Funny how you left this part out! NOT!
Actually what was left out was your argument. This then allowed me to assume that it (your argument) totally agreed with the article. Further, if you felt you had a specific argument to make you might have done that either pre or post article. You chose neither. So you attempt to label any response to your post as ignoring or leaving out an important part of you argument is fallacious.
Next, we are directed to this part of your article:
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.
This statement is misleading. First these companies supply the internet to their customers and already are, by definition, "gatekeepers".
Also they will not Tax (only government taxes, another red flag here),
they will charge for a contractually guaranteed speed of delivery.
We must note that a significant number of the providersÂ’ coverage areas have, at least, one other competitor (I have at least three in my area). This article would have us believe there is evil afoot regarding the intent of the providers. But If, say, Verizon's VIOS decided to restrict access to a site the other competitors would use this to convince customers to use their service instead. If it decided to slow its service, ditto. Again you should look to who supports this "Net Neutrality" and see what they have to gain from it. Google has had a large role in promoting "Net Neutrality" simply because they are consumers of what the "gatekeepers" provide and by having government restrict those providers Google can lower their own costs. Google has dropped itself from the coalition list(see your FreePress site) because of the controversy. I have personally stopped using Google altogether,
I now use Bing. Google has supported Obamacare (again to lower its healthcare costs by shifting it, eventually, to the government) and it has allegedly allowed Dem operatives to interfere with its Maps function to give erroneous info on directions to conservative functions. Then there is the spy thing. Wasn't Google's motto 'Do No Evil' or something?
You blamed "Obama's FCC" for "regulating" the net when it was BUSH's FCC in 2005 who set up the regulations that could block "the free flow of information." And it was Obama's congress that was "protecting Internet users from discrimination online" allowing the free flow of information which you pretended to care about.
You are simply BRAINWASHED into mindlessly attacking Obama and government without the foggiest idea of what's going on, even he is doing exactly what you pretend you want.
How was “Obama's congress” “allowing the free flow of information”? More legislation? What legislation would that be? Or perhaps Congress subpoenaed the head of the FCC to find out what he was doing regarding Title II reclassification? Do you have some evidence here?
Seems you are trying to change the subject here from "Net Neutrality" to "JM's just secretly attacking Obama". Then you get to knock down this strawman with your self imposed metrics which, not surprisingly, leads to the questioning of my cerebral viability. The whole purpose of which is to discredit my argument. Problem with this attempt is that said argument, in my former post, was, specifically, that this whole controversy would be moot if we simply eliminated any government role in the internet itself at all. No need for Obama, ‘his’ Congress, or Bush to even enter into the calculation. Like the economic forces I discussed above RE internet providers, a free market system unencumbered by government pretty much regulates itself. There is another argument you could make for some government help but since you have not so alerted us I won’t address it here.
Actually I think we might want the same thing here; fast internet access to any site we so choose at a reasonable price. I, however, just can't see government doing it. When government passes regulations it puts restrictions on business most of the time that favors some over others. This hinders a customer's greatest friend: Competition.
JM
P.S. In regard to the present FCC's attempt to regulate the internet this is referred to as Title II Reclassification. Here is an admittedly conservative site that has been following "Net Neutrality" for a number of years. The articles are listed from latest to earliest.
Tech At Night | RedState
You might note that we conservatives favor
Henry Waxman's bill on this, but note the reason why.
