Consider this - the economic crisis we have found ourselves in occurred (at least in large part) by DEregulation on the side of the government. And we can all see where that got us. Assuming that competition in the free market will work out important issues is dangerous. Obviously, there should be limitations to the power of the government over corporations and individuals, but when they matter significantly (as in the case of economic stability) it is important that we not leave the country exposed to serious threats.
I feel that the neutrality of the network content as provided by providers is just as important as maintaining a stable economy given the increasingly important role that information plays in our world. Protecting this neutrality means ensuring that regulations are in place which a) do what we want them to do, and; b) don't do anything we don't want them to do.
Not all regulations are good regulations. I don't trust every little thing the government does. I don't believe that the government only wishes to do well for us. I think that in many cases, the government pushes things through that are not good for us (like the food - mostly corn and soy - subsidies which are destroying the health of the planet, third world economies and dietary nutritional value). Still, that doesn't mean we need to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. The key is not to not regulate, it is to make sure that when regulation is needed, that it is established properly. Don't mistrust the government and everything it does just because they don't always do well - make sure that it does what it needs to and doesn't throw in anything that will mess the stew up.
"If you think Google (and Facebook) is on your side and they are only doing this to protect you, then you probably believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and I have bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you."
That is pushing it, but up until that you made a lot of really good points that are very worth considering. Thank you for bringing an intelligent argument to the table. I'm not sure that I personally know enough about the dynamics of bandwidth flow to be able to say whether your concerns are valid or not, but I would like to hear more on that issue from people who do. Anyone?
@Dar - I'm afraid that you are entirely uninformed and ignorant or intentionally trying to mislead people. First of all, fishygirl never said ANYTHING along the lines of monetarily free internet being a right for everyone. Ans she didn't "give up" on that because she was never on it. Free as in "free speech" not "free beer".
Secondly, you clearly have no idea whatsoever about what the Net Neutrality rules propose. All they do is protect freedoms that we currently have. Freedoms that prevent internet access companies from giving preferential bandwidth and connection to specific websites (such their own vs. competitors) and that they cannot block out access to certain websites (except, as I can only imagine, when authorize for the sake of parental controls). Now if you can identify rules in the proposals which would stifle competition for comcast and others, then you should do so here, rather than making wild claims about their existence and the fact that we should be asking for their removal if we care about what we say we care about.
Thirdly, to your comments that "[if] the feds get involved then we will see freedom of speech limited" is simply not true. There is nothing to this effect in proposal. Again, if you know of a SPECIFIC item in proposal to this effect, bring it up here, don't hand wave at it.
The government getting involved in the fashion which has been proposed only limits the freedom that corporations would otherwise have to control content access. By limiting these freedoms, they protect public freedoms - so whose freedoms are you more interested in Dar? The public's or the corporation's?
Report Abuse
TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Close