Comments on: Democrats pledge fight over Net neutrality

House Democrats pledge to fight for FCC's right to regulate Internet. Meanwhile, a turf battle.

[ordaj]

The network's already paid for

We've already paid billions for broadband, where is it? Basically, over the same copper wires that have always been there. Where's the broadband we ALEADY PAID FOR? These telecom companies received billions in subsidies to build out broadband connections. Where is it?

[David Arbogast]

Missing Life?

I have broadband.
In fact, I have multiple broadband connections.

They are priced competitively and provide excellent service. There are options to purchase more bandwidth... and options to work with less.

I fail to see any point to your argument. Unless perhaps you neglected to mention that you live on an island somewhere with no outside communication services of any kind.

There's nothing wrong with reusing copper that is already in place. Especially when it works so well, and requires less investment to upgrade.

and BTW... NOTHING is "already paid for." Ongoing service upkeep and maintenance along with dozens of other necessary business expenses are just that... ongoing. You can't simply make back your installation costs and then give away service for free. Business doesn't work that way.

[ordaj]

The network's already paid for

We've already paid billions for broadband, where is it? Basically, over the same copper wires that have always been there. Where's the broadband we ALEADY PAID FOR? These telecom companies received billions in subsidies to build out broadband connections. Where is it?

[David Arbogast]

Missing Life?

I have broadband.
In fact, I have multiple broadband connections.

They are priced competitively and provide excellent service. There are options to purchase more bandwidth... and options to work with less.

I fail to see any point to your argument. Unless perhaps you neglected to mention that you live on an island somewhere with no outside communication services of any kind.

There's nothing wrong with reusing copper that is already in place. Especially when it works so well, and requires less investment to upgrade.

and BTW... NOTHING is "already paid for." Ongoing service upkeep and maintenance along with dozens of other necessary business expenses are just that... ongoing. You can't simply make back your installation costs and then give away service for free. Business doesn't work that way.

And it's also plenty of grass-roots GOP members, too...

Gun Owners Association of America and Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit site have been huge advocates of network neutrality.

Some additional resources:

http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=645&PARENT_ID=807&bhcp=1

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1421497

Contact your representatives today... and help preserve America's innovation leadership position on the Internet.

And it's also plenty of grass-roots GOP members, too...

Gun Owners Association of America and Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit site have been huge advocates of network neutrality.

Some additional resources:

http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=645&PARENT_ID=807&bhcp=1

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1421497

Contact your representatives today... and help preserve America's innovation leadership position on the Internet.

[axford]

We don't need more governemnt control over the NET

Let freedom rain. The government is always too slow to be effective especially in a rapidly growing industry. Nothing in business is fair. I don't get the same treatment at my bank that the CEO of my companies gets and the same is true on the NET. Fortunatly, the Federal governemnt is so slow to move that legislative action is not expected for at least another year.

[axford]

We don't need more governemnt control over the NET

Let freedom rain. The government is always too slow to be effective especially in a rapidly growing industry. Nothing in business is fair. I don't get the same treatment at my bank that the CEO of my companies gets and the same is true on the NET. Fortunatly, the Federal governemnt is so slow to move that legislative action is not expected for at least another year.

[masonx]

Make a note which politicans are for this.

The US gov and its politicians still think the US owns the internet. While there may be a lot of US gov and corporate investment and influence in inter net development - it is a global highway, not a US toll road. I suggest everyone here in the US that appreciates all the potential the inter net brings them - write down all the names of politicians that support this bill and do all things possible to thave them voted out of office in their next election. Yeah, its time to take names and kick ass.

[David Arbogast]

who's side are you on?

Take names and kick ass? Because people want the Internet and businesses that operate on the Internet to remain free as they have been for a dozen years?

Its the people (democrats) challenging this law that want to govern the Internet. They want the US government to regulate prices and to tell every business and consumer what they should be paying for service.

This type of regulation is a change from the past, and puts financial controls over the Internet that are managed by the US government.

It sounds like you have your argument backwards. Leaving companies alone to operate online as they see fit is EXACTLY what freedom is all about. And it is EXACTLY what we've had for a long time.

Personally, I'm against government mandated or controlled CHANGE of the Internet. I prefer to let it be FREE, and to let users, suppliers, and market forces continually shape and improve the system. After all, that's exactly how we got to the point we are at today. Why should we believe that new Internet business regulations are going to make things better?

