Does the Net Neutrality rule violate the Bill of Rights?

Mojo said:
No. I try to understand the provisions of a rule before I endorse it.

What paragraphs and sections of the Rule have you actually read?
Click to expand...

All of it. Top to bottom. We don't want the bifurcation of the internet into slow and fast packages. We want all fast for everyone, all the time. Thanks.
 
Mojo said:
Is this another of your sure-fire debating techniques?

So you didn't read the Order before proclaiming your unqualified support for all its provisions. Are you sure you're not in Congress?
Click to expand...

Do you have an argument against it or anything?
 
Mojo said:
Figures you two would be soul-mates.

"...mandatory network neutrality is bad for business. Unlike the narrowband phone lines of the twentieth century, broadband pipes are being built with billions of dollars of unsubsidized investment in a competitive environment. ISPs make this investment on the assumption they can recover the costs and profit. As such, broadband lines are not the “public resource” that monopoly networks were in the past. Companies that own high-speed lines have a right to recover the costs that other parties impose when they wish to use those lines to transmit high-bandwidth, revenue-rich services of their own. If network neutrality is enacted, ISPs will have no incentive to build new pipes. Consumers will therefore get less choice.

Network neutrality also is bad for competition. Differential pricing of content allows competition among ISPs. If a company wants to adopt a policy of network neutrality, it is free to do so and win market share from consumers who find this attractive. If a company wants to favor video or voice content, it can find consumers and applications providers who use the Internet primarily for this purpose.

Niche companies that want to offer only a small fraction of the Internet can flourish, too. Imagine, for example, a company that allowed cell phone users to access sports scores and only sports scores through its Internet portal. If that company were upfront about restricting its service to a limited part of the Internet, this would not be a nefarious idea. Many people would find it quite convenient. But it would nonetheless be banned if network neutrality legislation were passed. Network neutrality will destroy many entrepreneurial ideas like this one.

Network neutrality would constitute a major government initiative to regulate how the Internet as a commercial vehicle operates. Today, in America, Congress has virtually no power over how the Internet is run. Network neutrality is a sweeping and intrusive restriction. It would set a horrible precedent in terms of the government’s ability to meddle with the architecture and operation of the Internet. It also would create a spider web of laws and restrictions that generate uncertainty and open the floodgates for bureaucrats and lawyers to exploit semantic loopholes. We have done well enough without the government’s intrusion in the Internet, there’s no reason to start now.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that the government shouldn’t create rules that preemptively close off technological and business evolution. Doing so will lead to unintended consequences ... usually bad ones.

Equality is nice in theory, but when we have the “equality” of a monopoly, that’s not so great, is it? At the end of the day, let consumers decide. Part of letting consumers decide is letting businesses experiment with new technological and pricing models, which is exactly what network neutrality forbids."

http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/the-problem-with-network-neutrality
Click to expand...
I got news for you. The net is predominantly a public enterprise and not a private one and the vast majority of net infrastructure has been developed. implemented and paid for at the public expense. Not the private. This is just another greedy grab by corporation to take away my rights to free and fair access to data and information and I find it quite frightening. Todays decision by the FCC was a step in the right direction. It's nice to see someone put the smackdown on the Gods of Wall Street. They don't own the world and they don't own the net.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I got news for you. The net is predominantly a public enterprise and not a private one and the vast majority of net infrastructure has been developed. implemented and paid for at the public expense. Not the private. This is just another greedy grab by corporation to take away my rights to free and fair access to data and information and I find it quite frightening. Todays decision by the FCC was a step in the right direction. It's nice to see someone put the smackdown on the Gods of Wall Street. They don't own the world and they don't own the net.
Click to expand...

Would you have a source for that "news"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top