Franken: Net neutrality is the ‘most important free speech issue of our time’

The Internet is not a government owned nor managed process rather it is infrastructure that is built by the ISP providers such as AT&T. Without capitalist investment, the bloggers wouldn’t have a place to go! So, as always, competition and capitalism should be free to operate. If there was enough money for the blogger’s to support a network, then develop one but don’t constrain the people who want to pay for the high end speed!

Franken is right on this issue.. We have ALL seen how well the Pro-Capitalist agenda has worked out for the FOR- profit private health care system.. Just imagine if these same Snakes get a hold our INTERNET!! We’ll be charged for every email , every download , internet speed and well be monitored on the sites we visit for a thing called “Market Analasys” (yeah right).. We should follow after a Good Republican named Teddy Roosevelt and smash these Corporate Giants apart so they can become competitive again..

Fortunately for everyone who believes in a free society, the FCC does not control the internet. Useful idiots like Franken would like the government to run the internet so it could tax it. But any rules of the type the FCC is contemplating would not pass muster with SCOTUS and anyone smarter than Stewart Smalley knows it.

Very shrewd, Dennis. Don’t let yourself get confused by the facts or anything.

Net neutrality concerns equal, immediate access to any content on the World Wide Web. If not upheld, Dennis would likely have to pay a fee each and every time to each of the small handful of greedy corporations controlling vast swaths of the Internet infrastructure to ensure each and every idiotic comment he makes on this website can get out to anyone who for some bizarre reason would want to use up precious limited bandwith on his account to read it.

Further clarification is needed.

… anyone who for some bizarre reason would want to use up precious limited bandwith on his account to read it now or sometime within the next few hours or days after the IP request has been sent to the greedy corporations to download that comment.

Additionally, I am sure many of us want to be in control of what we will read or view – rather than hand that control over to the greedy corporations – a repeat of the consolidation within the TV/radio/newspaper industry that now blares useless news, misinformation, propaganda and worse detracting from the crucial, informed discourse that needs to take place – and has been lacking for some time – in this great nation.

“Dennis would likely have to pay a fee each and every time to each of the small handful of greedy corporations controlling vast swaths of the Internet infrastructure …”

Nonsense. “Net neutrality” is a government solution in search of a problem. It’s all about giving the federal government control of the internet so they can tax and regulate it like they do everything else.

The reason mental midgets like Franken are out there trying to explain something they know nothing about and failing miserably, is because they can’t point to one example of where this imagined problem exists.

Free societies don’t pass laws to prevent something from happening unless there’s evidence that it’s happened and it’s causing a problem. When Franken has evidence that his boogey man exists, let him present it.

It is not surprising that our resident mental midget Dennis is not aware of Comcast’s ongoing Internet throttling efforts. This is but one example of corporate greed that is now threatening net neutrality.

As for the Internet being regulated and taxed, this is already happening on all levels of government from the federal government all the way down to the City Council.

So what is your point, Dennis, other than to waste all of our time with your pathetic fear-mongering?

In a free society, customers who were disatisfied with Comcast’s service would simply seek a different provider. Eventually, Comcast would either change their ways or go under. Like I said, that’s how things work in a society free of governrment interference.

It is really tiresome reading the comments for some of these unemployed marxists moochers off the public taxpayer’s dime exhort about corporate greed while using corporate produced PC’s, and communications media. Particularly when instead of rational argument they resort to naming culling and other trite ad homenims while demeaning anyone that honestly disagrees with their communist agenda. It clearly manifests the debt of thier intellectual capacities and their allegiance to marxist dogma.

Suggest they move to a Scandenavian socialist utopia or to North Korea and take their dreams of “workers paradise” out of Minnesota and the USA.

The ironic thing is so many people assume the internet was a private project, built by companies who just want to maximize their investment. The internet was a government project to maximize computing power when computers were few and big and very limited by today’s standards. Private businesses have been allowed to build on to it and parts were privatized, but at its core it was a public project. Letting Comcast or whoever take control and charge what they want seems like letting the street construction crews get to decide who gets to use the street.

What next, recombine the baby bells so there’s just one phone company?