As you cleverly stated, "The US gov and its politicians still think the US owns the internet."

Okay so... lets leave businesses free to do what they've always done, and REJECT bills and laws that dictate what people must pay, and to whom.

[masonx]

Make a note which politicans are for this.

The US gov and its politicians still think the US owns the internet. While there may be a lot of US gov and corporate investment and influence in inter net development - it is a global highway, not a US toll road. I suggest everyone here in the US that appreciates all the potential the inter net brings them - write down all the names of politicians that support this bill and do all things possible to thave them voted out of office in their next election. Yeah, its time to take names and kick ass.

[David Arbogast]

who's side are you on?

Take names and kick ass? Because people want the Internet and businesses that operate on the Internet to remain free as they have been for a dozen years?

Its the people (democrats) challenging this law that want to govern the Internet. They want the US government to regulate prices and to tell every business and consumer what they should be paying for service.

This type of regulation is a change from the past, and puts financial controls over the Internet that are managed by the US government.

It sounds like you have your argument backwards. Leaving companies alone to operate online as they see fit is EXACTLY what freedom is all about. And it is EXACTLY what we've had for a long time.

Personally, I'm against government mandated or controlled CHANGE of the Internet. I prefer to let it be FREE, and to let users, suppliers, and market forces continually shape and improve the system. After all, that's exactly how we got to the point we are at today. Why should we believe that new Internet business regulations are going to make things better?

As you cleverly stated, "The US gov and its politicians still think the US owns the internet."

Okay so... lets leave businesses free to do what they've always done, and REJECT bills and laws that dictate what people must pay, and to whom.

[David Arbogast]

Democrats want to control the Internet

These articles are so misleading... just for clarification...

The bill that is being *opposed* by the Democrats allows people and companies the freedom to continue operating the way they have been for years.

The Democrats instead prefer a bill that gives control of Internet service pricing to the federal government.

In other words, it is the Democrats working to pass new laws to gain greater government control over the Internet.

The existing law is in place to preserve the Internet freedoms we've always had.

I have no interest in allowing the government to control any aspect of the Internet. Although such is probably inevetable, price-fixing by the Democrats is something that should not be allowed.

Notice also the language of the Democrats... they suggest that the bill allows for "Private taxation." Scary words... although very misleading.

Companies charge a price for a service, and you have the choice to buy that service or not. Its time to think ahead...

Democrats are going to propose more Internet taxation in the future, and their posturing today is such that they are claiming to eliminate "private taxation" and to "keep the internet affordable" for the little guy.

So, instead of paying a fair price for a service, they choke the provider by regulating its service pricing, and instead apply taxes to the service so that the government (which provides no valuable Internet service) profits.

It all comes out of your pocket in the end... why not pay a fair price to the people who provide services rather than restricting their ability to offer good services while handing over your hard earned dollars to a wasteful federal government.

Reject the Democrats rejection. They want more control of the Internet, and its not going to help anybody.

[MisterFlibble]

What the hell are you talking about?

Um... so you are against net neutality and for a multi-tiered system that allows for us, the internet consumer, to be charged everytime we access a different website? You do realise that a lot of conservative bloogers, not much different thatn yourself, I'm guessing, are also aganist this multi-tiered system and ARE FOR this net neutality provisions the dems are working to get into the bill? Or are you a House representive looking to distort the truth? Look at the past C|Net articles on this issue, and seems overwhelmingly the people are more informed on this issue thatn you are, or you're purposely trying to mount a disinformation campaign.

If anyone is misleading, it is you, here.

[David Arbogast]

Democrats want to control the Internet

These articles are so misleading... just for clarification...

The bill that is being *opposed* by the Democrats allows people and companies the freedom to continue operating the way they have been for years.

The Democrats instead prefer a bill that gives control of Internet service pricing to the federal government.

In other words, it is the Democrats working to pass new laws to gain greater government control over the Internet.

The existing law is in place to preserve the Internet freedoms we've always had.

I have no interest in allowing the government to control any aspect of the Internet. Although such is probably inevetable, price-fixing by the Democrats is something that should not be allowed.

Notice also the language of the Democrats... they suggest that the bill allows for "Private taxation." Scary words... although very misleading.

Companies charge a price for a service, and you have the choice to buy that service or not. Its time to think ahead...

Democrats are going to propose more Internet taxation in the future, and their posturing today is such that they are claiming to eliminate "private taxation" and to "keep the internet affordable" for the little guy.

