Free markets and traditional values are the twin pillars of conservative thought. Ronald Reagan embodied both of these beliefs, and was a master at promoting both of these ideas. However, Reagan fully understood that a reflexive anti-regulatory, pro-market ideology does not always promote the core values of decency and family that are at the foundation of the conservative movement. He believed these ideas must exist in concert, not one at the expense of the other. Continued... http://techrepublican.com/blog/the-conservative-argument-for-net-neutrality
That doesn't make sense. If companies build out the network they should be able to charge more for speedy delivery. Just like the post office charges more for next day mail or two day mail and if you want standard mail you have the option for that too.
The U.S. is falling so far behind internet speeds because our internet is provided by a shared monopoly. There is no competition in price or in speed. Monopoly is bad, competition is good.
Net Neutrality is a big no-no. I do not want government regulation of how fast my bandwidth should be, nor the additional costs/taxes of doing business online inflated to support yet another government agency, particularly if it performs with the same efficiency of the FDA, FEMA, DOE, FCC etc. Allow the free market to push for faster speeds, better infrastructure and the development of new technologies. Anyone currently making a living online should be staunchly opposed to Net Neutrality, which is a misnomer, intentionally made so to make it sound like a positive, when in fact it would be a big negative to growth and opportunity. It's time to remind everyone that regulation and big government is a liberal agenda, not a conservative one. The link above is strictly from a neo-conservative POV, and does not reflect traditional conservative values but rather the centralizing of politics and policy between the left and right. Net Neutrality = Gentrification, and if you've ever had your site squeezed out of the top SERPs or your e-commerce business buried by big business online, then understand that regulation, licensing etc will lead exactly to this on a greater scale. Keep the government out of regulating the net!
The reason we're behind the world in internet speed is not because of monopoly its because of laws like Net Neutrality. Until a couple years ago the phone companies had to lease their networks to competitors at or below cost. They went to court to fight this and clarify if it applied to fiber as well. It took a couple years but things have been cleared up and now AT&T and Verizon are spending billions of dollars to bring fiber wires to the home. You bring net neutrality into it and there is no reason to spend billions of dollars if you can't get a return on your investment.
The teloco's already stole BILLIONS of dollars in tax breaks from the government/citizens. They were supposed to provide us with something like 50mb speeds by the end of 2006. Currently, the average cable speed is about 4-5mb. I don't need to hear sob stories about the fucking telco companies.
actually, the countries that beat us in speed (japan, s korea primarily) have the ability to more quickly roll out new technology because of their small size and high percentage of urbanization. monopoly has nothing to do with it. I want the government's paws off the internet. People who own the lines should be able to do with them what they wish. http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/technology/09/03/0903netjapan.html
You don't need to hear sob stories about telco companies just pull out 20 billion dollars out of your bank account, lay fiber to everyone’s home and let everyone use it for free. Tax breaks are nice if you actually make money.
Can you believe this, I actually agree with a sheeple! And not just any sheeple but GTech's 2IC. I have a feeling that we both have different reasons for being against Net Neutrality though. My biggest worry is that it could restrict access to the alternative media, something that the controlled mainstream media would love to see happen. It would be a disaster but for the Illumnati's ultimate goal of controlling the sheeple it would be just what they want. I doubt that someone as insane as GTech would be for Net Neutrality but I wouldn't be surprised if he was.
ly2, I expect more from you than one sided information sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality If you're a true conservative, and not a neo-conservative, then you would find the idea of government regulation counter productive, counter free market and anti-capitalism. Liberals seek to enlarge government and control each and every service. Regulating everything is what the Russians did. And their country collapsed. An inefficient business goes bankrupt. An inefficient government just taxes to stay in business. No thanks. I think the net has developed just fine without regulated neutrality.
