PJ debunked that accusation, by the way, but I'm a lefty so I'm proably biased.

Übereil

If the government dictates how these companies will supply the service they supply, who is managing the network?

If I force you to follow a specific path on your way to work, who controls your travel? You, because you have the steering wheel? Or me, because you only take the actions that I have allowed you?

Ubereil said:

No, the accusation was that Obama would "virtually eliminate broadband companies' ability to manage their own networks, prevent web congestion and provide consumers with a safe, secure and reliable connection to the Internet". In other words, the accusation is that Obama isn't just going to regulate, he's going to over-regulate.

It looked an awful lot to me like PJ debunked that accusation, by the way, but I'm a lefty so I'm proably biased.

Übereil

Click to expand...

That. He is going to impose some not unreasonable caps on some of the dodgier behaviour they could potentially start carrying out. A far cry from that to being about to break the internets.

[Superfriends narrator]
And so, intrusive pre-emptive regulation saves the world from the evil corporations yet again! Tune in next week for another daring tale of The Lefty League!
[/voice]

*"Yankee Doodle" soundtrack swells, then fades into "Amazing Grace" as credits roll*

I don't know a lot about this subject, so I'll just speak generally. The internet is new and largely unregulated, but it's potential uses and impact on people's lives is huge. The amount of money to be made with it is huge. Does it make sense for there to be NO regulations? We've seen what happens when profits are the only guide to what is allowed.

To take dte's route to work analogy; is the only choice having someone robo-control your car or complete autonomy? Is having a driver's license test and a road to drive on and traffic lights 'over-regulation?"

BTW, good to see you posting again, curious.

Well, DTE, I could say that there's a lot of fishy behavior on behalf of the telecoms here in the US.

I mean, the FCC is releasing a broadband speed tester in order to see if people are ACTUALLY getting the speeds they *pay* for from these companies.::shrugs::

Oh, I'm mostly just being difficult on general principle. It's the job of the forum lefties to highlight GOP hyperbole/lies while ignoring the underlying truths. It's my job to highlight the underlying truths and gloss over the hyperbole/lies. As usual, the overall truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle of the walls of froth.

dteowner said:

Not really. He didn't address the government dictating business practices at all. In typical leftie fashion, he talked about lofty purposes and blessed goals, but very skillfully avoided the part about practical implementation since that would support the accusation. Thus, cherrypicking.

Click to expand...

Thing is, this is actually very simple, both to define, to implement, and to police: ISP's and backbone operators cannot discriminate between traffic based on origin or purpose. That's pretty easy to monitor, and in any case making it illegal would remove the main economic incentive to do so — i.e., contracts for priority treatment between content providers and telcos.

(It would be slightly — but only slightly — harder to prove discrimination for a telco favoring its own content, e.g. Google running the pipes and favoring traffic to and from services it provides in my hypothetical example; they would usually work better anyway, though, since the servers are closer to the endpoints.)

Edit: As to the "why," for the same reason that any essential infrastructure needs regulation -- it's not the kind of environment that has room for a genuinely competitive market. It's a natural oligopoly. The costs of entry are too high. When California deregulated electricity, look what happened -- Enron started arranging brownouts to create scarcity and then raised the prices to high heaven. Again, I love genuinely competitive markets, and believe that they really do create if not the best outcomes, at least as close as we can get -- but I believe that not all markets are genuinely competitive, and where they aren't, political power should step in and do something to prevent the abuses that would result. Political power is a blunt instrument, to be sure, over-regulation is most definitely a bad thing, and we should be careful not to regulate things that are only slightly out of whack. But yeah, we do need to regulate situations that obviously create conditions for abuse of market power.

By the way, since the proposed regulations won't change anything about the way things are done now, and will only prevent hypothetical future abuses that y'all believe won't ever happen due to the Magic of the Market®, where's the problem? It'll just be another dead law that doesn't have any real-world applications.