Dennis, as someone who lives in Minneapolis, and needs broadband internet, I have to use Comcast. Every apartment I have lived in has had no alternative to cable internet, and Comcast is the only cable provider in the areas of Minneapolis where I have lived.
And to preempt one of your arguments, no, Minneapolis Wi-fi is not a fast enough connection for my needs.

So, Dennis, what would your free market solution to that problem be? Without any government interference, of course.

Again, net neutrality concerns the IMMEDIATE access to ANY content on the World Wide Web with that immediate access UNFETTERED by any Internet Service Provider (ISP) that may or may not seek to control that access either by “Internet throttling” or forcing subscribers to view the content on their websites that they purposely buy or develop along with blocking of competing websites.

The Internet originated as a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project which sought to ensure wartime digital communication regardless of failed transmission nodes. It has since then evolved to connect thousands and thousands of computer networks – both public and private. ISPs provide access to the Internet; any discussion of net neutrality requires that we take a look at how ISPs behave in order to ensure a level playing field for all World Wide Web content providers.

Of course, ISPs exist to make money, but to allow them to do this at the expense of some websites as well as its customers make for a less free society.

zidek666, absent strong regulations ensuring net neutrality, we could end up like China – except that what we want to read or view online would be censored or slowed down with frequent pauses in the case of streamed media, for example, by greedy ISPs – not the government.

This is why net neutrality should be of great concern to all of us – Marxists and non-Marxists alike.

Clarification.

> or slowed down with frequent pauses in the case of streamed media, for example,

This is in the context of deliberate “Internet throttling” on the part of the ISP because the website or the subscriber wouldn’t pay (or most likely couldn’t afford) the premium demanded by the greedy ISP for immediate transmission – rather than the technical limitations of the hardware involved or the current load on the ISP’s system.

Uh, Lane, surely you realize that the Chinese internet meddling is being done by its government, not private ISPs. This is normally who is responsible for “throttling.” Also, see Iran.

Luke, I live in Saint Paul and have to buy my fresh water, electricity and natural gas from government-approved monopolies. I can’t get those things anywhere else no matter where I live in Saint Paul.

The fact that Comcast is your only cable TV and internet provider was a decision made by … guess who? The city government.

If you’re worried about consumer choice and having options in the marketplace, the last thing you want to do is let government control the market, which is what “net neutrality” is all about. So my “free market solution” is to never let the government control a market.

Guess what, EricF, I was one of the first people in this country to use the government “internet” which was used by the military as a closed telecommunications system to transfer data quickly and securely back in the 1970s and earlier.

But today the internet consists of telephone lines, fiber optics, switches and routers that are all owned and operated by private industry. The government has no more claim to today’s internet than it does to today’s phone lines. And the federal courts agree.

> Uh, Lane, surely you realize that the Chinese internet meddling is being done by its government, not private ISPs. This is normally who is responsible for “throttling.” Also, see Iran.

Dennis, that is what I said re: China. Try reading more carefully next time, honey. China engages in outright censorship as opposed to throttling. Given our society here, censorship would not be tolerated, but the ISPs can get away with throttling unless we speak up.

As for government-approved monopolies, they are subject to regulation to ensure that the residents are not abused, that they receive at least acceptable levels of service. These monopolies are not granted in eternity; the companies must continuously prove to the City Council who consist of elected representatives that they deserve to continue to do business in the city. So the residents still are in control.

> So my “free market solution” is to never let the government control a market.

Oh really. History is rife with stories of the consequences of unchecked “free market solutions.” The trick is to find that right balance of necessary regulation that while protecting the public allows those markets to thrive.

Dennis, there is a distinction between intranets and the Internet. Just FYI.

“As for government-approved monopolies, they are subject to regulation to ensure that the residents are not abused,”

Because government thinks you’re too stupid to decide between competing providers. That’s the model you’re embracing. In a managed society, government chooses the provider for you (water, gas, electricty, cable TV, internet provider) and protects you from “abuse.” But more often than not, the monopoly’s performance is subpar because it lacks competition. Government lets the monopoly get away with subpar performance because it’s too much of a hassle for government to replace them so there’s no incentive to improve.