One guy explained it to me best. Basically the telecos approached Google, Amazon, and Ebay and threw out an idea to charge consumers an extra 2 or 3 dollars per month for full speed access to their heavily trafficked sites and they said no. The way I understood it this would only effect the broadband customer if he was trying to do something like stream HD Movies from a website or something. Honestly, I don't see why anyone needs to use Google's search engine at 30 Megabytes per second. If they dropped the connection down to 3 megabytes that couldn't possibly hurt Google. That's still as fast as a T3 connection. I understand that the telecos are really trying to extort and exploit online businesses but Google isn't exactly innocent. The telecos and Google are basically the same beast imo. Google's number 1 goal is to build wealth for investors just like the telecos. The Telecos complaining about Google using their pipes for free is basically the exact same thing Google says about online businesses and "free advertising" through organic search. They just want people to buy more Google Ads. Even their "free internet" plan is just another way to get more people clicking ads. So yeah, Google is getting screwed but they've been playing the same game with webmasters for years. It's pretty obvious when small businesses get dropped out of the first page for their own brandname name keywords (Google dance anyone?) what's going on. Google is all about promoting Adwords. If you want to make money on Google then they want to force you to do it through adwords. The telecos are just trying to get money out of the sites that are trying to stream HD Movies. It's not like they are trying to destroy Google's Search Engine or hurt webmasters with small businesses. I don't really think anybody needs to come to my sites at 30 Megabytes per second anyway.
definately there should be some sort of competition , sole players would force fix prices and those would never go down, there wont be much discount offers either.
The only role of government in business is to protect the rule of law. It's not to engage in business, it is not to define the marketplace, and it is not to advise business on what the parameters of operation are (inside the law). It goes to the basic premise, that the last two generations seem to have really forgotten, that government doesn't do anything efficiently. From FEMA, to buying a couple washers for the military at a cost of millions. In private industry, a purchasing agent who buys 2 washers for millions, would be fired instantly. In government, they don't fire anyone. There are no consequences for incompetence, and that is a big factor in why they should never, ever be in control of industry or trying to manipulate the free market.
I think some of you are confused about what exactly Net Neutrality is. Net Neutrality is what we have now. If they keep Net Neutrality nothing will change. The whole "Big Government" spin is coming from the Telecos. I ultimately agree with the Telecos but I just think the PR firms they hired are doing a piss poor job of getting their message accross.
It's good what we have now. I mean, our speeds really suck IMO, and I think the government needs to address the issue, but what the telcos want to do is basically....how to explain... Remember AOL? I'm sure you all do. Remember when you had AOL, you never really left the main part of AOL? It was like a little closed community. Sure, you could go on the internet, but they provided you with news, email, and the rest of it. Now, the telcos want to do something similar. Basically, they want you to get news, email, chat, etc. from them. If you want to venture outside of their little closed garden, then the speeds will be shit unless that site you want to go to has paid the ISP some kind of fee. Otherwise, the ISP will cut the speed down so it will be so unpleasent to visit outside sites, you will just stick to the ISP services. I'm sorry, but that's absolute bullshit and that's why I support net neutrality. What's more disturbing is the fact that almost ALL on the left support net neutrality and almost all on the right oppose it. This is one of the few things that I like about the left. Other things I disagree with the right about: stemcells abortion religion pandering and giving handjobs to big businesses The one good thing that could come from a democrat/liberal president is them fixing the net neutrality issue. If the right gets it's way, they are going to give the big telcos another handjob on this matter. The telco's already raped the tax payers for billions and never delivered on their promises. I want my god damned 50mb internet connection...NOW. And I don't want it in the form of fucking closed garden little communities where the ISP gives you your news, email, and other services.
Really? It should? Hold hearings on why it takes 2 minutes instead of 1 to download a song? Is this really the pervue of government, ly? in what sense? federal funding? You think that federal funds should go towards research that will profit an individual (or small group) of companies. If you agree that it should; please let me know where I can get federal funding for my company. What's the difference? what, exactly, is the "right" 's position on this? I don't remember this ever being a platform point personally. again. in what sense? a state's rights (federalism) point of view? I'm not sure you are very clear on the "right"'s position on these issues.
