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.
Maneesh Pangasa
Yes keep the Internet an open and democratic medium free of corporate gatekeepers and censorship. No ISP discrimination! Require ISPs practice reasonable network management no discrimination, if they are to discriminate they must look at packets to know what content users are downloading/uploading and if users are downloading/uploading anything online from competing video on demand providers for example to the cable companies they have to spy on users by looking into packets to know what is being downloa... more
Yes keep the Internet an open and democratic medium free of corporate gatekeepers and censorship. No ISP discrimination! Require ISPs practice reasonable network management no discrimination, if they are to discriminate they must look at packets to know what content users are downloading/uploading and if users are downloading/uploading anything online from competing video on demand providers for example to the cable companies they have to spy on users by looking into packets to know what is being downloaded/uploaded when deciding whether to block or slowdown access -- all web traffic should continue to be treated equally -- no to a two tiered Internet -- ISPs want to be able to create an unequal two tiered Internet with a slow public Internet and a fast private for profit Internet lane (running what they called managed services) where you pay more for faster speeds and better access.
The Internet was built on openness and should remain open -- ISPs want to implement something called paid prioritization where you pay more for faster speeds and better access -- right now with Internet openness and freedom all web traffic is created equally -- webmasters of websites don't have to pay for priority access to the ISPs -- thanks to Net Neutrality FOX News.com can't load faster of slower than Huffington Post,.com all websites load equally at the same speeds. Broadband is supposed to be fast and the service providers should not be able to discriminate against users.
Without Net Neutrality new webmasters and new websites would be restricted to a slow lane -- if they cannot afford to pay for priority access -- right now all web traffic is treated equally and its illegal for ISPs to push paid prioritization -- equal web access has to be provided to all Internet users -- websites should not load faster or slower based on whether the webmaster can afford to and does pay the ISP for prioritization.
Keep the Internet an open and democratic medium for individual free speech -- preserve Net Neutrality and extend it to mobile broadband so wireless Internet users have same consumer protections as fixed wire-line broadband offers. What happened to the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt -- former U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and championed the nation's antitrust laws to protect competition -- and ensure markets remain free and open. Under George W. Bush policies enabled big business to do whatever they wanted even if it violated public interest.
In the U,.S. today because of approved mega mergers in Bush Cheney years there is no sufficient competition in broadband Internet access market -- today a duopoly of Big Cable and phone companies exists -- all of which want to be able to to discriminate -- with more competition in the market and a choice between several smaller ISPs and a few big ISPs there may be less of a need for Net Neutrality rules and there would be sufficient competition that if one big ISP tried to discriminate there would be sufficient competition for consumers to switch ISPs in protest -- right now it is next to impossible if your ISP discriminates to switch to another one -- as the other one will likely also discriminate.
Whether you prefer to vote Republican or Democrat you should be for Internet freedom -- protect consumers and future entrepreneurs -- small business owners of tomorrow online should not need permission from ISPs to innovate. An Open Internet encourages higher public participation and must be maintained.
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!