- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
16 Aug 10
Peter Bordow, a leader of the Fountain Hills Tea Party, said "It is possible (and may in fact even be predictable) that this ability to selectively throttle traffic could be used to "unfairly" limit certain traffic (Internet destinations) to users. I just don't think it is the Government's responsibility (or within their enumerated powers) to legislate powers to appointed bureaucrats to decide "what is fair".
"History shows us again and again that whenever the power to decide "what is fair" is given to Government officials and/or appointed bureaucrats, there is far more propensity and opportunity for abuse of this power. It is only when free citizens and the free market are able to flex their collective purchasing muscle that we can be sure that this power is not abused."
Doesn't this reaction demonstrate conclusively that the so called "Tea Party" is just a front for the same old business interests that already run the Republican Party? These companies are about to take something from all of us (something the public owns) and these fools want them to do it. How will this guy feel when Verizon decides he doesn't need traffic coming to his "Tea Party" site? Will he consider that justice? (If the corporate interests win this battle I have little doubt about that happening.)
16 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackAdvocating complete net neutrality is based on a typical slippery slope fallacy. It is perfectly fair and just for ISPs to give preferential treatment to 1 kb downloads of news stories over 2 gb movie downloads that take 3 hours. If the government wants to prevent censorship on political grounds, they can tailor their rules more narrowly.
Peter Bordow, a leader of the Fountain Hills Tea Party, said "It is possible (and may in fact even be predictable) that this ability to selectively throttle traffic could be used to "unfairly" limit certain traffic (Internet destinations) to users. I just don't think it is the Government's responsibility (or within their enumerated powers) to legislate p corporate interests win this battle I have little doubt about that happening.)
Mandating complete net neutrality is another example of the nanny state run amuck and, fortunately, an FCC attempt to enforce net neutrality in the US was struck down by a federal course a few months ago.
I don't know or care that the "Tea Party" motives are on this issue; on this issue, they happen to be correct.
Oh, and the "corporate interests" have already "won" this debate (to this point) and I don't see your fears being realized.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76You're wrong (as usual) (and the fight is to give the band-width to the movie and not to the news story.)
Advocating complete net neutrality is based on a typical slippery slope fallacy. It is perfectly fair and just for ISPs to give preferential treatment to 1 kb downloads of news stories over 2 gb movie downloads that take 3 hours. If the government wants to prevent censorship on political grounds, they can tailor their rules more narrowly.
Mandating complete ...[text shortened]... ave already "won" this debate (to this point) and I don't see your fears being realized.
In the 80s when you were on the bottle the business interests told us that de-regulation would reduce our costs and increase innovation and service. Right now we are falling behind the rest of the world in technology and cable and telephone monopolies rule the landscape charging whatever prices they want. FAIL! (just like this de-reg will be.)
On the other hand the regulation you actual propose "to prevent censorship on political grounds, they can tailor their rules more narrowly" is most likely truly unconstitutional (but you already know that - it is just a red-herring to ride to court on so they can end any regulation.)
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackOh well.
You're wrong (as usual) (and the fight is to give the band-width to the movie and not to the news story.)
In the 80s when you were on the bottle the business interests told us that de-regulation would reduce our costs and increase innovation and service. Right now we are falling behind the rest of the world in technology and cable and telephone mon ...[text shortened]... ady know that - it is just a red-herring to ride to court on so they can end any regulation.)
Read Comcast v. FCC
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf
Then you'll be qualified to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.
Your comment about telephone monopolies is so bizarre it makes me think that you truly don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. Because of de-regulation (and the break-up of Ma Bell, of course), the telecommunications industry has advanced exponentially and consistently in recent years. I don't know about you, but I pay virtually nothing for phone and cable service. I pay less now, in non-inflation adjusted dollars, for phone service in every room than my parents paid in 1975 for one black rotary telephone to cover the whole house.
This constant need to lament everything about everything that the free market has produced is one of the oddest and most perplexing thing about the uber-liberal mentality.
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76Nothing else remains to be said.
Oh well.
Read Comcast v. FCC
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf
Then you'll be qualified to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.
Your comment about telephone monopolies is so bizarre it makes me think that you truly don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. Because of de-regulation ( ...[text shortened]... as produced is one of the oddest and most perplexing thing about the uber-liberal mentality.
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76It is perfectly fair and just for ISPs to give preferential treatment to 1 kb downloads of news stories over 2 gb movie downloads that take 3 hours.