It should? Hold hearings on why it takes 2 minutes instead of 1 to download a song? Is this really the pervue of government, ly? Well, they could start by holding hearing to ask where the fuck the truck loads of tax breaks went and what happen to the promises the telcos made. I mean, they got an HUGE amount of tax breaks for the specific reason of building up the internet infrastructure and then opening up their lines for competition. As of now(the deadline was either the end of 06 or end of 07, dont remember which), we are supposed to have simalar speeds of asian countries and the telcos should be allowing small companies to use their lines at a reasonable price so they can compete. Neither has happened. We pay more for our internet and get slower speeds than many places in the developed world. in what sense? federal funding? You think that federal funds should go towards research that will profit an individual (or small group) of companies. If you agree that it should; please let me know where I can get federal funding for my company. What's the difference? lorien, be honest, look at the total waste of money our government engaes in. And usually it's on mind boggling, idiotic services or programs. What was that recent story about shipping the washers to Iraq for $100,000 or whatever it was. What if stemcells have real potential to cure horrible diseases? Why not look into it? We have $100k to ship two washers and god knows what other kind of wasful spending, but we can't take a few bucks and look into stemmcells? Why? Because it's "killing life"? Please. what, exactly, is the "right" 's position on this? I don't remember this ever being a platform point personally. You know both parties buckle to big corporations, but the right is extremely easy going on big business and rarely put the consumer before the intrest of big business. again. in what sense? a state's rights (federalism) point of view? I'm not sure you are very clear on the "right"'s position on these issues. If it was up to conservatives, they would outlaw abortion. And the reason they would do it is mainly because of religion. I think abortion is just fine and should be left alone. The more people that are forced to have kids, the more crime and welfare cases it creates.
And the lesson here is that -more- government intervention will fix the problem? Government clearly mishandled its duties (they didn't check up on the telecoms to ensure they fulfilled their part of those tax breaks) the first time and you want to give them a second try? Ok. You are conflating issues here. Most conservatives are against federal funding of stem cell research. If private companies want to engage in such activities, I don't think anyone has the right to complain about it. And no law that I know of prevents this from happening. Private companies are unwilling to put forth their own money for research that'll net them billions and billions of dollars. The company profits; it should pay. It's rather simple, to me. Again. In what sense? You speak in generalities without much of anything to back it up. Do both parties buckle to their big donators. Of course they do. And the lesson, again, here is - more government intervention? You've admitted more than a few times here that government is already shirking in its duties - so they deserve more control? Excellent point of view. I, personally, disagree with Rove V Wade on a state's rights basis. But yep some would like to see it legistlated the other way. I think its a state issue, best handled by states. The link between abortions and rate doesn't really wash very well. Cuz there is little or no evidence in that regard. You could easily solve the welfare issue by mandating that anyone on government assistance be forced to take birth control - under the concept that since they cannot manage their own life; they certainly couldn't manage their life + 1. Did you know that if you are on medicaid/welfare, the government will pay for your fertility drugs? Sounds like a brilliant piece of government in action again
I was going to reply to Ly when I read lorien's responses. Excellent job by lorien explaining the proper role of government and economic libertarianism. Ly, you really need to decide if you are a liberal or a conservative, because a lot of your posts either complain about liberals or espouse their tactics and agendas. The issue with the Telcos getting tax breaks (perhaps they should just pay a lower tax to encourage profitability and entrepreneurship ) is typical flawed governmental logic. They take what you earn, then hand you a small portion back as a incentive to buy into a special interest agenda. Understand, nothing the government does for you comes for free. And frequently, it costs a lot more than if you had free market choices and the disposable after-tax income to purchase it for yourself. Keep the government off of the net. They've NEVER created a healthy, competitive business environment with their meddling and inefficient bureaucracies.