So, instead of paying a fair price for a service, they choke the provider by regulating its service pricing, and instead apply taxes to the service so that the government (which provides no valuable Internet service) profits.

It all comes out of your pocket in the end... why not pay a fair price to the people who provide services rather than restricting their ability to offer good services while handing over your hard earned dollars to a wasteful federal government.

Reject the Democrats rejection. They want more control of the Internet, and its not going to help anybody.

[MisterFlibble]

What the hell are you talking about?

Um... so you are against net neutality and for a multi-tiered system that allows for us, the internet consumer, to be charged everytime we access a different website? You do realise that a lot of conservative bloogers, not much different thatn yourself, I'm guessing, are also aganist this multi-tiered system and ARE FOR this net neutality provisions the dems are working to get into the bill? Or are you a House representive looking to distort the truth? Look at the past C|Net articles on this issue, and seems overwhelmingly the people are more informed on this issue thatn you are, or you're purposely trying to mount a disinformation campaign.

If anyone is misleading, it is you, here.

[ORinSF]

Please, no new laws

Keep in mind, what the Dems are proposing here is an expansion of government regulation of the Internet. It is against all the freedoms that have brought us this far.

Please don't be fooled -- you don't want the FCC regulating "neutrality" anymore than you want them regulating "decency".

[MisterFlibble]

Ugh... You're wrong, but that's your right...

This has nothing to do with "indecency", although if perveted and worded wrong by the fundalmentalist right wing, it very well could end up that way, but the republicans tend to be more right-wing than the dems, here, they are fighting to keep the internet the way it is now, it is the GOP who are allowing for the big TELECOM industries to call ALL the shots on the net, even charging Google for certain queries over others, as they deem fit, and then Google will have to pass the cost onto us, the consumers. This is why the dems are standing up against this, to make the internet a multi-tiered system, in which speech will be dictated by AT&T, Time Warner, etc... I know I'd not rather have this be in the hands of either the FCC or TELECOMs, but if you follow the GOP plan, it will sure make a divide in the internet of the haves and have-nots, as people won't be able to afford the internet the way it is now.

[ChuckLB]

Democratic Proposed ??????

Wasn't this bill introduced by the Republican Greed Empire ??????

[alek_nedic]

It is against all the freedoms

http://www.analogstereo.com/nissan_sentra_owners_manual.htm

[ORinSF]

Please, no new laws

Keep in mind, what the Dems are proposing here is an expansion of government regulation of the Internet. It is against all the freedoms that have brought us this far.

Please don't be fooled -- you don't want the FCC regulating "neutrality" anymore than you want them regulating "decency".

[MisterFlibble]

Ugh... You're wrong, but that's your right...

This has nothing to do with "indecency", although if perveted and worded wrong by the fundalmentalist right wing, it very well could end up that way, but the republicans tend to be more right-wing than the dems, here, they are fighting to keep the internet the way it is now, it is the GOP who are allowing for the big TELECOM industries to call ALL the shots on the net, even charging Google for certain queries over others, as they deem fit, and then Google will have to pass the cost onto us, the consumers. This is why the dems are standing up against this, to make the internet a multi-tiered system, in which speech will be dictated by AT&T, Time Warner, etc... I know I'd not rather have this be in the hands of either the FCC or TELECOMs, but if you follow the GOP plan, it will sure make a divide in the internet of the haves and have-nots, as people won't be able to afford the internet the way it is now.

[ChuckLB]

Democratic Proposed ??????

Wasn't this bill introduced by the Republican Greed Empire ??????

[alek_nedic]

It is against all the freedoms

http://www.analogstereo.com/nissan_sentra_owners_manual.htm

[ChasmoeBrown]

Evil, and it's been done before.

Internet providers will get to charge for High-Bandwidth Content
(HBC). And while taxing providers of HBC, they will start their own
little companies that provide their own HBC. The new little
ventures will either not be taxed the same or if they are it'll simply
be money changing pockets.

Kinda like going up against BellSouth to provide DSL.

[ChasmoeBrown]

Evil, and it's been done before.

Internet providers will get to charge for High-Bandwidth Content
(HBC). And while taxing providers of HBC, they will start their own
little companies that provide their own HBC. The new little
ventures will either not be taxed the same or if they are it'll simply
be money changing pockets.

Kinda like going up against BellSouth to provide DSL.