I'm curious what you think net neutrality means and why you think it is a progressive idea?

Next thing you know they will be after control of radio waves and who gets to say what on a station broadcasting to those who care to listen.:rolleyes:

The initial net neutrality regulatory "principles" were issued by the Bush FCC several years ago:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:

* access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
* competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The two new principles being proposed are, to quote FCC chair Genachowski:

“The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management,”

“The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The Chairman also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.”

None of these principles are about the government "controlling" the internet.

Net Neutrality is about the telecomm companies (ATT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TIme Warner Cable, etc) that control most of the pipelines, and internet service providers that use those pipelines, being agnostic about what's going through their network. They will still have legal obligations to report any fraud, identity theft, kiddie porn, or other illegal activity they notice on their network (to kill THAT strawman).

It is about ensuring that the telecomm companies and ISPs cannot manipulate access, availability, or throughput on their network based on the content or source or type of traffic-video, text, image, audio, etc....for example, that they dont limit or restrict streaming video, VOIP services, legal file sharing or other applications.

Think of the internet pipelines as analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about preventing the telecomm companies that control those pipelines and ISPs that provide services through those pipelines from restricting how consumers can use those roads.

It is about preserving and promoting the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.

added:
So.....spudcon.....what is wrong with that or how is that "the progressives invading your life"?

Thanks red. It's what I wanted to know.

"Reasonable network management?" By whose lights? Terminology like that is a red flag to people who actually take an interest in liberty.

The word "progressive" in a political context should always be used in quotes, in part to indicate that it does not mean what some say it means. "Progressive" in my several decades' experience is chiefly progressive of overweening centralized governmental power, and such a power structure is a dead hand, suppressing the economic power to make prosperity on every hand. It is necessarily less democratic too, as a moment's thought will show.

This is not a thing to be trusted, but only to be repelled. This repelling is really just a less -- reeking -- version of the Jeffersonian struggle that waters the tree of Liberty with you-know-whose blood. As long as you're exsanguinating tyrants, you're doing about as well as exsanguination could.

The Administration as usual is reckoning without free-market mechanisms. A telecomm company that decided to invidiously "manage" content can and could always be replaced by a more freedom-oriented company, which by marketing that point of their service would steal away market share, particularly in the libertarian 'Net culture. This present regrettable Administration does not believe in capitalism, not really, and all their actions may be fruitfully scrutinized in that light. The dopes Obama appoints seem all to believe that capitalism is the problem, and not the salvation.

Free market, my ass. Every one of these telcom giants, that are against it, have mostly exclusive franchises from local governments. There is very little overlap in their monopolies. They have most subscribers by the balls and have been squeezing regularly.

You gonna fight them? Bullshit, even small corporations have enough money and legal firepower to destroy you. If the guy at the local hardware store fucks you over, you bad mouth him around town, get some people on your side, switching to a different store, and hurt his business.

Do you think you can hurt Comcast, or walmart, when is most cases the alternatives are slim to none? How about the banks? Or the insurance companies? No fuckin' way.

The only protection you have is the government's rules, and with these giant corporations, the states aren't even big enough to reign them in.
The olde timey Robber Barons were saints compared to these clowns, although neither gave a shit about you, at least the Barons cared about the country.

So the only chance we got, it holding politicians accountable, if they sell out to big business, vote them out. Just because they're traded their souls for a big campaign chest, doesn't mean you have to sell them your vote.

:thumb:

I agree but the problem is that the general voting public does not know which politicians are in which big businesses back pocket. And the lobbyists are marching around the Capitol buying up votes and making deals on the part of special interests. The American public is generally quite ignorant when it comes to influence and policy making in Washington, D.C.

WHAT BRUCE SAID!!!

And Merc too. Which is why I hold that the right to access and publish information about the government is more important than the right to keep and bear arms, when it comes to preserving liberty.

True, but what we can do is keep track of how our elected reps vote. That's public information, they even put it in the paper, here.

I can only bitch about how your rep votes, but I can sure as hell hold my rep accountable for his/her voting record. Admittedly, not all my neighbors will take the same view of my rep's voting record that I do.
Also, my actions are of limited consequence to the rep, but if more people would do it, we'd all be better off... and considering the usual voter turn out, especially in off years, it wouldn't take all that many.

It is not always about "which politicians are in which big business back pocket."

IMO, that is a convenient and ignorant generalization. Access does not always buy influence.

It is. or should be, MORE about which candidate or elected official or political party represents YOUR ideological views to the greatest extent.

On the issue of net neutrality, which position best represents your position. Its simple, if you are pro-consumer and pro-open Internet (that the Internet should be a public resource), you should be supporting net neutrality.

Absolutely!

But it is easier to blame lobbyists for all the ills of Congress rather than to accept personal responsibility.

You can participate in the process as much as possible or you can treat politics as a spectator sport and simply cheer or boo from the sidelines.

Access is not mentioned. But people like you rely on the ignorance of others to not understand how politicians are influenced in Washington by lobbyists.

Talk about ignorant generalizations, that is one if I ever read one.

Or you can examine who they are being influence by and call attention to them. It is important to expose them for the back door deals and let everyone know. There are many ways to "participate in the process".

I scare you, huh? :eek:

But then again, you never let facts get in the way.

I am impressed that you can read the minds of all of our elected officials to know what influences their votes. I guess you do have powers greater than mine to KNOW that they are influenced by money rather or more than ideology.

:lol2: hardly...


Actions speak louder than words.

Even the most politically naive should recognize that politicians (and political parties) are guided by ideology.

I dont dispute that money keeps politicians in power and power enables them to pursue their respective ideologies.

On this issue, there are simple ideological differences.

One party believes the government should regulate the Internet to the point that it secures an open, unbiased, accessible "public" system.....and the other party believes that it should be left to the big telcomms to provide those assurances.

Really? wow. how enlightening. not.

Now just replace ideology with power and you might be on to something.