Private Property and the Net

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,289
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
I found this post this morning in regard to what Republicans should do:
"Solidify net neutrality by law, protect it under first amendment."



This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'


It is surprising to me that so many who support personal responsibility, decry government entitlements as hand-outs, and joined me in despising the 'you didn't build that' socialism, are happy to endorse the 'Net Neutrality' agenda.


Are these folks selling out their principles in the hope of keeping their cable TV bills a tad lower????




1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service

2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.

3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway.....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.

a. Let's take one example.... Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated.
But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate




4. The providers say "we took the risk and used beau-coup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???"

Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.


I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!


5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as the eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.




7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?
 
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.
 
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.
 
I am split on this one.

On the one hand Amazon and all their streaming videos put a lot more pressure on the Comcast network so they should have to pay more.

On the other it is a slippery slope where Comcast could throttle down the next Republican convention or charge them outragous rates.

I would say charge Amazon more based on their traffic rates, but what if my website about my cars and trees suddenly gets super popular? Should I have to pay more?

My estemed co-worker feels this is not much of a proboem yet and nuetrality should be enforeced. Stupid Charter Communications went bankrupt recently so in thinking mayne uograding their lines to be able to handle stresming video whivh makes Natflix money cost Charter money it seems fair to allow Charter to charge Netflix. Afterall the electric company charges based on usage.

Then again the free speech person in me LOVES the idea of an open near free internet.

Tough one. If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess. Give them some incentive to make internet video as bandwidth friendly as cable tv video.
 
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"
 
Keep the federal govt out of it. it'll be kind of like the "Fairness" doctrine for the internet. Whenever the federal govt bureaucracy gets involved everything becomes politicized and screwed up. We don't need the federal govt deciding what is "Fair" and what isn't.
 
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"
I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.
 
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.

You just described discrimination. You literally couldnt have gave a better definition.

net-neutrality-oliver.jpg
 
Keep the federal govt out of it. it'll be kind of like the "Fairness" doctrine for the internet. Whenever the federal govt bureaucracy gets involved everything becomes politicized and screwed up. We don't need the federal govt deciding what is "Fair" and what isn't.
If I own a restaurant can I block the road in front of my competitor's restaurant?
 
I found this post this morning in regard to what Republicans should do:
"Solidify net neutrality by law, protect it under first amendment."



This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'


It is surprising to me that so many who support personal responsibility, decry government entitlements as hand-outs, and joined me in despising the 'you didn't build that' socialism, are happy to endorse the 'Net Neutrality' agenda.


Are these folks selling out their principles in the hope of keeping their cable TV bills a tad lower????




1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service

2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.

3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway.....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.

a. Let's take one example.... Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated.
But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate




4. The providers say "we took the risk and used beau-coup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???"

Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.


I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!


5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as the eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.




7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?
Grubercrats aim to free us from the tyranny of work AND private property.
 
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.
BTW it has already been done.
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.
Net Blocking A Problem in Need of a Solution Free Press
 
I'm sure once the internet gets split up into paid fast access for certain companies that will foster all types of new companies who cant get started because Time Warner wants more money.

Oh and I'm sure they wont pass those fees onto us because cable is so cheap right now

And we can always go to a competitor, just look at this map of all the competition

main-qimg-e55bc5c4c02e29483761526f199f4bdb


If you dont want Comcast in Maryland then tell them you're moving to another cable provider...In Maine...problem solved.

See how good this is for the consumer?
 
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.


C'mon, sammy.....obviously you only read the lead-in.

Put a little effort into it!
 
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.



1. "The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system."
Any endeavor can be traced back to, and attributed it to, some function of government.
That being said, it's absurd to use that as an excuse for government to dictate every aspect of the private economy.

How about, since you use the roads, the government gets to tell you you must wear the mom-jeans that Obama wears when you drive.


2. "I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive."
Why not?
Consider it the moron-test. He gets to do that, and you'd get to wear a moron sticker if you bought your car from him.


3. "If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one."
Ricky....this is awful. You've clearly bought into the 'government can do anything it feels like' mentality.
 
I am split on this one.

On the one hand Amazon and all their streaming videos put a lot more pressure on the Comcast network so they should have to pay more.

On the other it is a slippery slope where Comcast could throttle down the next Republican convention or charge them outragous rates.

I would say charge Amazon more based on their traffic rates, but what if my website about my cars and trees suddenly gets super popular? Should I have to pay more?

My estemed co-worker feels this is not much of a proboem yet and nuetrality should be enforeced. Stupid Charter Communications went bankrupt recently so in thinking mayne uograding their lines to be able to handle stresming video whivh makes Natflix money cost Charter money it seems fair to allow Charter to charge Netflix. Afterall the electric company charges based on usage.

Then again the free speech person in me LOVES the idea of an open near free internet.

Tough one. If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess. Give them some incentive to make internet video as bandwidth friendly as cable tv video.




1. So, you can't imagine the free market taking care of the problem?
Tell me....do you subscribe to every single channel available?
No?
Why not.....because you've made informed decisions as to which are worth your support.

Get it?


2. "If forced to vote I may allow a surcharge on the top 1% of bandwidth users and .coms, I guess."
Vote????

Why the heck would you have a vote in a private company's business policy?
Well....if you were a stock-holder....but then you'd want the highest possible profit.....
 
Keep the federal govt out of it. it'll be kind of like the "Fairness" doctrine for the internet. Whenever the federal govt bureaucracy gets involved everything becomes politicized and screwed up. We don't need the federal govt deciding what is "Fair" and what isn't.


You are sooooooo right!

Folks should listen closely....and hear the whisper 'censorship.'
 
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"
I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access
"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.


".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.
 
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.

You just described discrimination. You literally couldnt have gave a better definition.

net-neutrality-oliver.jpg




You play the victim so well I bet you carry your own body-outline chalk.
 
What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.

You just described discrimination. You literally couldnt have gave a better definition.

net-neutrality-oliver.jpg




You play the victim so well I bet you carry your own body-outline chalk.

Great rebuttal, seriously
 

Forum List

Back
Top