Advocating complete net neutrality is based on a typical slippery slope fallacy. It is perfectly fair and just for ISPs to give preferential treatment to 1 kb downloads of news stories over 2 gb movie downloads that take 3 hours. If the government wants to prevent censorship on political grounds, they can tailor their rules more narrowly.
Mandating complete ...[text shortened]... ave already "won" this debate (to this point) and I don't see your fears being realized.
Of course that's not at all what the argument for net neutrality is about.
Oh, and the "corporate interests" have already "won" this debate (to this point) and I don't see your fears being realized
And how long ago was that?? I think it's a bit too soon to come to the conclusion that no negative affects will be realized by that corporatist decision. The recent google-verizon pact certainly doesn't bode well for the idea that the companies can just regulate themselves.
16 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnFor most of the history of the internet, net neutrality has not been mandated. The federal regulation that was struck down was only a couple of years old. Before that, there were few or no regulations on ISPs mandating net neutrality. I do not see any of the ill effects predicted in the OP having been caused prior to 2007 when the feds first started really enforcing net neutrality.
And how long ago was that?? I think it's a bit too soon to come to the conclusion that no negative affects will be realized by that corporatist decision.
The recent google-verizon pact certainly doesn't bode well for the idea that the companies can just regulate themselves.
I didn't say companies should always be trusted to regulate themselves. I said that enforcing complete net neutrality is overkill and a bad idea.
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThat's exactly what the whole argument over net neutrality is about.
It is perfectly fair and just for ISPs to give preferential treatment to 1 kb downloads of news stories over 2 gb movie downloads that take 3 hours.
Of course that's not at all what the argument for net neutrality is about.
The Comcast case was about Comcast having given only secondary priority to P2P sites that were hogging bandwidth with enormous and consistent files being shared, thus slowing other traffic. Read the case.
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76
For most of the history of the internet, net neutrality has not been mandated. The federal regulation that was struck down was only a couple of years old. Before that, there were few or no regulations on ISPs mandating net neutrality. I do not see any of the ill effects predicted in the OP having been caused prior to 2007 when the feds first started really enfo ...[text shortened]... regulate themselves. I said that enforcing complete net neutrality is overkill and a bad idea.
For most of the history of the internet, net neutrality has not been mandated. The federal regulation that was struck down was only a couple of years old. Before that, there were few or no regulations on ISPs mandating net neutrality. I do not see any of the ill effects predicted in the OP having been caused prior to 2007 when the feds first started really enforcing net neutrality.
For most of the histroy of the internet net neutrality wasn't required since the violation of it wasn't possible due to feasibility of limiting bandwidth.
The internet is essentially only about 17 years old as a real consumer used resource and only recently that these company have the resources to limit and control bandwidth - that is the reason why it is becoming an issue - because it's only recently that companies have obtained the means to violate it, not because somehow their motives have been as pure as the driven white snow until now.
I didn't say companies should always be trusted to regulate themselves. I said that enforcing complete net neutrality is overkill and a bad idea
But that's what the tea party is advocating - it's what you are saying they are right about.
What is your solution?
16 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76No. That's what THAT comcast case was about, not what the whole argument over net neutrality is about.
That's exactly what the whole argument over net neutrality is about.
The Comcast case was about Comcast having given only secondary priority to P2P sites that were hogging bandwidth with enormous and consistent files being shared, thus slowing other traffic. Read the case.
WW2 wasn't all about the battle at Stalingrad.
16 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYour Dunkirk example was better. WWII was kind of all about Stalingrad, in some sense. But I digress... 😛
No. That's what THAT comcast case was about, not what the whole argument over net neutrality is about.
WW2 wasn't all about the battle at Stalingrad.
Complete net neutrality is overbroad because it allows the type of federal interference that gave rise to the Comcast case. There are other issues involved in the debate, of course; but the Comcast case suffices to illustrate why net neutrality rules, as currently crafted, are overbroad.
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76So you would have no problem with comcast shutting down consumerist.com because they routinely criticize comcast's customer service? That isn't political at all.
How about a more narrow rule that prevents ISPs from regulating traffic based on political content?
Is criticizing Obama's economic policy political or economic in content?
16 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76It's difficult to enforce such a rule, and what exactly constitutes "political content" is not always clear. It's much easier to simply force ISPs to provide the bandwidth they are selling to their customers.
How about a more narrow rule that prevents ISPs from regulating traffic based on political content?