The World Thru My Eyes - I speak my mind and man does it like to talk.
Published on October 22, 2009 By CharlesCS In Internet

Can someone explain why is Net neutrality a good or bad thing? I'm a bit confused since I, apparently, don't seem to understand it too well.

I thought it sounded like a good thing since it will force Internet providers to give everyone equal use of the Internet (that's how I understand it) but I see a lot of resistance against this and can't understand why. A little help here.

Powered by Zoundry Raven


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Nov 07, 2009

I just don't see this 

transition to a socialist aristocracy
.

I feel this is more PR/spin than reality, more smoke than substance, more fear mongering.

In keeping with the OP's topic, I want my access to the net unfettered by someone else's "enlightened self interest". Period.

Daiwa, supporting your viewpoint is the same (in my old eyes) as espousing "enlightened" limitations to The First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

 

on Nov 07, 2009

I just don't see this
transition to a socialist aristocracy

That suggests that you may not be paying adequate attention.  It has nothing to do with mongering 'fear' (though I'll stipulate that Michael Moore & Al Gore have made a ton of dough doing just that) - there is nothing inherently 'frightening' in the phrase 'socialist aristocracy.'  I happen to prefer a society organized as a capitalist meritocracy over one organized as a socialist aristocracy.  And, if you don't buy that there is a concerted effort to transform our current capitalist meritocracy into a socialist aristocracy, just ask George Soros or any of those actively engaged in that effort - they're presently not particularly hard to find.

With apologies to Chuck.

on Nov 07, 2009

All depends on the eyes of the beholder, I guess. But I do pay attention. Not harkening to that drum beat doesn't mean one is deaf. To each his own view of things.

on Nov 07, 2009

When the theory and practice are so far removed... worlds apart, regulation is essential... otherwise the gap between the haves and the have nots becomes an insurmountable chasm.

It's a double edged sword were playing with.  Though I agree that unregulated capitalism can increase this gap between the haves and have nots, too much regulation will do the same and faster and in fact too much regulation will increase the size of the have nots and shrink that of the haves far quicker than if it left to its own accord.   This nationalized healthcare will only help with separation of the wealthy and the poor.  Think about the bourgeoisie and proletariats prior to the French revolution.

True healthcare reform would be to fix the system, not rebuild it.  Especially when rebuilding leaves intact the same flaws that our current system has.

In truth/reality, markets regulating themselves is a fucking joke...


Completely disagree, the market can regulate itself with a check and balance systems...  oh wait, it already does.  It's called "supply and demand", but in order for supply and demand to work, it must be available to everyone.  If every insurance company were able to sell insurance to everyone in the US, I assure you cost would drop due to competition alone.  Same thing with cable service, though this is not feasible because the networks being owned.  But take a look at satellite TV, Satellite TV used to cost a fortune, but now that Direct TV, Dish network and whatever else is out there, the cost have dropped.  Now even the poor can have what only the very wealthy once only had access too.

And, if you don't buy that there is a concerted effort to transform our current capitalist meritocracy into a socialist aristocracy, just ask George Soros or any of those actively engaged in that effort - they're presently not particularly hard to find.

agreed !

In keeping with the OP's topic, I want my access to the net unfettered by someone else's "enlightened self interest". Period.

I couldn't agree you anymore on this.  But getting the government involved is not the best bet.  I know right now it seems that we need to but in the future i don't think this will be a problem.  I do think that if you get the government involved now you will never get rid of them and you will in time regret it.

The future is wireless technology, in time cable companies and phone companies will not be the sole provider of internet access. Wireless will soon take hold and cable and DSL will soon fall by the wayside.  Just give a few years.  Cable and DSL are limited to what they can provide.  Wireless will soon outpace the old technology.  Then competition will take over and the capitalism mechanisms will show its value.  If you think i am wrong then take a look at the development of cellular communications.  The technology is exploding and soon T-Mobil, ATT, Sprint, Boost Mobil, MetroPCS, Verizon, Alltel, Bello Mobility, Criket, Tracfone, SunCom, CODETEL, Virgin Mobil and many others will be able to provide you quality and affordable internet access.  Look at the develpment of 3G and now the new 4G...  pretty soon you will end up dropping your land line for the better and faster wireless connection.

Can you imagine what would happen if there was that kind.  Soon your concerns will be of no more and we ended getting the governemt involved in something that was completely unncessary.

on Nov 07, 2009

I couldn't agree you anymore on this. But getting the government involved is not the best bet.

It's the only bet. It's called the FCC.

I do think that if you get the government involved now you will never get rid of them and you will in time regret it.

Get rid of the Government? WHAT? You must be joking...and who would govern, etc. ?

I don't want to get rid of the Government. I want it to function correctly.

I've explained my thoughts and the reasoning behind them enough.

#end

on Nov 07, 2009

Not harkening to that drum beat doesn't mean one is deaf.

As I tell all my patients: An audiogram is not a listening test.

It's not my (or other 'rightwinger's') 'drumbeat' I'm referring to - it's Soros's, et al, own, open declarations.

on Nov 07, 2009

Completely disagree, the market can regulate itself with a check and balance systems... oh wait, it already does. It's called "supply and demand", but in order for supply and demand to work, it must be available to everyone.

From what I see of checks and balances/supply and demand here in Oz, it's a case of charge the maximum it's thought a market can bear.... bugger those living on or below the poverty line.  And when supply exceeds demand, instead of adjusting prices to meet with the avarage consumer's propensity to pay, products just start disappearing from the shelves... Coles and Woolworths, our big 2 supermarket chains do it all the time.  What's more, plenty of people I know have lost their jobs over it because their companies major buyers have dropped out.... no demand = no reason to suppy.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4