The power of free markets is consumer choice. You get to choose from several different providers and their performance or lack thereof determines which providers live and which die.

Dennis’ consumer choice argument sounds nice on paper, but doesn’t play out too well in the real world especially given the infrastructure that must be built and maintained often on public property to provide water, gas, electricity, cable TV and Internet access. But that is besides the point as this article is about net neutrality.

Another way of looking at net neutrality:

“Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can’t speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.”

I would like to point out the general direction our government is heading. Health care reform passed, giving government control of healthcare. The food safety modernization act passed both houses, but thanks to the senate adding a revenue bill to it the bill had to be sent back to the house were it was tried to put in the omnibus spending bill. Which was not passed. THANK GOD! It seems like this net neutrality bill is just another step for government control. Franken says it’s, “The most important free speech issue of our time.” Is that because it’s taking away rights. I’m sorry, but I enjoy the internet the way it is. I particularly like the capability to access independent news sites that don’t have a bias towards left or right, or isn’t just feeding me garbage like the TV does most of the time. After Julian Assange has released the iraq war logs on wikileaks this seems more like a government grab for some control over what’s released on the internet. And Lane. Franken says so himself that mobile networks would be able to shut down your network or any applications FOR ANY REASON! And who does Franken think he’s impressing with his moral standards. “Ultimately what I’m afraid of is that ISP’s will be made up of five companies. Really now we’re worried about an oligopoly? Doesn’t he realize that the majority of big businesses in many different sectors are just that. I’m so frustrated with this country.

Tom, get back to me when the Internet you enjoy the way it is now is no longer. The possible consolidation of ISPs to just a handful of corporations necessitates as strong a net neutrality policy as possible to ensure that you as an Internet user can continue to “enjoy the internet the way it is.”

Tom, I don’t know that any ISP – mobile or not – can shut down applications and networks not under their direct control. What the ISP can do is to block activity that originates from or terminates in blacklisted IP addresses as well as prevent certain file types from being transmitted – i.e. a Flash videoclip.

You said you enjoy being able to visit independent news websites like Minnesota Independent. What if an ISP decides to not allow MNIndie content to transmit to your PC / laptop / mobile device just because MNIndie is publishing articles critical of that ISP? That could happen under a weak to non-existent net neutrality policy.

As for Wikileaks, that has more to do with governmental (mis)conduct than net neutrality. One would think that net neutrality in terms of censorship should also apply to government, but how does that apply in terms of enforcing laws against child porn / sex trafficking or shutting down scam / phish websites as examples? And I do distinquish between government misconduct (which should be exposed) and legitimate government secrets having national security implications.

“Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can’t speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.”

In a free market, the customer is always in control. By patronizing the provider or canceling the provider, the customers ultimately decide whether that private business survives or not.

“The possible consolidation of ISPs to just a handful of corporations necessitates as strong a net neutrality policy as possible to ensure that you as an Internet user can continue to “enjoy the internet the way it is.””

Even a small handful of companies who are competing against each other for your business is better than ONE central government that serves as the sole option in the marketplace. As long as there is competition in the marketplace, the consumer is king. When the government runs the market, the consumer is powerless.

Despite Dennis’ obviously uninformed fear-mongering that has nothing to do with net neutrality, I am not aware of any plans in the works for the central government to take over providing any or all of the Internet access services nation-wide. *yawn*

“The power of free markets is consumer choice. You get to choose from several different providers and their performance or lack thereof determines which providers live and which die.”

Several different providers. What a joke. Mergers have been rampant for decades. Bush43 functionally abandoned anti-trust law.

Profits are up.
Choice, competition, and employment are down.
Innovation and the economy are weak.
Investors are waiting on the sidelines waiting for republicans to start handing out the keys to the kingdom, even while reports of corporate predatory behavior are becoming a daily event.

Not to mention being locked into one- two- or longer service contracts that exact a hefty penalty if pre-maturely cancelled … How is that consumer choice if the service is lousy?

Clarification: … one- two- YEARS or longer ….