Losing The War on Net Neutrality How Bad Could It Get?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Tracer Jun 29, 2006 8:11 PM EDT |
Looks like the dorks in USA's Republican-controlled Congress (and I say that even though I usually vote Republican) are going to let the telcos have their way on the Internet, throttling traffic to certain URLs unless those businesses fork up some cash to the telcos. At least that's my understanding of it. Am I wrong? And, if I'm not wrong, how bad could this problem get? Will home users depending on Vonage, Skype, and YouTube start to feel this? I tried to write all my elected dorks but it went nowhere, I guess. Thank goodness a Democrat is standing up for America and common sense, threatening a fillibuster on this issue. And he's from Oregon, a state we don't hear from that much in the press. To me, I can't see why a Republican, which is usually a pro-business kind of thing, can't realize the benefits of net neutrality. The Internet is a wonderful, although fragile place. If we start throttling stuff based on content, and force groups to introduce fees, then this could put a kink in a lot of business goals. If a business wants to put a downloadable streaming audio or video for its customers out on the web -- it could get affected. If a business has to pay a per-byte or per-minute fee to their telco based on bandwidth on certain TCP or UDP ports to their domain, that could hurt quite a few. And like most costs, everything gets passed down to us end users/customers. If we have higher rates, then that impacts our ability to pay for broadband. So there goes the initiative for more rural broadband. Net neutrality actually makes good business sense, in fact booming business potential, for anyone BUT the telcos. The Telco lobbies are too powerful. That's the problem. Our lobby isn't powerful enough, I guess. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 30, 2006 4:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:To me, I can't see why a Republican, which is usually a pro-business kind of thing, can't realize the benefits of net neutrality. Looking from the outside in I'd say that the republicans aren't pro-business, just pro big business (i.e. anyone who can stuff their election warchests). |
| richo123 Jun 30, 2006 4:17 AM EDT |
Sander, Absolutely spot on. I think some long time GOP supporters who have supported this party in the past on the basis of it's proclaimed commitment to the free market need to take a long hard look at their "representatives". There seems to be a mentality developing that lobbyists are just a business too and hey taking money from special interests is just enlightened self-interest. I think they need to go back to the original text on capitalism by Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations). |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 30, 2006 4:33 AM EDT |
I haven't read "Wealth of Nations" but I do know that capitalism and free markets only work when there are enough competitors and the playng field is reasonably equal. Capitalism and free market economy such as practiced in the US in certain markets (DSL ISP's for one) have more in common with communism than true capitalism. ... and they call us linux hippes "communists" :-) |
| dinotrac Jun 30, 2006 6:46 AM EDT |
sander - With Bill Gates and George Soros in their fold, not to mention Al Gore's stake in Occidental Petroleum, I would say that the Dems are even more big business than the Repubs. That's kind of a flip answer, but there's some underlying truth... Both parties whore themselves to big business, but Republicans must rely on small business support to a much greater degree than the Dems. I suspect that the Dems are more willing to alienate small businees than the Repubs for that reason. |
| peragrin Jun 30, 2006 8:35 AM EDT |
Sorry dino nope. repubs use the churches to stand up. both sides screw small business owners equally well, each from a different side. What I found really distrubing is a list the other day of senators who had served in the armed forces. Nearly 70% of the democrats had their time in but only 30% of the republicans. (stats are a rough estimate from memory and may be off slightly but it's close) |
| dinotrac Jun 30, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
peragrin - Presuming your figures are correct and mean what you say that mean -- Don't know about the Senators. That's a pretty small sample that reflects a log of things, age being one of them. There may be a higher proportion of Democrats from the Vietnam era and earlier, when service was compulsory. Let's not forget that the Democrats owned the Senate for a long, long time. Might be more interesting to get numbers for the House. >Sorry dino nope. repubs use the churches to stand up. I have no idea what that means, but wonder if you know what a church is. Churches are not some separate and distinct entity from small (or, for that matter, large) business people, etc. Churches are comprised of people from the community. Beyond that, I don't remember ever hearing my pastor endorse a political candidate. |
You cannot post until you login.