Net Neutrality

[CityGirl]

The FCC rules are set to go into effect November 20.The Senate, on Wednesday, will debate a resolution to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality rules and the Senate is expected to vote Thursday on a resolution that would disapprove the FCC rules. There doesn't seem to be much attention focused on this issue. It is more important to report on Herman Cain's alleged sexual indiscretions. So while the news programs are diverting the attention of the masses, net neutrality is up for discussion. We all have a dog in this hunt. What is in the best interest of the American people regarding net neutrality? How would you like your senator to vote on the issue and why?

 

[Darrell]

Moved to Politics forum.

 

[CityGirl]

Moved to Politics forum.

Where it is sure to be ignored.

 

[HK]

Have you got a link or something to this story? I've not heard about it - I guess it doesn't affect me much but there you go, it still sounds interesting.


Also - I just click new posts and go from there, I don't look at what forum something is in.

 

[CityGirl]

I don't want to post links that might take a stance pro or con because it seems to be a politically polarized issue and I don't think it should be, plus I am attempting to understand it, myself. It seems to be an important issue that is not getting the necessary attention it deserves. It is things like this that are voted on while we are distracted arguing about whether OWS is an anarchist movement or not.

Hopefully this is neutral enough to give you an idea of what net neutrality is
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation...lity-rules-are-coming.-Here-s-why-they-matter

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...urn-net-neutrality-rules-expected-on-thursday

 

[Accountable]

I find it disgusting that that it be a point of consideration whether our constitutionally protected right of free speech should be honored simply because it is being exercised online. There should be no legislation one way or the other. The subject SHOULD be moot, but of course that's not the "Progressive" way.

 

[Alien Allen]

I find it disgusting that that it be a point of consideration whether our constitutionally protected right of free speech should be honored simply because it is being exercised online. There should be no legislation one way or the other. The subject SHOULD be moot, but of course that's not the "Progressive" way.

Falls right in line with trying to do the same with the effort to re institute the fairness doctrine. :thumbdown

 

[CityGirl]

Should the FCC rules stand or should the rules be overturned?

 

[Accountable]

Should the FCC rules stand or should the rules be overturned?

From your first link, it looks like market manipulation, which I'm against. This is how large players become larger and shut out competition. If these providers want to piss off customers, let them. It only opens a niche market for someone else to take advantage of.

I really don't see much use for the FCC in the first place, and this overreach should definitely be overturned.

 

[Minor Axis]

I find it disgusting that that it be a point of consideration whether our constitutionally protected right of free speech should be honored simply because it is being exercised online. There should be no legislation one way or the other. The subject SHOULD be moot, but of course that's not the "Progressive" way.

So you support the principle of net neutrality? I am all for free speech and net neutrality, but are you linking free speech with net neutrality as a constitutional right? What it boils down to is that internet/cell phone providers want the customer to pay for relative access to the internet and minutes to speak. I don't think they should, although there all ready is this standard in cell phone companies to charge for different amounts for of minutes and data quantities, which is another form of access. Is that also impinging on free speech? Don't get me wrong, I am not defending these companies, just trying to understand your intent and reasoning.

 

[Accountable]

So you support the principle of net neutrality? I am all for free speech and net neutrality, but are you linking free speech with net neutrality as a constitutional right? What it boils down to is that internet/cell phone providers want the customer to pay for relative access to the internet and minutes to speak. I don't think they should, although there all ready is this standard in cell phone companies to charge for different amounts for of minutes and data quantities, which is another form of access. Is that also impinging on free speech? Don't get me wrong, I am not defending these companies, just trying to understand your intent and reasoning.

I'd initially misunderstood the purpose of net "neutrality." I thought it was the government monitoring citizens' communication. I now see it's government manipulating markets yet again. That is something I do not support.

Once again you confuse private business with public property. Follow my cynical thought processes a moment:

Current providers have grown large enough to have permanent lobbyists in Washington. The result is "regulation" that makes it harder for new business to get a foothold. Providers take advantage of this lack of competition to gouge their customers. The customers predictably scream. Provider-owned Washington responds with yet more government expansion with a slick brand name to make it seem to be for the little guy. The result is even more red tape blocking anyone from ever posing a serious threat to the providers' stranglehold on their customer base. Choice is squelched, thanks to government regulation.

However, if the regulations keeping new businesses from starting up were relaxed and the big providers were allowed to gouge, a brand new market opportunity would present itself. Smaller, more customer-friendly providers would offer "gougeless" service, big providers would lose business. Big providers would be forced to change their practices or face bankruptcy. That's market forces at work.

The problem isn't big corp providers gouging customers outright. The problem is allowing the corporations to use Washington to manipulate markets in their favor.

 

[Alien Allen]

The problem isn't big corp providers gouging customers outright. The problem is allowing the corporations to use Washington to manipulate markets in their favor.

That says it all

Quite a pattern of conduct aint it.