Republicans trying to destroy Net Nuetrality

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Bob26003, Oct 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

    By Daniel Tencer
    Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 -- 6:01 pm

    Republican strategy is to paint Net neutrality as government 'control' of Internet

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.

    The move came the same day as the federal government decided to move forward on an official Net neutrality policy that would prevent ISPs from making those types of decisions.

    The FCC's new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.

    McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.
    Story continues below...

    According to a report at NetworkWorld, McCain "called the proposed Net neutrality rules a 'government takeover' of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an 'already anemic' job market in the US."

    But supporters of Net neutrality argue that the rule is needed to ensure that Internet providers don't censor content, or slow down traffic to Web sites that are in competition with their business allies.

    FCC chairman Julius Genachowski argued that "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road" were needed "to preserve a free and open Internet."

    "The Internet's openness has allowed entrepreneurs and innovators, small and large, to create countless applications and services without having to seek permission from anyone," he said.

    But, the FCC chairman said, there have been "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."

    Two Republicans on the FCC also voted on Thursday to go ahead with the rule-making process, which will be open for public comment until January 14, but voiced misgivings about the plan.


    As the NetworkWorld article notes, McCain was on the opposite side of the Net neutrality debate from President Barack Obama during last year's presidential campaign. During his White House campaign, President Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of Net neutrality, which is backed by companies such as Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay and consumer advocacy groups, but opposed by telecommunications, wireless and cable companies.

    Republicans appear to be shifting against Net neutrality and aligning themselves with the telecoms and cable companies.

    This week, media watchdog Media Matters criticized conservative news host Glenn Beck for what it said was Beck's allegation that Net neutrality is a "Marxist plot," and that the point of Net neutrality is to "control content," a perspective that prompted MediaMatters and other observers to question whether Beck understands the principle of Net neutrality.

    In his announcement today, McCain appeared to agree with the notion that Net neutrality represents regulation and control, rather than a lack thereof.

    His bill "will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said, as quoted by Phil Goldstein at Fierce Wireless. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

    -- With Agence France-Presse
  2. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Wait, aren't ISPs private companies? Isn't a private company allowed to do whatever the hell they choose to in regards to censorship? I believe another member told me not too long ago at&t was trying to censor a website and in turn was attacked by a bunch of pissed off people via an online attack. I would rather have the free market dealing with this then the government.
  3. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    You must not know what "net nuetrality" is Mike

    As Craig Newmark of Craig's List puts it, “Imagine if you tried to order a pizza and the phone company said AT&T's preferred pizza vendor is Domino's. Press one to connect to Domino's now. If you would still like to order from your neighborhood pizzeria, please hold for three minutes while Domino's guaranteed orders are placed.”

    "The question is, will that bandwidth cost differing amounts to different purchasers for different applications? Net Neutrality effectively says "a bit is a bit is a bit, everyone pays the same amount for each bit no matter what it's used for or where it's coming from or going." ISPs want to say, "hey, that's a video bit from a group we don't like, we're going to degrade how this bit moves on the network unless you pay us extra.""

    What's the problem?
    Most Americans (99.6%, to be exact) receive broadband service from either their phone company or their cable company -- in antitrust terms, a duopoly. And far too many people have only one choice of broadband provider, or even none at all. While there are increased options for wireless Internet services, these "3G" services presently aren't nearly fast enough to deliver true high-speed services. That lack of broadband competition gives providers the market incentive and ability to discriminate against Web-based applications and content providers. In fact, economic analysis and real-world experience from the wireless market suggest that the problem will persist even if more competition eventually emerges. And broadband-based discrimination would violate the founding design principles of the "end-to-end" Internet: openness, transparency, and user choice and control.


    Alexander said...

    I'll keep this simple. I have AT&T as an ISP. Those bastards sold me out to the Bush administration for the sake of "national security". I would love to put the fire under their feet not only for this trespass, but also for the sake of not letting these megacorps rule who gets to view what and how quickly they can view it. Give em a big neutral enema.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2009
  4. lifeisashedog

    lifeisashedog Well-Known Member

    So what is the problem? Will I be banned if I write BUCK FUSH in text or only if i deliver the same message in the form of streaming video?
  5. Aeterna

    Aeterna Account Closed

    Why would you rather have the free market handling such an important tool? The free market does not care about human rights (it's not profitable to do so), and the internet is the perfect tool for advancing human rights. If the free market were to have it's say, the internet would come bundled like cellphones; highly restricted and extremely static as to what it offers.
  6. Hache

    Hache Well-Known Member

    Sounds like it will destroy the two biggest things on the internet, porn and youtube
  7. lifeisashedog

    lifeisashedog Well-Known Member

  8. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    And governments do care? Hell, at least in a free market environment there's a chance I'll be able to find an ISP that let's me do what I want, but if the government starts restricting my actions I can't exactly find a substitute, can I? viz:

    Banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day - Australia, although I believe this may have now been put on hold...still it is very much what the Australian government WANTED to do.

    Closed for Business: More Chinese Web Sites - Yup, the Chinese government is sure looking out for the right of their citizens to speak freely. :rolleyes:

    Nope. The internet is the perfect venue for finding out who voiced Barney Rubble in the Flintstones, the perfect venue for downloading the latest bedroom gymnastics of some Hollywood star wanna-be and the perfect venue for "can you top this histrionics" in the political arena. What it is NOT is a place for any kind of quiet reflection or well-reasoned debate.

    What evidence can you offer in support of this? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong here, simply that I've not seen anything at all like this. In fact, with Verizon coming into my area as an ISP, Comcast (the other biggie arond here, and for a time pretty much a monopoly at least in terms of residential high speed internet) seems to be ramping up their offerings and cutting their prices to compete.

    Note that I do think something inherently oligopolistic like being a ISP when you only have three or four competitors might lead where you're thinking it shall, I just haven't seen it work out like that. At least yet.
  9. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Exactly bob, its not a free market. Just as in healthcare, the free market has not had a chance so to say it has failed, it not correct. Either way, I would prefer to see more competition between private companies and not just have the government come in and take everything over.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.