Why do the tea party folk hate net neutrality?

[Jim DeVito]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... neutrality

So they are all about free speech, right? They love the constitution because it PROTECTS their free speech rights. That is where I don’t get it. All the government is trying to do is PROTECT free speech and equal access to the internet.

Lets say you have AT$T offering you three tiers of internet service. The first is to allow access to you webmail, news sites, and cooking class. Tier two is for access to facebook, myspace, and twitter. Tier three gets you access to youtube, netflix, and hulu. How is that not controlling speech with a pay wall?

Make no mistake the above is exactly what is going to happen. In fact it is already happing. Comcast was in trouble a bit ago to throttling bit torrent traffic.

The last thing the big telcos want to become are just dumb pipes to the internet with no way to make money off the content. That is why nbc universal is merging with comcast.

Why should there not be regulation that simply says… “All packets are crafted equally”

This country’s on fire alright, the corporations lit the fuse and the tea parities hose is full of gasoline.

[Jim DeVito]

Judging from views I would say either people don't like me, or more people care about Ryan whipping up religious tensions than the sanctity of the Internet.

Well if you do care watch this... worth it.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonameri ... index.html

[Stephen Eisel]

Why do the tea party folk hate net neutrality?

Do you remember what happened when the government messed around with the mortgage industry?

[Jim DeVito]

Do you remember what happened when huge corporations had no regulation and no incentive to not sell stuff they knew were a bunch of crap?

I'm not saying government need to be heavy handed with the regulation. Just a few simple rules like the one that were already in place. We had rules and the Internet and giant telco companies seemed to do just fine.

[Stephen Eisel]

Do you remember what happened when huge corporations had no regulation and no incentive to not sell stuff they knew were a bunch of crap?

I'm not saying government need to be heavy handed with the regulation. Just a few simple rules like the one that were already in place. We had rules and the Internet and giant telco companies seemed to do just fine.

No, I remember the government mandating that home ownership go from 60% to 70% with out regards to industry credit standards.

[Stephen Eisel]

The process could give federal regulators the power to impose net neutrality rules, which would prevent Internet access providers from favoring some content and applications over others.

Welcome to China... and I mean no offense to the Chinese...

[Phil Florian]

Isn't the Tea Party basically another pro-business, anti-regulation body? Wouldn't that answer the question? By "anti-regulation" i mean anti-government regulation. they are absolutely fine with Google, Verizon, etc. regulating...or at the very least charging. I guess it isn't "regulation" when the business says "we aren't stopping anyone from accessing everything! But the Everything Plan just costs an extra $50/month, that's all..."

I wonder if local sites like the LO will be a higher tier internet service or not?

So Stephen...you have a problem with China regulating and not permitting free access to the internet to their people but have no problem when Google or Verizon does it? Just wondering.

[Stephen Eisel]

So Stephen...you have a problem with China regulating and not permitting free access to the internet to their people but have no problem when Google or Verizon does it? Just wondering.

Not exactly, I have no problem with the Communist Chinese Government regulating and permitting free access to the internet for their people.. They are communist, enough said. A private company has the right to operate how they see fit (with in reason) with out interference from a political party (Democrat or Republican). If you do not like how Verizon or Google operate then do not use their services..

[Will Brown]

I think the slogan of net neutrality is a facade; what the government, acting through the FCC, wants is the power to regulate the internet, something they don't have now.

The FCC has a long history of paternalistic actions. They have dabbled in everything from fairness doctrines, to limiting when you can act like a boorish adult on broadcast TV, lest the children catch a bad word or two. Once they have assumed the authority to regulate the internet, can we expect similar misguided policies?

I don't see a problem with providers providing tiers of service. It seems to work with cable broadcasting; if I think the premium services aren't worth the cost, I don't subscribe, and if someone would offer cable that excluded the shopping, public service, cartoon, and religious channels, at a lower cost, I'd buy that.

I can live with the various levels of service the ISPs currently offer; I can pick a slower rate for less money; why should I pay more to subsidize people who up and down load large binary files? When I started using the internet, and its predecessors, there was no such thing as unlimited service. You paid by how much time you used them. Then improved technology and competitive pressures forced the ISPs to offer unlimited time. So why now must we have the all-powerful government eliminating the competitive forces that have made the internet develop so rapidly? And are we prepared to pay more for the service we have because someone up the holler wants cable in his cabin?