Conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue, and that was one of the reasons that despite having voted straight ticket Republican my entire life, I voted for Obama this time. He and the Democrats have a much clearer understanding of the importance of Net Neutrality than the GoP, who have i... more
Conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue, and that was one of the reasons that despite having voted straight ticket Republican my entire life, I voted for Obama this time. He and the Democrats have a much clearer understanding of the importance of Net Neutrality than the GoP, who have instead uncritically, unquestioningly applied free market idealogy to the problem.
The Internet is the greatest platform for cultural, educational, business, and technological innovation ever created, primarily b/c every potential participant faces the same low barriers to entry. Hence, ideas are quickly tested, and the good ones gain traction and grow. This also enables the 'long tail' of niche ideas to thrive.
If you allow telecoms the control they seek, they will (have already promised to) raise artificial barriers to entry that distort the emergent processes of the internet in favor of larger, more deep-pocketed, more established players. Their initial plans to charge more for video data are a relatively minor distortion, but the trend is clear. They would, over decades, turn a vibrant forum of ideas and media into another top-down-controlled, dumbed-down, useless boob tube.
If conservatives wish to rebuild the party around the Internet, you will have to come to terms with the fact that there are two forms of regulation - government and corporate, or de jure and de facto, respectively. In a pure free market with no government regulation, powerful players exploit the law of increasing returns to become even more powerful, and to protect their position by erecting articifial barriers to entry, or de facto regulation, at the expense of preventing good ideas from coming to market and challenging their dominance. Government de jure regulation is necessary to neutralize this counter-productive tendancy of free market participants. And that is the issue of Net Neutrality.
We can't expect to successfully rebuild the GoP as a bottom-up internet-driven political force without embracing the fundamental principles of the internet that enable us to do this. Our effort may succeed in the near term, given the years or decades it would take for powerful telecoms to fully distort the internet and unlevel its playing field to their own advantage. But it is a moral contradiction that will one day harm America and the world, and we should recognize that now and correct our stance on the issue.
tadair919
yes. this is critical.
Kurtosis
A few information links for anyone who wants to read up on this more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html
http://www.savenetneutrality.com/
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Kurtosis
boutmuet, Net Neutrality is not about the government imposing onerous regulations on the Internet, it is about the government NOT imposing onerous regulations, while simultaneously preventing ISPs and telco's from doing that too. Same concept as the free market - it can't function without adequate regulation and oversight to prevent everything from fraud to market-distorting/destroying monopoly.
chrono_folk
The GOP should insult the idea of private property and freedom of speech by pushing the socialism of the so-called "net neutrality". If the government can force companies to adhere to certain policies, then those policies can certainly be co-opted against us.
boutmuet
You are marking down my premise like it is something that I haven't thought out. I still reject your premise. You talk about "corporate regulation" over government regulation. I reject this idea of corporate regulation because it isn't a universal like government regulation is. If one disagrees with how the government is regulating their internet access then he cannot go to another isp.
Kurtosis
boutmuet, instead of repeating talking points, how about argue against my specific reasons instead? Your comment is exactly what I mean about conservatives uncritically, unquestioningly applying free-market idealogy without really thinking it through or understanding all the ramifications. It may take more than one comment, given the character limitations, but that's ok, give it a shot.
boutmuet
Sorry no, the republican party IS on the right side of the issue by not accepting government regulation on isp's and let the market determine who will survive and who will not. But what the party needs is to embrace these technologies in their election.
guruji
The democrats are already sickly rich. If we oppose net neutrality, this would only givethe democrats the ability to buy dissent off of the internet.
copywriter
Net Neutrality is more important than ever because without it, Republicans will lose the the most effective communication tool they have available. We need it now, more than ever.
Kurtosis
righty, I didn't betray the GoP, the GoP betrayed me. Fiscal conservatism, limited government, Constitutional rights, and foreign policy realism all got thrown out the window under the GOP. If you can't see that you're a mindless, unprincipled partisian. Part of conservatism is to demand accountability, or did you forget that? I would have voted for RP if my state counted write-in votes.
guruji
I agree. Mike Huckabee supported Net Neutrality for example. This isn't a partisan issue. Net neutrality is the first amendment of the internet. Its why I am capable of being a Republican Blogger.
righty
You voted OBAMA, and want to tell us how to change our party?
Burn in hell!